o Iraq.) This is not an action of a weak or fragmented political system. In the 1960s, when the national government chose to overturn long-standing racial laws in the Southern states, these laws were duly eliminated. This too was not an action of a weak or fragmented system.
Turning to the historical origins of the American system, we may consider the Federalist. These documents are an exceptional resource, an extended discourse on the conception and objectives of the American Constitution, written by its principal drafters. It is clear from the Federalists that the intent of the Constitution's designers were in fact intent on establishing a strong central power. This was in marked contrast to the previous Articles of Confederation, which established a truly weak and fragmented system, and which proved so defective that they were scrapped less than two decades after they were enacted.
It is true that the framers of the Constitution did their work in the face of wide public opposition to strong central government -- the Federalist papers were written precisely to address this opposition. However, the Federalist does not bury its objectives. Federalist Numbers 10, 17 and 18, for example, are clear in asserting that central government is more trustworthy than local government. Small republics, these essays argue, are always at risk of faction -- of powerful local interest groups or individuals. Large republics, such as the federal government was intended to be, are seen as less subject to this risk, due to the sheer range of interests at play within them. Although not explicitly stated, there is also the implication that a large political entity more readily develops its own institutional perspective and force. As Garry Wills has pointed out in A Necessary Evil, the framers of the Constitution were designing a strong government, not a weak one.
There is no direct evidence in the Federalist that the authors had ever...