“But what is government itself,” asked James Madison, “but the greatest of reflections on human nature?”[1]

By the end of the American Revolution, a republic with a weak central authority had morphed from the loosely organized colonial congresses that had met to discuss grievances with England.  By 1789 a highly organized group of patriots determined “that there are important defects in the system” ^[2] and decided to take a closer look at how this loose confederation of states was organized and governed.  James Madison admitted that “what may be the result of this political experiment cannot be foreseen,”^[3] as some of the most brilliant men to have ever lived at one time—Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, John Dickinson, George Wythe—collected in Philadelphia to address the “defects.”  A little over three months later a freshly drafted Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification.  A new rule book… how a bill becomes a law… three branches of government… checks and balances…it all may seem a bit dry and just the boring stuff we had to memorize for social studies multiple-choice tests.

So, spend a moment reflecting on this passage written by the not often gleeful John Adams:

The happiness of society is the end of government, as all Divines and moral Philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one-word happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best…. All sober enquiries after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this…. a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?….  When! Before the present epocha, had three millions of people full power and a fair opportunity to form and establish the wisest and happiest government that human wisdom can contrive? ^[4] (emphasis added)

The men gathered in Philadelphia were keenly aware that they were not just rewriting a rule-book.  They were undertaking a project that had never before been attempted in human history.  In America, more people were granted personal and political freedom than had ever been experienced in human history with highest goal of creating on this wilderness continent the “wisest and happiest” society.

At the close of the constitutional convention Benjamin Franklin was supposedly asked about what type of government they had created, to which he responded, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  We have not kept it.  Of course, the constitutional structure of government has remained but it does not function today as it was intended.  Blame is frequently placed on the degrading influence of money.  The chain of cause and effect, however, is more complex.

Money has corrupted the system because we no longer expect that virtue is the foundation of good government.  As a result, the lack of virtue in our political leaders, that was so important to the founders and was essential to the federalists’ argument, is no longer a central concern.  The value that was traditionally placed on virtue meant that the exercise of liberties carried with it some important responsibilities; this has also diminished.  Rather than virtue being the internalized force for good, the responsibility for maintaining the good life has been externalized and is now largely the responsibility of the national government.  The loudest voices (often funded by the largest bank accounts) determine the limits of what is acceptable.  Virtue had placed internal limitations upon the exercise of liberty and established an agreed upon standard of the good life.   The only true value that remains is an aggressively individualistic concern for personal freedom.

Today’s individualism has taken an ugly turn.   Personal fulfillment has ceased to be inextricably connected with the well-being of the community.   For the founders, the individualism that underpinned personal liberty was balanced by a concerned involvement with the community.  What it means to be connected to the community has radically changed.   The manner of relating to others through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram is more about incessant self-defining than creating community.  Researchers in the social sciences have looked at the growing problems of social isolation that are accentuated through social media.^[5]  In a recent meta-analysis, a strong connection was found between the use of social media, such as Facebook, and high levels of both loneliness and narcissism.  A bidirectional relationship was suggested with the characteristics leading to greater use of social media, and the greater use causing higher levels of distress.^[6]  In the social media non-community there is communication without obligations of civility.  The Aristotelian virtue of moderation is never rewarded in an environment where outrage, novelty, and boundary pushing receives the most attention.

[1] Madison, James, “No. 51,” in The Federalist Papers: The Gideon Edition, ed. James McClellan and George W. Carey, Gideon ed. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 269.

[2] National Archives, “Annapolis Convention. Address of the Annapolis Convention, (14 September 1786),” Founders Online, accessed March 9, 2018, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0556.

[3] James Madison, “From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 19 March 1787,” Founders Online, last modified November 26, 2017, accessed January 25, 2018, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-09-02-0169.

[4] Adams, “Thoughts on Government.”

[5] See for example Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (New York: Basic Books, 2001).

[6] Dong Liu and Roy F. Baumeister, “Social Networking Online and Personality of Self-worth: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Research and Personality 64 (October 2016).