Why does the American form of government work?

When the word "republic" is invoked, it carries the implication that the government's decisions are grounded in the will of the people. Perhaps it is ironic then that in that the world's most enduring, most forward-thinking and most freedom-filled republic, many would not be surprised to find that the last time a majority of the population trusted the government was 2001, following the events of 9/11. If it is true that the will of the people is what dictates policymaking, then why does the American government still function?

It is important to make the distinction between trust in the government and compliance with the government. Even if 76% of the population does not trust the government's decisions, that does not mean 76% of the population does not comply with its policies. After all, the majority of the citizens follow laws and pay taxes. And for better or for worse, voter turnout rates are at all-time lows, to an extent severing the tie between popular will and policy. Despite this, in no way does that mean lack of trust in government is a good thing, as the logical end of lack of participation is the lack of representation. A look at the start of the American political system may provide some insight into how the government responds to the needs of its people.

James Madison's Federalist #10 attributes to democracy the ability to oppress the majority, calling for a republic as the middle road between the anarchy of democracy and despotism of dictatorship. Madison writes:

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

Madison believed, perhaps foolishly, that republicanism would solve all the weaknesses inherent in a democratic system. The balance between state and federal power would allow the federal government to hold authority over the entire country while referring local issues to local legislatures, allowing politicians to be more accountable to their constituents. However, the country Madison spoke for was far smaller than the United States existing today, perhaps diminishing the accountability of legislator to voter. Madison addresses the issue of size later in the paper:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Thus, a larger country would, theoretically, be less conducive to the oppression of the majority because of a prevalence of conflicting interests. What Madison failed to address was the issue of a preexisting majority with preexisting interests dominating a minority that lacked political voice. The most blatant example of such an occurrence is the institution of slavery. Historian Howard Zinn, in his book A People's History of the United States, explains that:

The United States government's support of slavery was based on an overpowering practicality. In 1790, a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year in the South. By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million. A system harried by slave rebellions and conspiracies developed a network of controls in the southern states, hacked by the laws, courts, armed forces, and race prejudice of the nation's political leaders.

Madison himself conceded that "neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control [over oppression]," a failure of both system and nature demonstrated by the institution. Despite the injustices borne of slavery, it can hardly be argued that slavery was disruptive to the American system of government for the century that it lasted. Furthermore, very few at the time of American independence gave African Americans basic human rights, much less political voice. It was a lack of opposition that allowed the American machine to keep running.

Conversely, we may look at slavery from our side of history, the side that knows the history of the Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, and other moves towards ending the oppression of minorities. In Federalist #51, Madison writes

In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

Madison recognized the potential for factional views to coincide, and offered an interesting argument for why such could not occur in the American system. While the view he expresses may be inherently optimistic, a more cynical perspective may be better at explaining why the government works. Although perhaps the fear of anarchy always exists, it is not until that such anarchy nearly becomes a reality does the government react appropriately. On divisive issues, oftentimes the only way the voice of the people is heard is through riots and violence, demonstrated again by the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, this essentially leaves time as the only mechanism of the American government that consistently checks oppression.

A second, less depressing and more bureaucratic concern is the day-to-day functioning of the government itself. A large concern was that one aspect of the government might dominate others, a problem that the doctrine of separation of powers seeks to rectify. Madison, in Federalist #51, writes:

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

At the time of its creation, the bicameral legislature, a mechanism that today serves as a major obstacle to efficient government, was seen as a necessity to prevent any single branch from dominating American politics. But most of modern America's political problems rise not from conflict between branches of government, but gridlock between the two major political parties.

The bipartisan monopoly of political power forces those espousing other views to fit into the blue/red spectrum or forfeit power. This is not always a bad thing, but can often lead to conflict within the political parties themselves. The larger concern is what happens when two political parties come into conflict. The idea of political capital, that the passage of politically polarized policies requires a party to "spend" influence with the other party, usually in the form of concessions on other policies. While this prevents a single party from dominating the system indefinitely, it does tend to make for bad policymaking. Issues of political capital plague everything from gun control to military intervention, and the infamous government shutdown of 2013 can in part be attributed to it. While the exchange of political capital can keep the government up and running, it also becomes the cause of government standstill. As a result, any attempts to pass radical legislation or social reform would be political suicide. Zinn explains the resulting passiveness of American politics, and how alienation consequently increases.

After the disastrous war in Vietnam came the scandals of Watergate. There was a deepening economic insecurity for much of the population, along with environmental deterioration, and a growing culture of violence and family disarray. Clearly, such fundamental problems could not be solved without bold changes in the social and economic structure. But no major party candidates proposed such changes. The "American political tradition" held fast.
In recognition of this, perhaps only vaguely conscious of this, voters stayed away from the polls in large numbers, or voted without enthusiasm. More and more they declared, if only by nonparticipation, their alienation from the political system. In 1960, 63 percent of those eligible to vote voted in the presidential election. By 1976, this figure had dropped to 53 percent. In a CBS News and New York Times survey, over half of the respondents said that public officials didn't care about people like them. A typical response came from a plumber: "The President of the United States isn't going to solve our problems. The problems are too big."

As a result, the American people finds itself burdened with a government that works, but is unwilling to take major steps towards change.

Ultimately, in the sense that a working American government is one that passes policies once in a while, yes, the thing works. In the sense that a working American government is one that preserves the rights of its people, the only thing allowing the system to nominally function is the passage of time. This is not to say that the existence of the American government is bad: firstly, a government is better than no government at all, and secondly, no form of government can be perfect. But by no means does that mean we should not try to better it. This article was also not intended to be an outright criticism of the American history. Even if our country is blatantly hypocritical at times, that should not diminish its continuing commitment to human rights and world peace, nor should it change how we view our role as a world leader and sometimes-protector. If all that is good about the United States were to change, we have only our own complacency to blame.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/upshot/the-long-decline-of-trust-in-government-and-why-that-can-be-patriotic.html?_r=0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/17/177655484/obama-uses-and-loses-political-capital-on-gun-control
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/obamas-political-capital-_1_b_3874241.html