Last week I posted my Capital Commentary piece, Winner Take All or Splitting the Difference: Lessons from Switzerland . Now someone has brought this article to my attention: Who Needs a President? , by Bill Kaufmann. If only the New Jersey Plan had won out over two centuries ago:
No matter which hollow man occupies the bunker at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the evidence from 225 years points to an inescapable conclusion: the Founders erred horribly in creating the presidency. To invest in one man quasi-kingly powers over the 13 states then, 300 million people and half a continent today, is madness. And it didnt have to be this way.
Many Anti-Federalists proposed, as an alternative to what they called the president-general, either a plural executivetwo or more men sharing the office, a recipe for what a sage once called a wise and masterly inactivityor they wanted no executive at all. Federal affairs would be so limited in scope that they could be performed competently and without aggrandizement by a unicameral legislaturethat is, one house of Congressas well as various administrative departments and perhaps a federal judiciary.
The New Jersey Plan, fathered by William Paterson of the Springsteen State, was the small-f federal option at the Constitutional Convention. It is the great decentralist what-might-have-been. The New Jersey Plan provided for a unicameral Congress with an equal vote for each state, and copresidents chosen by Congress for a single fixed term and removable by Congress if so directed by a majority of state governors.
This would have saved us from the cult of the presidency, the imperial presidency, the president as the worlds celebrity-in-chiefthe whole gargantuan mess.
Obviously one cannot reverse history, but one wonders whether it might be possible even now to recognize the key anti-federalist insights and to implement reforms that might curtail the powers of an imperial presidency .