Pre-class: Rousseau

In reading Rousseau, I can't help but wonder what he would think of our structure of government in modern America. Prof. Jackson makes a good point when talking about the un-Lockeian (and in some senses Rousseauian) aspects of the US Constitution, but I think Rousseau would be rather disappointed with the way in which our government is actualized.

First, Rousseau seems to...well...hate the idea of a representative government. For him, the idea that a relatively small group can represent the general will, without being overtaken by private will, is just plain wrong.

Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be alienated. It consists essentially in the general will, and the will does not allow of being represented. It is either itself or something else; there is nothing in between. (198)

In fact, he would say that we, like the English of his day, are slaves because of our representative government (cf. 198).

Second, I think Rousseau would level heavy criticism against the enormity of the US government’s bureaucratic structure. The entirety of Book 2, Ch 2 is an argument against large bureaucracies, saying that, “the more numerous the magistrates, the weaker the government” (177). He also argues that large bureaucracies are slow and inefficient—that “the fruits of deliberation are often lost by dint of deliberation” (178). Touché.

Third, I think Rousseau would be disappointed at the exceeding power of the executive in the US governmental structure. The idea that the executive would have the power to sign executive agreements and enact binding policies without the consent even of the representatives, let alone the general will, would seemingly be anathema. I think, also, that Rousseau would be a bit uneasy at the Bush administration's application of his argument that the executive should have increased authority during times when national security is threatened.

There are more reasons rumbling around my head, but I digress for now.

A final quick observation: Rousseau’s views on Christian theology and the place of religion in civil society are markedly different than previous authors. Is this a natural progression, or were there specific reasons for the departure?