8) Opinion: Why do you think the Founding Fathers believed that “efficiency was the hallmark of an oppressive government. They wanted to make sure the laws that were passed jumped through many hurdles … before they were signed into law…”? Do you agree that this is a good way to set up government? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The Founding Fathers' belief that "efficiency was the hallmark of an oppressive government" stemmed from their experiences with colonial rule and their philosophical commitments to liberty and democratic governance. They were influenced by Enlightenment thinkers who emphasized the dangers of concentrated power and the importance of checks and balances. By designing a government that required laws to jump through multiple hurdles—such as passing both houses of Congress and being subject to the president's veto—they aimed to prevent hasty decision-making and the potential abuses of power that can come from an efficient but unaccountable government.

This approach reflects a cautious philosophy where deliberation is prioritized over rapid action. The Founding Fathers were concerned that swift and unimpeded legislative processes could lead to the enactment of laws that may infringe on individual rights or protect the interests of a powerful few. By requiring extensive debate and consensus, they hoped to ensure that laws would be well-considered and reflective of the will and welfare of the populace.

Whether I agree that this is a good way to set up government is nuanced. On one hand, the careful consideration inherent in a complex legislative process can protect against tyranny and encourage a more democratic dialogue, allowing diverse viewpoints to be heard and integrated. This can foster a sense of legitimacy and trust in government, as citizens see their representatives thoughtfully engaging with issues.

On the other hand, this system can lead to gridlock, where urgent issues may go unaddressed due to overly complex procedures. In times of crisis, such as a natural disaster or economic downturn, the inability to act quickly can have severe consequences. Hence, while the safeguards against rash decision-making are valuable, a balance must be found to ensure that necessary actions can be taken when the situation demands it.

Ultimately, a well-functioning government should embody both the principles of efficiency in urgent situations while maintaining a system of checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny and promote comprehensive deliberation. This balance is challenging to achieve and requires an ongoing commitment to both the integrity of the democratic process and the responsiveness of government to the needs of its constituents.