Thanks in part to our current contentious, partisan political climate, there have been calls for modifying or replacing the Constitution approved in 1787 at a convention in Philadelphia and ratified by all 13 states three years later.
There are big cultural and environmental similarities and differences between the constitutional debates of 1787 and the modern political debates of 2025. Unless compromise takes place, those differences might make any substantive changes to our ruling document, or the creation of a new one to replace it, nearly impossible in today’s world.
In 1787, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and interstate conflicts sparked a desire to forge a new, stronger federal system. The framers of the Constitution knew their final document would not be perfect and would contain compromises they personally disliked. They accepted these imperfect compromises as necessary to secure a more perfect union.
Similarly, political polarization and gridlock in the early stages of the 21st century are leading to calls for bipartisan solutions to prevent further government dysfunction. Today, for political compromise to work, all sides must be willing to accept solutions that are not ideal from their perspective but are necessary for the greater good.
During the 1787 convention, the central conflict was between large and small states over representation in Congress. In 2025, political exchange of ideas is largely defined by the intense and partisan division between the Democratic and Republican parties. Like the large vs. small state conflict, these parties often have vastly different visions for the country’s future, making compromise difficult.
In 1787, divisions over large vs. small state size and the divide over the role of slavery between Northern and Southern states shaped key compromises on taxation and representation. In 2025, the divisions are often ideological, cultural and focused on specific, highly charged issues. A deep partisan divide exists between urban and rural areas and along cultural and ideological lines.
The 1787 Great Compromise was an agreement that traded proportional representation in one house of Congress for equal representation in the other. Such deals, where different issues are linked to find a broader solution, are a classic negotiating tactic that could still be relevant today.
The 1787 convention was an unprecedented, secret meeting of elites assembled to entirely replace the existing, ineffective government with a new, stronger federal structure. The closed-door sessions allowed arelatively small, focused group of 55, mostly wealthy, male delegates representing their states to deliberate and negotiate away from the direct pressures of public opinion. Secrecy was crucial for fostering an environment of honest compromise and allowing delegates to change their minds. They knew and respected each other and were the key decision-makers. Private debates encouraged compromise.
Today, 24/7 social media news cycles and social media add great public pressure to political decision-making. There is constant scrutiny from the media, voters and special interests, including lobbyists. Such visibility can make it harder for politicians to negotiate in good faith because any concession can be immediately seized upon and weaponized by opponents.
Discussions in 1787 were fundamental, covering the structure of government, division of powers and representation. Compromises in 2025 are typically limited in scope and involve amending existing laws, not reinventing the entire governmental structure.
Delegates in 1787 were motivated by a national crisis under the weak Articles of Confederation, which threatened the country’s economic and political stability. The urgency to compromise today varies, often driven by impending deadlines, such as budget cuts or national debt concerns. The 1787 Convention occurred over a focused, intensive period of about four months. Today, negotiations are ongoing, with a single compromise sometimes taking years to reach.
In 1787, entrenched political parties as they are known today did not exist making bipartisan agreement nearly impossible. Factions formed around specific issues, such as the strong central government Federalists and stronger state government Anti-Federalists. Today, intense partisan loyalty, often enforced by party leaders, makes bipartisan consensus-building increasingly difficult.
In 1787, compromises resulted in foundational changes to the national framework, such as establishing the bicameral legislature. The Three-Fifths Compromise agreed that three-fifths of the enslaved population would be counted for both congressional representation and taxation. Through the Commerce Compromise, Congress gained the power to regulate interstate commerce and to tax imports, but it was prohibited from banning the importation of slaves until 1808. The Electoral College system was established where electors chosen by the states would elect the president. Today compromises typically involve legislative changes and budgetary agreements, not constitutional reform. Changing the Constitution through the formal amendment process is an extremely rare and difficult process.
The voting population of 1787 was limited almost exclusively to white male property owners. This more homogeneous electorate limited the range of interests and identities requiring reconciliation. Today a much broader segment of the population is eligible to vote. As a result, there are many more competing interests.
Here is the modern challenge. As individuals and a nation, for the common good, how should we react to the current set of circumstances and problems requiring a solution? Is compromise possible? Would it be possible to create the Constitution today?
This is a contributed opinion column. Robert Ockenfuss is a retired Pennridge Middle School teacher and coach. The views expressed in this piece are those of its individual author, and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of this publication. Do you have a perspective to share? Learn more about how we handle guest opinion submissions at themorningcall.com/opinions.
