Approaching National Bankruptcy and the Wisdom of the Anti-Federalists

The 2024 election is in the rearview mirror. Republicans, for the most part, rejoice at the change of leadership. Democrats, on the other hand, mourn as their functionaries pack bags and leave Washington, D.C. The fo rmer celebrate as if they have destroyed the ring of Sauron and returned peace to Middle Earth. The latter fear a big orange Orc plundering Gondor and the end of civilization.

Republicans and Democrats should pause from their celebration/lamentation to recognize a fundamental truth: Without structural changes to the Constitution of 1787, no change of personnel in the federal government can pull the American ox cart out of the ditch.

Where should we for look for solutions? The Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution—written off by modern historians—predicted how sundry constitutional provisions would be abused. The Anti-Federalists were not mere complainers but suggested many amendments and alterations to address the problems they observed.

Unfortunately, the First Congress ignored their suggestions when crafting the batch of amendments we call the Bill of Rights. Americans serious about governmental reform should dust off the Anti-Federalist writings and study the thought of these forgotten Americans.

The U.S. national debt is $36 trillion. That’s almost $107,000 per citizen. In 2023, the federal government took in $4.4 trillion and spent $6.1 trillion. Such a trend is not sustainable. Interest payments on the national debt will soon be the largest federal expenditure—more than defense, Social Security or Medicare.

Anti-Federalists expressed concern about Congress’ power to borrow. A writer using the penname “Brutus” observed that “Congress may mortgage any or all revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probable in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country.”

Brutus envisioned a substantial national debt unlikely ever to be retired.

Hence, he believed it was “unwise and improvident to vest in the general government, a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.” He suggested that the Constitution require a two-thirds congressional majority to permit borrowing. Although Brutus made this suggestion 237 years ago, it is still not too late to listen to him. Such a constitutional amendment would give fiscally responsible senators and representatives a club to beat back our profligate spending.

With our fiscal house in disarray, one might expect that representatives and senators are facing an angry public at the polls. Not so. In 2024, 98.5% of House incumbents won reelection and 90.9% of Senate incumbents prevailed. Incumbency is a tremendous advantage for a candidate.

Rotation in office was critical to our first federal constitution’s (the Articles of Confederation) efforts to limit congressional power. According to historian Gordon Wood, motivating factors for term limits under the Articles were fears of establishing an American ruling aristocracy and the belief that public service should be open to men equally talented (or perhaps more so) as the old guard.

The Constitution of 1787 is silent on term limits, and this raised the ire of Anti-Federalists.

“ROTATION, that noble prerogative of liberty, is entirely excluded from the new system of government, and great men may and probably will be continued in office during their lives,” predicted “An Officer of the Late Continental Army.”

Simila rly, Mercy Otis Warren, writing as a “Columbian Patriot,” abjured, “There is no provision for a rotation, nor any thing to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well-timed bribery, will probably be done, to the exclusion of men of the best abilities from their share in the offices of the government.”

Term limits might not be a panacea for the political ailments of the country, but the states should be allowed to impose them on members of their congressional delegations. If the experiment does not produce results, the states can return to the present system of possible perpetual reelection. We should at least give federal rotation in office a chance via a constitutional amendment.

Amateurs can do no worse than our professional ruling class has done.

A significant impediment to reform is that amendments to the Constitution are controlled by Congress. The Anti-Federalists objected to congressional control over the amendment procedure. “An Old Whig” observed, “People once possessed of power are always loth to part with it; and we shall never find two-thirds of a Congress voting or proposing any thing which shall derogate from their own authority and importance, or agreeing to give back to the people any part of those privileges which they have once parted with.”

“The Federal Farmer” also expected Congress would “be exceedingly artful and adroit in preventing any measures” limiting national power. If such alterations could be obtained, he predicted they would come from “great exertions and severe struggles on the part of the common people.”

The Anti-Federalists would appreciate the fo llowing: “An amendment proposed by one or more of the several states shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” Such an amendment procedure would give the states and the people a fighting chance to defend themselves against a consolidated national government that continuously operates in an extra-constitutional manner.

Republicans can cheer the election of Donald Trump and Democrats can plan for 2028. But absent from addressing structural problems in our system, we face national bankruptcy gifted to us by a perpetual ruling class.

It is time to give the Anti-Federalists a fair hearing.