Transcription
Hey everybody. Welcome back. Federal 70 is all about the presidency, so use your power to smash that like button and subscribe. Your boy Alexander Hamilton wrote Federal 70 to defend the installation of a unitary executive, meaning that there would be a single person as president.
That might seem like a weird topic for an essay because it's very possible that until this moment you've never even considered the possibility that the president would be anything but a single person. But when you remember that the Constitution set up a limited government and included things like separation of powers and checks and balances specifically to make sure that no one person or part of government would have too much power, it makes you think. Hamilton's goal in this essay is to convince us that not only is a single president better and more effective, but the people will be more free this way. Also, his first argument is that a good government needs an active and decisive executive, saying that energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It's essential to the protection of the community, to the steady administration of laws, the protection of property, and the protection of Liberty.
So right out of the gate, it's clear that Hamilton is arguing for a stronger executive, and he goes on to argue that a weak executive means an ineffectual government: a feeble or weak executive implies a feeble or weak execution of government, and this is really just another way to say a bad execution, which must be a bad government. So if the executive is too weak to enforce laws, it's only going to lead to a bad, inefficient outcome. Hamilton's answer is an energetic executive, one that's powerful enough to act when necessary. He lists four things to ensure an energetic executive: Unity, duration, support, and competent Powers. Hamilton basically says it's obvious that a single president is more conducive to having an energetic executive. Clearly, a single president will be more united than a plural executive would; the more people who are part of the executive, the more disagreements there will inevitably be.
As for the other three ingredients, duration means the executive needs to have a long enough term to learn the job and get things done. Support and competent Powers go together; basically, the executive needs to have enough power to actually get things done in the first place. But then, to make sure the executive isn't too powerful, Hamilton mentions the president must be dependent on the people. Since this is a republic, the president must be subject to the people; they must have power over the president to keep him in check.
Okay, all that's been kind of an intro so far. Let's get to the main idea: that giving the executive power to a single person will lead to better outcomes than dividing it up and giving it to a group of people. He's advocating for what can be called a unitary executive and against a plural executive. The First Advantage Hamilton discusses is that if it's just one person making these important decisions, we'll have more activity, more secrecy, and the president will be able to act more quickly than would be possible if there were a plural executive trying to run things. Whenever there's two or more people trying to do something, there's always the chance of a difference of opinion. Obviously, one person wouldn't disagree with herself, so this is much less likely to be a problem.
But maybe you find yourself wondering, okay, well why do we want the president to be acting quickly anyway? If you think about the Constitution, a lot of it is designed to make policymaking a long, slow process. Hamilton's response is that while we definitely want Congress to act slowly and deliberately, we actually want the president to act quickly. Well, why? Staying with Congress, he says that promptitude of decision, meaning acting quickly, is more often an evil than a benefit. So if Congress is acting too quickly, they're more likely to make bad laws, poor laws, or laws that might strip people of their rights. So it's good for Congress to act slowly because it promotes deliberation and circumspection, meaning that there's time to examine all sides of things and anticipate how a policy could go wrong. Perhaps most importantly, this deliberation serves to check excesses in the majority, so again, it prevents majorities from being able to dominate and impose their will on minorities. So you want Congress to act slowly. On the other hand, Hamilton says that some of the most important qualities in the executive are Vigor and Expedition, which is a way of saying strength and decisiveness, being able to act quickly.
Hamilton's argument is that Congress makes all the laws; all the president really does is execute and enforce the law. So if the law has already been made, we just need the President to carry it out and enforce it, and there's no benefit to it being slowly or weakly enforced. And this is especially true in times of Crisis, war, or disaster. Hamilton asserts that the president needs to be able to act swiftly in such times.
But maybe this idea of presidents acting quickly hasn't convinced you, since, like the framers, you're a big fan of limited government. Well, Hamilton says that it's also easier to assign blame and hold the president accountable when there's only one person serving in that role, and this might be his best argument. He says that one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive is that it tends to conceal fault and destroy responsibility, and the reason why is because everybody's going to blame each other when things go wrong, and when things go well, they're each going to try and take credit. This is problematic because it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for the public to know who to blame or punish by voting them out of office.
Building on that, Hamilton goes on to say that having a single president means that he will be more accountable to the people and will be more responsive to public opinion. So we appreciate the cleverness of this argument because we started off worried that giving all the power of the presidency to one person might be a bad thing, but as Hamilton was writing and writing like he's running out of time, he figured out how to argue that giving all that power to one person would actually give the people more power because public opinion will be a better check since we'll know exactly who to blame or praise since there's only that one person. Presidents have to be very concerned about public opinion, knowing that the people will blame them when things go wrong or if they're involved in misconduct, that they can be impeached or voted out of office at the next election. So giving all the power of the presidency to one person will actually protect individual rights better than splitting that power up among a plural executive.
The last sentence of Federal 70 sums up in kind of a funny way. Hamilton basically says that all intelligent people agree that a unitary executive is one of the best things in the whole Constitution. Check, I guess.
And on that note, that's it for this one. Until next time, this has been a Money Production. Thanks again for watching. I appreciate you so much, and if you want to do your best in class and on the exam, consider checking out the ultimate review packet: three full-length practice tests, great study guides, tons of practice for each unit, exclusive FRQ help and practice, preview unit one for free, and I will see you in the next video.