GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE

 

[U.S. House Chamber 1820]

[Published as part of Constituting America's Ninety Day Study on America's Founding Principles: Principle of a Legislative Branch Within a System of Government Closest to the People – Constituting America]

In advocating for establishing the Legislative Branch in the U.S. Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, writing under “PUBLIUS”, stated in Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Madison and Hamilton explained how the Legislative Branch was fundamental to Americans remaining in control of their own government in FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

Binding the Legislative Branch to the people built upon the precedents from America’s colonial period.

The Royal Charter that established Jamestown in Virginia evolved from governance by the Charter holders into governance by the King’s Representative (Royal Governor) and his Advisory Council. When the settlers demanded their own voice, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in 1619, became the first democratically elected legislative body in America. 

The House of Burgesses became a proving ground for what would become the U.S. House of Representatives. Drawing upon British tradition, revenue and spending bills originated in the House instead of the “upper chamber”. Drawing from British tradition, the members of the House held their positions for short periods of time, the better to be held closely accountable by those they represented.

Tying government closely to the people is foundational to America.  The reason America is a “federal” system, and not a “national system”, is to preserve state and local government.  This assures most public policy and public activity is closest to the people it serves and reflects their diversity.  Serving an urban New York City neighborhood is very different from serving a rural community in Montana.

America’s diversity is embodied in our nation’s motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.

Governing a diverse America is institutionalized in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Today, America is governed by 87,576 local units.  This includes 3,034 counties, 19,429 municipalities (cities, towns, villages), 16,504 townships, 13,506 school districts, and 35,052 special districts (such as water & sewer, fire, and conservation).

Except for Switzerland and Germany, European governments are national. Their policy and programs are based on “one size fits all”. National governments ultimately amplify regional and ethnic tensions.  England’s Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801) spawned countless conflicts.  Today, Scotland and Wales have separate Parliaments.  Ireland divided itself into a Free State and Northern Ireland in the wake of years of violence (1921).  England leaving the European Union in January 2020 reflected what happens when a weak parliament, which could have embraced diversity, was dominated by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy.

America’s federal structure, emphasizing government closest to the people, was chronicled by the Frenchman, Alexis Clerel, the Vicount de Tocqueville.

“Democracy in America” was published in two volumes (1835 and 1840).  It remains a foundational document describing how Americans benefit from local government.

“The village or township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself. The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, must necessarily exist in all nations….”

“….local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty. 

de Tocqueville recognized how Americans preserving local governance serves as a model for a better world:

"I believe that provincial [local] institutions are useful to all nations, but nowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a democratic people.

The only nations which deny the utility of provincial [local] liberties are those which have fewest of them; in other words, those who are unacquainted with the institution are the only persons who pass a censure upon it.”

Thanks to the strength of local government, America remains an inspiration for all those who seek free and open societies. 

 

HAMILTON - AMERICA's FIRST CAPITALIST

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

Alexander Hamilton was America’s first Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Along with James Madison, Hamilton crafted the best operating system ever devised in human history.  The U.S. Constitution provided a framework for sharing power and resolving differences.  Madison and Hamilton provided details for operationalizing the Constitution with their Federal Papers essays.  These Papers remain integral to interpreting the original intent for court cases to this day.

America was blessed with George Washington, the most indispensable person in our nation’s history. However, Washington needed to augment his phenomenal leadership skills with Hamilton’s management acumen.  During the American Revolution, Hamilton translated Washington’s military strategy into clear and concise orders to his commanders.  Now as President, Washington needed Hamilton to translate the Founders’ vision, and his policies, into reality.

With Jefferson still conducting diplomacy in Europe, Hamilton became not just the first Treasury Secretary, but effectively functioned as Washington’s “prime minister”.  Decisions and documents, down to minute detail, flowed from Hamilton’s pen, creating the Executive Branch. 

Hamilton’s love of administrative detail was matched by his devotion to commerce.

He was the only “modern man” among the Founders.  Hamilton grew-up outside the American colonies and had a full appreciation of how nations interacted.  As an accounting clerk for various trading companies in the West Indies, Hamilton developed a deep understanding for the inner workings of international trade and finance.  His was America’s first “capitalist”.  The systems and institutions he put in place laid the foundation for America becoming the greatest economic power in the world.

Hamilton greatest achievement was managing the onerous debts arising from the Revolutionary War.  Each state incurred debt as their individual state militias needed to be paid for back wages.  Both national and state level soldiers were paid in bonds or “IOUs”.  After the war many cash-strapped soldiers sold these bonds/“IOUs” to speculators for a fraction of their worth.  Countless suppliers of their armed forces sued for nonpayment.  The paper currency issued during the war was “not worth a Continental” and legions of war veterans, farmers, merchants, and craftsman (like blacksmiths, barrel makers, and carpenters) demanded payment, declaring Continental script were “IOUs”.

The total debt was $79 million: $54 million owed by the national government and $25 million owed by the states.  Hamilton saw repayment of this debt as a strategic and moral imperative: “States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.”

Without a debt repayment strategy, the IOUs and lawsuits would continue to cripple America’s economy with unbridled speculation and uncertainty. Trust in the Federal government’s ability to meet its obligations had to be restored.  Something had to be done.  Hamilton declared, “In nothing are appearances of greater moment than in whatever regards credit.”

Repayment of debts would allow America to enter into international agreements and borrow funds for investing in business ventures and stimulate economic growth.  Hamilton observed that the American economy was stagnating from a limited money supply, deflation of land values, and no liquid capital. He also was concerned that if America was seen as financially broke and politically fragmented, foreign governments may lure individual states with separate debt financing arrangements. 

The solution was to consolidate all public debt and set aside some of the steady federal revenue to service interest and payoff the principal.  These were revolutionary and futuristic concepts in 1790.

It was his conviction that, “an assumption of the debts of particular states by the union and a like provision for them as for those of the union will be a measure of sound policy and substantial justice.”

Hamilton determined that consolidating all the Revolutionary War debt would accomplish several things.  [1] It would bring order from chaos with one large debt instead of thousands of smaller ones.  [2] It would simplify the management and repayment of the debt. [3] It would establish loyalty among the creditors and bond/IOU holders who would promote the stability and success of the federal government to assure their claims were paid. 

Another aspect of Hamilton’s solution was that the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government the exclusive right to collect import duties.  The Federal Government assuming state debt would prevent states from trying to return to the Article of Confederation when states levied duties on interstate commerce.  Hamilton wanted to unify America and forge a national economy.

The critical element in assuming all debt was to have a unified America attract foreign investment through issuing federal government bonds.  Such bonded debt would create investment partners who would forge trade relationships that allowed the U.S. Government to raise the necessary revenue to meet its debt obligations.  Hamilton sought to create a web of economic loyalties and relationships that bound everyone to supporting everyone’s economic wellbeing.  In doing so, Hamilton would establish America as a major player in the modern international financial system.

Hamilton’s vision and how to implement it, was at the core of his fifty-one-page “Report on Public Credit” to the Congress.  It was his hope that Congress would pass the necessary legislation to authorize implementation of this integrated plan.  Any editions or subtractions would ruin his delicate balance between the various economic interests.  Hamilton worried, “Credit is the entire thing. Every part of it has the nicest sympathy with every other part.  Wound one limb and the whole tree shrinks and decays.”

Many in Congress rejected the plan as confusing and overly complex.  Some saw it as too much like the way England financed its wars.  Other declared it a bailout for speculators.  Even Madison refuted it.  As the assumption plan related to spending, its first test was in the House of Representatives.

The House debate was a sensation.  Packed galleries watched Madison rail against the plan as a “betrayal of the American Revolution”.  Hamilton, a member of the Executive Branch, mustered his votes behind the scenes. On April 12, 1790, the House defeated the debt assumption plan: 29 ayes to 31 nays.

The death of debt assumption found resurrection in the future location of the nation’s capital.  Hamilton and northerners wanted the capital to remain in New York or return to Philadelphia.  Southerners wanted in in the South and located outside an existing urban area.  Jefferson saw this as a struggle between his vision of an agrarian nation versus the grime of industry.  Madison and Henry Lee had purchased land along the Potomac River in the hopes that Jefferson would prevail.

All sides wanted a final decision on the future of the Nation’s Capital, and symbolically the character of the nation.  To break the stalemate, the key players, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and several others gathered for dinner on June 20, 1790, at Jefferson’s townhouse in New York City. 

After much food, libations, and discussion a deal was struck.  The Nation’s Capital would be along the banks of the Potomac between Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia.  In exchange for Hamilton convincing northerners to support this location, Jefferson and Madison would support passage of Hamilton’s Debt Assumption plan.

On July 10, 1790 the House passed the Residence Act moving the temporary Capital back to Philadelphia and designating a ten-square mile area along the Potomac as the permanent Capital.  The House then passed the Assumption bill on July 26.  The Senate approved the plan on August 4, 1790.

Senator Daniel Webster placed Hamilton’s achievement into historical perspective. 

“The fabled birth of Minerva from the brain of Jove was hardly more sudden or perfect than the financial system of the United States as it burst forth from the conception of Alexander Hamilton.”

If Elected, I Promise to ….

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

The following are agenda items that current Democrat candidates for the President have indicated they will pursue if they are elected to the presidency:

Socialism (in general), Laxer Abortion Laws and Infanticide, Raise Income Taxes, Increase Social Security Payouts, Open Borders, Defund Military, Confiscate Guns, Eliminate Usage of Fossil Fuels, Defend/Support Illegal Aliens, Suppress Free Speech, Reparations for Slavery, Abolish Electoral College, Free College/Forgive College Loan Debt, Universal Child Care, Ban Fracking/Offshore Drilling, Increase the Estate Tax, Implement a Wealth Tax, Raise Minimum Wage, Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, Support DC and Puerto Rico Statehoods, Contraceptive Mandate, Increase Funding of  Planned Parenthood, Repeal Hyde Amendment, End Capital Punishment, Never Implement Voter ID, Pack the Supreme Court, Housing Give-away, Medicare for All, Weaken the Economy, and the Green New Deal. There may be more – I have lost track!

I could not even begin to estimate how many trillions of dollars any one or more of these items would cost the American taxpayer – wealthy and/or middle class. Some, like confiscation of guns ("Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!") do not have monetary implications, but extreme social implications: can anyone say Civil War and loss of life?

How about all these different health plan alternatives: Medicare for all? Has anybody even attempted to explain how this would work? All of the candidates seem to be very vague – and with good reason! How much is this going to really cost? Eliminate the private insurance industry? I don’t think so! Protect and expand on Obama care? I guess we can put a few million more people at risk of losing their coverage!

How about a new tax, a wealth tax? That way you can tax a person’s income, tax their estate which may have grown in value due to their prudent investments as opposed to consumption, and in the meantime combat income inequality by once again taking from the rich and giving to the poor – without regard to their contribution to society? 

Some have said that to accept a tax system that will never truly ensure that the rich pay their fair share (whatever that is!) will always have societal inequality. Funny: isn’t that the essence of capitalism? Isn’t it an economic system in which the factors of production are controlled by private owners for profit? “… the Ultra-Millionaire Tax, [is] a bold proposal to tax the wealth of the richest 0.1% of Americans.  The legislation, which applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more, is estimated by leading economists to raise $2.75 trillion in tax revenue over a ten-year period…. ‘It's time to fundamentally transform our tax code so that we tax the wealth of the ultra-rich, not just their income,’ said Senator Warren.” https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-unveils-proposal-to-tax-wealth-of-ultra-rich-americans

Let’s talk a little bit about eliminating the Electoral College. For an explanation of the Electoral College, please read “The Electoral College” by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration.  http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/fecmemo.asp  

The other required reading is Federalist Paper # 68 by Hamilton.

 “The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

“The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power…

“Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry…

“The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress.” https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.” 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html 

This would require three fourths of the states to ratify the change which is highly unlikely since the smaller states would lose their power.

I have only briefly discussed a couple of the items that opened this article. I leave it to the discerning reader to examine each item more fully. I would ask only that you extend your thinking beyond the realm of your own existence and critically evaluate how each item would impact the country as a whole. While many of these candidates would try to have you believe that each proposal only affects a few people, they fail to address the synergies that would be developed from many of these proposals being implemented simultaneously. 

They also don’t account for the interrelationships between the items nor the fact that there is a limited pool of resources available to tax to support each of these items. Taxpayer money will eventually give out. When this happens, of course, welfare and disability payments will stop; food stamps – no more; etc., and subsequently, a complete collapse of our economy at all levels.

It is amazing to me that the hatred towards President Trump is so great that many wish our country would have a recession because they think that would get rid of him. And all of this because he is doing what he said he would: Make America Great Again! And he is doing this in spite of, not because of any support from the Democrats who want him – and by extension, the country – to fail. 

All of the Democrat Presidential Candidates are making empty promises; there is no way to implement their agenda. Even worse, if they succeed in implementing even parts of their agenda, the country will tilt more toward socialism and eventual failure as a successful capitalist society. President Trump’s new campaign slogans, “Keep America Great” and “Promises Made, Promises Kept”, say it all. 

Normally, I would not worry about his reelection at all! But in today’s society, everyone believes that there are all these freebies to be had. For some reason, many believe that socialism is good – in spite of its abject failure whenever it is tried. My fervent prayer is that people enter the voting booths having separated empty promises from reality – and reelect President Trump!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

AMERICA'S SURVIVAL

[Published in NEWSMAX]

There is far more at stake in the November Mid-Term elections than whether or not Trump will be impeached, or America’s political center of gravity shifts leftward.

Voters will determine the survival of our federal republic.

America now has over five hundred jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, with sanctuary policies.

These policies are designed to protect illegal aliens from the consequences of the laws they violate. They bar local officials from enforcing federal law and cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies.

Democrats are the ones initiating, approving, and implementing sanctuary laws. They invoke the 10^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which limits federal jurisdiction and forms the basis of America’s federal system of government.

Democrats have a long history of hypocrisy with federalism. They ignore it when it furthers their goal of expanding federal regulation and control. They embrace it when they wish to either enslave humans in the 19^th Century, suppress minority rights in the 20^th Century, or eliminate the rule of law and national sovereignty in the 21^st Century.

America’s federal system intentionally created tension between local and national authority, but also outlined the parameters of this contention. On March 1, 1781, just seven months before the British surrender at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation went into effect. The Articles established a very weak and fragmented national government. Its flaws became immediately apparent. Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Paper15:

“Each State, yielding to the persuasive voice of immediate interest or convenience, has successively withdrawn its support, till the frail and tottering edifice seems ready to fall upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins.”

This impending disunion led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The U.S. Constitution remains the most brilliant and important document in human history. It outlines a timeless framework for addressing competing interests in the public sphere. It is a universal “rules of engagement” that has served America well, and guides freedom loving societies throughout the world. It balances the powers of states and the national government to establish, enforce, and administer law.

James Madison outlined this confluence in the Federalist Paper 39:

“The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national...”

Five hundred local and state governments declaring sanctuary status for illegal aliens fundamentally threatens 229 years of legal precedents and could end federalism. Nullification strikes at the very heart of America’s civic culture and national unity.

In 1850, Democrats ignored Federalism by passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It declared that the Federal Government must enforce slavery, and the rights of slave owners, even in states and jurisdictions that had abolished it. Nicknamed the “Bloodhound Law”, it empowered teams of slave catchers to invade “Free” states. It added to growing sectional tensions.

In 1860, Free states rebelled against these intrusive federal laws by electing Republican Abraham Lincoln. Democrats in Slave states immediately nullified the election by invoking “state rights”, voting succession, and causing the Civil War.

After their defeat, Southern Democrats tried to reverse their defeat by demanding an end to reconstruction. Compromises that resolved the 1876 disputed election ended the era of African-American emancipation and empowerment in the South. Once again, Democrats invoked “states rights” as they methodically suppressed “freedmen”.

Starting with President Woodrow Wilson, Democrats choose to ignore “states rights” and federalism during their massive expansion of government regulation and activism. Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court maintained the federal balance by striking down many of these federal intrusions.

In 1939, sufficient retirements and deaths allowed President Franklin Roosevelt to reshape the court and establish nearly eighty years of a center-left court.

In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, sent federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce racial integration in its public schools. Southern Democrats rallied around “states rights” to nullify federal Civil Rights laws and court rulings.

Now, Democrats are embracing nullification of immigration laws to protect illegal aliens over security concerns and the integrity of U.S. sovereignty.

The 2018 Mid-Term elections will be the opportunity for voters to end this threat to America’s federal system by removing state and local officials who are trampling the U.S. Constitution. They can also embolden Republicans in Congress to end federal funding of these rogue regimes. The alternative is a national crisis not seen since the American Civil War or even since the collapse of the Articles of Confederation.

[Scot Faulkner advises global organizations and universities on healthcare reform and innovation. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]

MID TERMS MATTER

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

The definition of a Midterm Election is that it is held mid-way through the term of the President. While not on the ballot, the President’s electoral mandate and actions to fulfill that mandate, are validated or challenged by voters as they elect members of the Legislative Branch.

Midterms were created as the solution to a fundamental issue in the founding of America:

What is the balance between responsive and responsible government?

The authors and advocates of the U.S. Constitution wrestled with this balance.

One the one hand, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing as “PUBLIUS”, asserted in their essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, that frequent elections guaranteed Congress’ elected Members responding to the will of the people.

Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Guaranteeing responsiveness and accountability also needed to be tied to short terms in office.

FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

On the other hand, Hamilton and Madison worried that too frequent elections would create instability.

Federalist No. 62

“The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.”

Hamilton and Madison raised an issue they considered worse than instability - arbitrary and capricious public policy. They sought a structural solution, “necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison’s solution was to have two separate bodies within the Legislative Branch, one of which would have longer terms of service. “The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the legislative department, which, having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.’ [Federalist 63]

The Senate, having six year terms for its members, would be a defense against, “particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” [Federalist 63]

Hamilton and Madison cited the importance of deflecting transitory and ill-thought public passion throughout history. “What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.” [Federalist 63]

They concluded that not only terms of service, but the cycles of elections would create the proper balance to assure responsive and responsible democracy: “when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” [Federalist 63]

Their solution is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

ARTICLE I; Section 3

1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year;

The combination of having the entire Membership of the House of Representatives face the electorate every two years, and only a third of the Senate submit to re-election every two years created Midterm Elections.

Throughout American history, Midterm Elections have reshaped Presidential agendas, ended or launched new political movements, and marked watershed moments in the civic culture of the nation.

The 1858 Midterm, prior to American Civil War, showcased the fragmentation of the Democrat Party over slavery and catapulted the four-year-old Republican Party into becoming the dominant plurality faction in both the House and Senate. Sixteen years later, Republicans lost 96 House seats and their majority in reaction to the Grant Administration scandals, and the mismanagement of Southern Reconstruction. 

The 1894 Midterms heralded the reemergence of the Republican Party as a new dynamic force that would bring William McKinley to the Presidency in 1896. The voters also blamed President Grover Cleveland for a major economic depression, leading to jobless workers marching on Washington demanding relief. The Democrats lost 116 seats in the House, the largest defeat in history. Fourteen years later, splits in the Republican Party, especially the falling out between old allies, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, triggered Republicans losing 57 seats in the House and 10 Senate seats. This fragmentation worsened, leading to Woodrow Wilson winning the Presidency in 1912 with 42 percent of the popular vote in a three-way race.

The October 1930 Midterm reflected Americans reeling from the Stock Market Crash, facing a deepening Depression, and the collapse of trust in Republicans. The Republican Party lost 49 House and 8 Senate seats. The Republicans barely retained control of Congress by only two votes in the House and one in the Senate. Their Midterm debacle set the stage for the 1932 election, when Republicans lost the White House for twenty years, and lost Congressional power for three generations. Over the next 62 years, Republicans had ten years of intermittent rule in the Senate and led only two separate Congresses in the House.

America redefined itself in the 1994 Midterm elections. President Bill Clinton had overreached on universal healthcare. There was a revitalized Republican Party, fueled by Conservative Talk radio and the visionary leadership and aggressive tactics of Newt Gingrich.

Democrats were shocked, losing 53 House and 7 Senate seats. This brought Republican rule to the House for the first time since the 1952 election, a forty-two year hiatus. Only one Republican Member had served in the previous Republican era - as a House page.

Since 1994, Republicans have dominated the Legislative Branch, even gaining 6 House and 2 Senate seats in the 2002 Midterm, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush Administration unpopularity and Congressional scandals led to voters ending Republican rule in the 2006 Midterms. President Obama’s policy overreach, Conservative Talk Radio, and the rise of digital and social media, brought Republican majorities back to the House in the 2010 Midterms and the Senate in the 2014 Midterms.

No matter the outcome of the 2018 Midterms, the wisdom of those who struck the balance between responsive and responsible government in the U.S. Constitution will once again be vindicated.

[Scot Faulkner advises corporations and governments on how to save billions of dollars by achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]