Connect with us

Lifestyle

How the Founding Fathers' concept of 'Minority Rule' is alive and well today

Published

on

How the Founding Fathers' concept of 'Minority Rule' is alive and well today

A voter leaves a voting booth in Concord, N.H., the during primary election on Jan. 23, 2024.

Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images


A voter leaves a voting booth in Concord, N.H., the during primary election on Jan. 23, 2024.

Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

It’s a fundamental tension in a democracy: How do you have majority rule in a way that also protects minority rights? Journalist Ari Berman says the Founding Fathers struggled with that question back in 1787 — except, for them, white male landowners were the minority in need of protection.

“Most of the founders were skeptical of the public’s ability to elect the president directly,” Berman says. “So they created this very complicated situation in which electors would elect the president instead of the people electing the president directly.”

Advertisement

In his new book, Minority Rule, Berman connects the debates and compromises of the country’s founders to contemporary politics. He says the founding fathers created a system that concentrated power in the hands of the elite and that today, institutions like the Electoral College and the Senate — designed as a check against the power of the majority — are having much the same effect.

Berman notes that in the country’s first presidential election, in 1789, only a small fraction of the population was eligible to vote — and in certain states, voters were only allowed to vote for electors, not the candidates themselves.

Though the right to vote has since been expanded, Berman says the democratic process remains deeply flawed. He points out that in 2000 and again in 2016, the presidential candidate who won the popular vote did not win the electoral vote. Additionally, he says, because the Constitution stipulates that each state gets two senators, regardless of its population, “smaller, whiter, more conservative states have far more power and representation in the Senate then larger, more diverse, more urban states.”

“What we see right now is the same kind of thing, in which a privileged, conservative, white minority is trying to suppress the power of a much more diverse multiracial governing majority,” Berman says. “And that’s a very dangerous situation for American democracy.”

Interview highlights

Minority Rule, by Ari Berman

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Farrar, Straus and Giroux


Minority Rule, by Ari Berman

Advertisement

Farrar, Straus and Giroux

On the Constitution as a flawed document

We venerate the Constitution as a civic religion. I think we would be much greater served to look at the Constitution as a whole document and say, there are some remarkable parts of this document, but there’s also some really flawed parts of this document that we still haven’t corrected. Because the really remarkable thing is that even as America has democratized in the centuries since — and nobody would argue that America isn’t more democratic now than it was back then — some features of the Constitution have become more undemocratic.

On the creation of the Electoral College to uphold minority rule

Most of the founders were skeptical of the public’s ability to elect the president directly. They felt like the public would be uninformed, or it would be chosen by the largest states, or would be chosen by free states in a way that would hurt the South. So it’s interesting, one of the themes that runs through the book and runs through the founding is that these smaller minorities wanted protection. And when I may say smaller minorities, I don’t mean minority groups. I mean the small states wanted protection, the slave states wanted protection, and they felt like they would get that protection in the Electoral College. So they created this very complicated situation in which electors would elect the president instead of the people electing the president directly.

Advertisement

On how representatives from Delaware scuffled the initial plan to have Senate representation being based on population

James Madison and other prominent framers wanted the Senate to be based on proportional representation, so they wanted it to be based on population. So larger states like Virginia would have more representation than smaller states like Delaware. But the smaller states rebelled. And there’s this amazing moment at the Constitutional Convention where the attorney general of Delaware gets up and he tells the likes of James Madison, if you don’t give us the same representation, we’re going to find a foreign ally who we’re going to join with instead, and we’re going to leave the United States of America. And that was a stunning demand. The idea that they would go rejoin England or they would join France instead, if they didn’t have the same level of representation, meant that the larger states had no choice but to give in to the demand of the smaller states to ratify the Constitution.

But what Madison worried about is that it would allow what he called a more objectionable minority than ever to control the U.S. Senate, because if the smaller states had the same level of representation as the larger states, that was inevitably going to lead to minority rule. And Madison worried that would get worse as more states join the union. And, of course, that’s what’s happened today, where the gap between large and small states is dramatically larger than it was back in 1787.

On how the two Senator per state representation affects minority rule

Just to give you one really stunning stat, by 2040, 70% of the population is going to live in 15 states with 30 senators. That means that 30% of the country, which is going to be whiter, more rural, more conservative, is going to elect 70% of the U.S. Senate. So the trend in the U.S. Senate is becoming more imbalanced and more undemocratic. And what’s really interesting to me is a lot of conservatives want to go back and they want to quote the framers, but they ignore that a lot of the framers, including James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, had grave concerns about some of the institutions they were creating, particularly the structure of the U.S. Senate.

Advertisement

Lauren Krenzel and Joel Wolfram produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan Sullivan adapted it for the web.

Lifestyle

How should we behave online? : It’s Been a Minute

Published

on

How should we behave online? : It’s Been a Minute
How do you practice good etiquette online?Your online life shapes your offline life — including how you talk, listen, and interact with the world. But often, good behavior offline doesn’t necessarily translate to good behavior online.  So when we get online, how do we uphold some social norms and common decencies we practice in the real world?  Brittany chats with Senior Writer at Wired, Jason Parham, to discuss what it means to establish boundaries and social etiquette within our online worlds. Want more about good etiquette? Check out these IBAM episodes:Is your neighborhood riddled with dog poop?Who needs to know where you are?Support Public Media. Join NPR Plus.Follow Brittany on Instagram: @bmluseFor handpicked podcast recommendations every week, subscribe to NPR’s Pod Club newsletter at npr.org/podclub.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand

Published

on

Chanel’s Bruno Pavlovsky on Reengineering an Iconic Brand
Chanel’s president of fashion, Bruno Pavlovsky, explains in our latest report ‘Face to Face With Luxury Clients’ how the French megabrand has reignited customer excitement and sales growth since onboarding a new artistic director last year.
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer

Published

on

They were world-class tennis rivals. Now friends, they’ve teamed up against cancer

Once rivals on the tennis court, Martina Navratilova, left, and Chris Evert have become close friends in retirement. They are pictured above at the French Open in 1986.

Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Trevor Jones/Getty Images Europe

Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova were the most successful women’s tennis champions of their generation. Both were 18-time Grand Slam tournament winners — and each other’s greatest rivals.

Evert, a Florida native, became a tennis star in her teens. Navratilova was born in communist Czechoslovakia, and emerged as a player after Evert was established. They first faced off during a match in Akron, Ohio, in 1973, when Evert was 18, and Navratilova was 16. Evert won, but Navratilova left an impression.

“I remember thinking to myself, holy cow, when this young girl gets into better shape, she is going to be a force to be reckoned with,” Evert says. “She had so much talent. Her hands were quick, she had a big first serve, she had a big forehand, and she just was so powerful.”

Advertisement

Two years later, on the day she lost a semifinals match to Evert at the U.S. Open, Navratilova defected to the U.S. In the years that followed, her tennis game improved. Though she and Evert had initially been friendly, the friendship cooled as their rivalry heated up.

“Playing Chris was difficult because how can you not like Chris? What’s not to admire?” Navratilova says. “She was like the epitome of cool.”

The new Netflix documentary Chris & Martina: The Final Set tells the story of how Evert and Navratilova re-established their friendship and how they both faced cancer in retirement. Evert was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2021; Navratilova was diagnosed with throat and breast cancer in 2022.

“I can’t get away from her,” Evert jokes. “We had a 15-year career, and then we got cancer at the same time. It really is freaky, but I always say: If I want someone to be in the trenches with me, it’s Martina because she has been so supportive and so understanding.”

Navratilova agrees: “We have such a level of trust that we know whatever we say to each other, it stays there. We give each other the best advice we know how to. And there is no ulterior motive, no playing games.”

Advertisement

At the time that this interview was taped, Evert and Navratilova were both in remission from cancer. But late last week, Evert disclosed she’d recently been diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer.

Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova

“We know whatever we say to each other, it stays there,” Martina Navratilova says of her friendship with Chris Evert.

Netflix


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Netflix

Interview highlights

On supporting each other through cancer

Evert: There are a lot of phone calls between us. … I don’t cook, but Martina would bake bread for me, and her wife Julia would cook, make some chicken soup. … I got a lot of food from Martina. She got a necklace from me.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending