Lessons from Thomas Jefferson

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Benjamin Paley
November 18, 2024

Thomas Jefferson is one of our nation’s most divisive Founding Fathers. And his theory of public administration—which heavily favors small, local governments—is no less divisive.

Despite Jefferson’s legacy of divisiveness, however, I believe that we can still learn a great deal from his public administration theory.

Compact Theory

I recently read an article by Jud Campbell, Four Views of the Nature of the Union, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (the academic journal of the Federalist Society). Campbell discussed four competing theories of the nature of the union. Those theories, each named for one of four Founding Fathers, grappled with whether the people of the states delegated powers or transferred sovereignty to the federal government. The four Founding Fathers were Jefferson (compact theory), Madison (quasi-nationalism), Marshall (1787 nationalism) and Wilson (1776 nationalism).

According to the compact theory, Jefferson believed that at this nation’s founding, the individual states formed a league, and the people of the individual states agreed to delegate certain powers to the federal government. But, according to Jefferson, when the people delegated those certain powers, they did not transfer their state’s sovereignty to the federal government. The states remained individual sovereign “kingdoms,” so to speak. (This is distinct from the other theories, which were based on the idea that the people of each state transferred some of their sovereignty to the federal government. In fact, Adrienne Koch, in her 1964 book, Jefferson and Madison, argued that “the Jeffersonian view placed greater confidence than [the other views] in the people themselves.”) History supports that idea; during the colonial era, the king possessed certain delegated powers over the colonies, but the colonies never transferred their sovereignty to the king. Instead, each colony was an “individual” society, and the colonies were “united under one common head,” the king.

Three Lessons

Jefferson’s compact theory formed the backbone of his theory of public administration, and there are three lessons I believe we can learn from it.

First, is Jefferson’s insistence on putting the emphasis on local politics. Because the people maintained their states’ sovereignty, Jefferson argued, the most effective government worked at the local level. Robert M. Johnstone, in his 1978 book, Jefferson and the Presidency: Leadership in the Young Republic, argued that “the affairs of the people could be handled most efficiently and effectively at the local level by officials aware of local problems and local sensibilities.” This is very true for several reasons. First, local government officials, elected and bureaucrats, are often aware of the problems facing their jurisdictions, because they also experience those problems, or know someone who does. Second, elected local government leaders and bureaucrats understand the particular needs of their communities since they often live close to the places they work and are intimately familiar with those issues after working on them for so long. Third, the decisions of local governments have more of a direct impact on peoples’ daily lives than the decisions of elected officials in state capitals, or the federal government. And fourth, it is easier for people to get involved at the local level, because the government is close enough to allow them to frequently go to government meetings—and who better to figure out how to solve those problems than those experiencing them.

Second, is Jefferson’s belief that the people should meet to amend the constitutions (state and federal) every twenty years. Jefferson expressed his preference for citizen involvement in amending constitutions when he discussed his solution to many of the problems with Virginia’s Constitution. To solve those problems, Jefferson wanted to create ad-hoc and periodic conventions. Although Jefferson thought the Virginia citizenry should meet whenever there is a crisis, “for altering the constitution or correcting breaches of it,” Jefferson also thought that a constitutional convention should be held every twenty years because every new generation has the right to “the form of government it believe[s] [would be] most promotive of its own happiness.” As can be seen, Jefferson did not hold onto the belief that constitutions are sanctimonious documents that must be revered and rarely changed. Instead, Jefferson wrote, “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.” So, as the human mind progresses, and changes that need to be made become apparent, the people of that time should be involved in amending the constitution.

Underlying Jefferson’s belief in amending constitutions every twenty years was his belief in an engaged citizenry. For Jefferson, the government is the strongest when every man feels like a part of it. As I have written before, civic engagement is currently at an all time low; part of the reason for the lackluster engagement is the lack of feeling that people can make a difference. But if the people are able to meet every twenty years and amend the constitution, then they will feel that their involvement will actually have an impact.

And third, is Jefferson’s insistence on regulating harmful conduct between people, but otherwise not interfering in people’s private decisions. On this point, Jefferson wrote,  “We believed that men, enjoying in ease and security the full fruits of their own industry, enlisted by all their interests on the side of law and order, habituated to think for themselves and to follow their reason as their guide, would be more easily and safely governed than with minds nourished in error, and vitiated and debased, as in Europe, by ignorance, indigence and oppression.” I think that if done correctly, a people can regulate themselves without government interference, and our governments should be doing more to ensure that people can generally make their own choices.

Conclusion

When Jefferson was president, he worked to implement many of his goals for a minimal bureaucracy; he wanted a return to state power—“the surest bulwark against anti-republican tendencies.” And I believe Jefferson laid the foundations for doing so. Although we can debate the merits of many of Jefferson’s ideals, as well as the hypocrisy of many of them, I still believe that we can learn certain lessons from him. Ideally, we can improve upon Jefferson’s ideas and work to ensure a better government for all.

---

Author: Benjamin Paley graduated in 2022 from the Shepard Broad College of Law in 2022 with a J.D. and in 2018 from Florida Atlantic University with a Master of Public Administration degree. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...