In Praise of Midterms

On the day of midterm elections, it is worth taking the time to admire the Founders’ design. Gratitude does good for the soul at any time, but it is particularly warranted now, when a number of progressives have argued that midterm elections are a mistake, principally because they get in the way of powerful Presidencies that can transform American society through national politics.

The Framers kept government on a short leash because they were more realistic about what federal politics could accomplish and more pessimistic that any particular idea of national reordering would be good. They built a system of checks and balances to constrain the dangers from  excessive power. Those restraints in turn protected other forms of more decentralized political ordering like the market, voluntary associations, and state and local government.

An op-ed in in The New York Times yesterday argued  that it would be a good idea to eliminate the midterms and the amend the Constitution in favor of longer terms for members of Congress.  They analogize the federal offices to state and local offices, like school boards, which have longer tenure. This argument gets things perversely backwards. We put checks on the power of the federal government in part to make it harder for the government to displace the more local ordering of state officials, thus preserving federalism.  The more  potentially powerful their political agents, the more opportunities the people need to check them.

The authors of the op-ed also argued that the President needs sufficient time to pursue his democratic mandate with a sympathetic Congress.  This point ignores the weakness of any Presidential mandate in the first place.   As Ilya Somin emphasizes in an excellent recent book, most voters are rationally ignorant of politics and do not have a strong grasp of the specific program of the candidate for whom they vote. Moreover, the vote takes place at a particular time with a specific mix of issues that may soon change. Often the vote is so close that the difference amounts to no mandate at all. Think Bush-Gore. Sometimes the result would have been different if the election had happened a week later. Think Carter-Ford. It is precisely because any election is only a blurry snapshot of democratic sentiment that it is essential to take more pictures.

And government is not only about grand visions but about competence and honesty that need continual monitoring. Perhaps the Iraq War was a good idea, but President Bush’s incompetence in assuming the completion of a mission that had just begun warranted a rebuke in 2006. And untruths can often be revealed for what they are only in the midst of an unfolding program. A case in point of course was the current President’s claim that if you like your health care plan you can keep it.

Midterms are often lambasted because they allow more spending on yet more elections. But another perspective is that midterms provide an opportunity for people who do not influence politics for a living to band together and try to persuade their fellow citizens about which candidates and policies are better. It takes money to get out their message.  But the alternative is  a much more insular politics, shaped to an even greater extent by the symbolic class of the media and academics, a class that leans sharply to one side of the political spectrum. Not surprisingly most of the voices for curbing the midterms come from this crowd of the like-minded.

Besides celebrating the victory of any favorite candidate this evening, take some time to celebrate the Framers’ design. It permits citizens to better control their rulers and protects decentralized social ordering from evanescent passions.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on November 04, 2014 at 16:43:38 pm

Sure -- McGinnis loves midterms, and I love the BCS.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on November 04, 2014 at 22:11:11 pm

[…] the title of this short blog post by Professor John McGinnis of Northwestern’s School of Law. An […]

read full comment
Image of “In Praise of Midterms” | Notes On Liberty
“In Praise of Midterms” | Notes On Liberty
on November 04, 2014 at 22:42:07 pm

An eloquent rebuttal.

read full comment
Image of Nodnarb the Nasty
Nodnarb the Nasty
on November 05, 2014 at 13:55:36 pm

You are dating yourself: The BCS is toast - replaced by the even sillier College Football Playoffs wherein a bunch of the uninformed select the "best" football teams - Oops, you ARE right - same as elections!!!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
on November 06, 2014 at 05:02:24 am

[…] The Framers knew what they were doing: don’t abolish midterm elections [John O. McGinnis, Law and Liberty] […]

read full comment
Image of November 6 roundup | Internet Tax Lawyers
November 6 roundup | Internet Tax Lawyers
on November 09, 2014 at 09:49:34 am

Dr. McGinnis knows better. When we title something "So an so's design," we are implying a certain intentionality. So and so designed this institution, indeed constituted it, to function in a certain way. Here, however, the inference is nonsense. The founders did not envision political parties as an integral part of their constitutional design. Indeed, those who gave the matter any thought in 1787 or 1788 considered organized factions to be inimical to what they were designing.

Midterm elections certainly constitute an important check on power in our contemporary polity, and thus are arguably compatible with the broader Madisonian project. That is what I take Dr. McGinnis to be arguing. But the title to the essay implies a different argument, and one that misconstrues egregiously the design as the founders actually envisioned it. I think it is quite fair to say that to the extent that mid-term elections received any attention at all in Philadelphia in 1787, it was pretty marginal and peripheral to the discussion.

Midterm elections and their significance today reflect the organic evolution of American constitutionalism--an example of living consitutionalism, not intentional design.

read full comment
Image of Kevin R. Hardwick
Kevin R. Hardwick

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.