That recent headline in Politico brought to mind a controversy, raised before the American Revolution, about the nature of democracy and of representation. I'll address that issue briefly in this post. (Note that I offer only a cursory nod toward Joe Manchin's actions -- as West Virginia state senator, governor, and U.S. senator -- from which his family business profited. I'm just jumping off a headline to highlight an issue debated in 18th century America.)
In The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood asserts (in Chapter 14, Interests) that the revolutionary movement created "the first society in the modern world to bring ordinary people into the affairs of government—not just as voters, but as actual rulers. This participation of common people in government became the essence of American democracy, and the Revolution made it so."
This represented a fundamental divergence from an earlier vision of public servants drawn from the gentry. Think of men like Washington and Jefferson: a class of wealthy, educated, socially well-connected landowners who, setting aside their own personal and financial interests, could afford to serve in government in the best interests of their communities. Acting out of virtue, rather than for personal advantage, they were to be disinterested. By the time of the Revolution, this notion was becoming less tenable, as democratic practice overran this neat, idealized theory of democracy.
As Wood relates, "By the 1770s artisans in the various port cities were forming slates of candidates and were being elected as artisans to various committees and congresses and other prominent offices. The traditional gentry no longer seemed capable of speaking for the interests or artisans or of any other groups of ordinary people."
A 1786 debate in the Pennsylvania assembly between William Findley and Robert Morris (on rechartering the Bank of North America) highlighted the issue of representation. As told by Wood, Findley advocated for representation by folks with private interests (as opposed to disinterested gentlemen standing above the fray):
... The promotion of interests in politics, suggested Findley, was quite legitimate, as long as it was open and aboveboard and not disguised by specious claims of genteel disinterestedness. The promotion of private interests was in fact what American politics ought to be about.
Findley was not content merely to expose and justify the reality of interest-group politics in representative legislatures. He glimpsed some of the important implications of such interest-group politics, and in just a few remarks he challenged the entire classical tradition of disinterested public leadership and set forth a rationale for competitive democratic politics that has never been bettered. ...
Interest group politics
Essentially, Findlay argued that if groups -- such as carpenters, shoemakers, farmers, butchers, mechanics -- were to have their interests represented in the legislature, it made no sense for their representatives to be disinterested gentlemen. Why (even if such virtuous men could be found) would they seek office? It was better to have politically ambitious folks, with compelling interests and causes, to advocate for themselves.
Findley anticipated what came to be: "the eventual weakening, if not the repudiation, of the classical republican ideal that legislators were supposed to be disinterested umpires standing above the play of private interests."
To return to Senator Manchin: his defenders invoke a coal industry that benefits families and businesses across West Virginia (and not simply his own business). His critics point to a transparent conflict of interest and decisions that result in significant environmental costs. We have a disagreement that can be contested in political campaigns and elections. That's the stuff of politics in American democracy.