Opinion | The Founders Saw This Insane Political Moment Coming 237 Years Ago

If you’re feeling wrung out from the last dizzying weeks of political news, just imagine how the word “unprecedented” must be faring, dragged from its recliner for daily — sometimes hourly — workouts. It needn’t have been.

To understand how we got here, it’s helpful to return to another sweltering summer, a summer when everything actually was without precedent. The 55 men who assembled in Philadelphia 237 years ago to hammer out an American Constitution differed on a great many things. Among the rare points on which most agreed was that the American people could not be trusted to choose a president for themselves. They were easily misled, too often “the dupes of pretend patriots.” The size of the country alone made an informed electorate impossible, given the press, the postal service, and the miserable infrastructure.

Slavery (barely discussed) and the mechanics of representation (much discussed) proved vexing. But few questions so confounded the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention as those pertaining to the American presidency. The Articles of Confederation, which had held the colonies together through the Revolution, had made no provision for a chief executive. How should the president be selected and how long should he serve? By what mechanism could he be removed? Should he report to the legislature? Should Congress be empowered to impeach him? What qualified as an impeachable offense?

No subject proved more divisive or elicited such a staggering array of options. It befuddled the delegates in June. They wrangled with it still in September.

King George III loomed large over the proceedings; a single executive seemed a high-risk proposition. Several Southerners favored a three-person executive, a committee that would represent each region of the fledgling Republic. From the start there was concern that rural voices would be drowned out. Some delegates worried that multiple officeholders would dilute the power of the presidency. Others feared the authority of an American president might come even to exceed that of the king. Would a president not do all in his power to retain his hold on the office? What if he committed crimes? “Will not the immense difference between being master of everything, and being ignominiously tried and punished” move him to cling to the office, Patrick Henry would later ask. (He had refused to attend the convention because, he claimed, he “smelt a rat.”)

The doctrine of separation of powers asserted itself only slowly. It dogged the delegates as they argued back and forth, attempting to deliver an American presidency that was both insulated from and accountable to Congress. The initial idea was for Congress to elect the chief executive, an idea that met with early, unanimous agreement. The more it was discussed, the muddier the matter grew. Perhaps state legislatures should do the electing? One term seemed sufficient in June but wrongheaded by July. It had not yet occurred to the delegates that the president would sit at the head of a political party. In the original conception he was to transcend factions, like a British sovereign.