212
PARTISAN REVIEW
Constitution was possible only by avoiding conflict on-and agreeing not
to resolve-the wrenching issue of slavery. That original consensus explod–
ed in the 1850s, and in the ensuing Civil War, far more people died than
in the Terror in France. The sister revolutions together teach the lesson
that the cost of fleeing peaceful political conflict may be higher than that
of meeting it head on.
Is there a role for unity and unanimity in a democracy? Yes. Richard
HofStadter explains that in a democracy there must be a "constitutional
consensus" that binds both government and opposition, that is, a shared
understanding that opposition is directed against a certain complex of
policies, not against the legitimacy of the constitutional regime itself. In
other words, the people must unanimously agree to disagree-according
to the same rules. "There is only one thing about which there should be
unanimous agreement," writes the political scientist Pierre Rosanvallon,
"the recognition of the fact that a majority and an opposition that respect
each other must confront each other and alternately hold power. This is
the only consensus that is necessary, the democratic consensus."
Whereas revolutionaries in France outlawed opposition and prevented
the evolution of political parties in the name of unity, the American
Founders realized that social solidarity and the expression of opposition are
not necessarily antithetical. Societies do not have to choose-as the French
erroneously believed-between cohesion and ideological diversi ty.
Indeed, the two are interdependent. The Jeffersonian model of rival parties
produced enormous popular participation in political debate, thus creating
a vital, inclusive polity and a dynamic, national political
community.
Indeed,
Jefferson had warned that the greatest threat to freedom and democracy
comes from the passivity of citizens. Liberty is lost when citizens withdraw
from the public arena.
The
stability
of a democratic government, writes the political theorist
Julien Freund, comes from the
instability
of competing interests and opin–
ions. Conflict is and should be a permanent feature of democratic politics;
it is not something to be transcended or avoided. If Sieyes and Robespierre
offer a cautionary lesson, it is that the politics of unity, concord, and con–
sensus are essentially repressive and anti-democratic. If Madison and
Jefferson bear a message for us today, it is that significant social progress and
lasting change emerge from the creative tension of adversarial politics.
The founders designed the American political system for conflict. We
have integrated conflict into our institutions; we have normalized it and
ritualized it; we have created rules and procedures for resolving it. And not
only has the American system thrived on conflict, it has also been remark–
ably able to weather its shocks and jolts. Indeed, only two democracies, the
