From the Founders’ Desk
Why Franklin Distrusted Concentrated Power
Benjamin Franklin’s distrust of concentrated power did not emerge from theory alone. It emerged from observation.
Long before independence, Franklin watched colonial governors exercise authority with little accountability to the people they governed. He observed how royal officials could become insulated from the consequences of their decisions. He witnessed how wealth, office, and influence often gathered in the same hands, creating systems that served those already privileged while leaving ordinary citizens with little recourse.
These experiences taught Franklin a lesson that would remain with him throughout his life:
Power is rarely the problem.
Unaccountable power is.
This distinction is important. Franklin did not believe government itself was the enemy. He spent much of his life creating institutions and improving communities. He founded libraries, civic associations, fire companies, and educational organizations. He understood that collective action could accomplish things individuals could not.
What concerned him was the tendency of power to accumulate and then protect itself.
A king might do this.
A legislature might do this.
A wealthy merchant might do this.
Even a popular leader might do this.
Franklin’s suspicion was not directed toward particular people. It was directed toward a recurring feature of human nature: the temptation to place personal interest above public responsibility.
This belief influenced the structure of the republic that emerged after independence. Authority was divided. Offices were limited. Elections were frequent. Different institutions were given the ability to restrain one another. These arrangements were not signs of distrust in government. They were signs of realism about human beings.
The founders understood that virtue alone could not sustain liberty. Systems were necessary because even good people are imperfect, and eventually less virtuous people would inherit positions of authority.
The question Franklin might place before us today is not whether power is held by people we currently trust.
The question is whether the safeguards remain strong enough when it is eventually held by people we do not.
Because history suggests that every generation believes it can identify the right person to wield extraordinary power.
History is far less convincing that future generations will be equally fortunate.
The Prudence Question
If liberty depends upon limiting power, what safeguards remain when citizens stop paying attention?
Letter's From Prudence 