|
Key insights from
The Federalist Papers
By
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay
|
|
|
What you’ll learn
The Declaration of Independence and a victorious revolution
didn’t seamlessly resolve the new nation’s issues. The country had no army,
no power to tax, no law-making body that all states respected, and no
direction or set of interests that united them. In short, they were the
States of America, but not the United States of America. After the
Constitutional Convention, three delegates (Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay) made it their mission to convince delegates to form
a Union. They argued in a series of essays published between 1787 and 1788
that, if the nation hoped to survive, it must ratify the proposed
Constitution.
Read on for key insights from The Federalist Papers.
|
|
1. For the sake of
the common good, decisions should follow from evidence rather than emotions
or personal interest.
Our fledgling nation, a small empire which, in many ways is
the most interesting in the world, finds itself at a crossroads. One path
forward is a Constitution that would meaningfully unite all the states,
which are currently independent sovereignties in a loosely-affiliated
confederacy. There are clear insufficiencies in the current government, and
it is vital we find a way to rectify these insufficiencies.
Adopting a Constitution is the best choice for those who
value their dignity, freedom, safety, and happiness. The reasons for the
Constitution will be laid out plainly.
What this discussion comes down to, in many ways, is whether
men are capable of governing themselves through mere reason and reflection,
or whether they need to be bound to some kind of constitution to ensure
cooperation.
It may be too much to hope that this time of decision remain
an unbiased affair. It’s likely that reputation, personal motives, and
sophistry will creep in to obscure an issue that is already very complex.
Still, it is unproductive to speculate about what those motives of others
might be. It’s important that fellow members of the Federal Convention that
recently met be charitable in their interpretations of the opposition. No
doubt there are members of the opposition who speak from innocent and even
noble intentions—even if they lead to honest mistakes in judgment.
Moreover, selfish motives are undoubtedly at play in the minds of some
proponents as well as opponents.
Let the delegates strive for humility and acknowledge that
there are numerous good and prudent men on both sides of the discussion.
Moderation and toleration are essential. As with religion, political
converts are never effectively won through fear or duress. Persecution has
a poor record of genuinely changing people’s minds.
|
|
2. One of the
biggest advantages to a Union is its ability to deal well with factions.
The people of America have formed a remarkable government,
one which deserves high praise. It’s taken some of the best aspects of
government systems ancient and contemporary. There is, however, much room
for improvement. Even citizens who are paragons of goodness and integrity
are frequently complaining of problems in the government, claiming that
it’s proven unreliable. Such unreliability is caused in large part by
squabbles between various factions.
Factions are not adjudicating on the basis of the common
good, liberty, or justice, but upon their group to gain enough strength to
strong arm others. These squabbles are consistently pushing aside the
common good for which government should work.
I know we all wish we could dismiss these claims and
complaints as groundless, but, unfortunately, it’s quite clear that there’s
some truth to them. We must deal with these factions springing up which so
strongly rebuff liberty, and ignoring the interests of other citizens or
even whole communities.
There are a few methods to deal with these factions. One
path is to get rid of the causes of the factions. This could be
accomplished by eliminating the liberty that allows factions to emerge in
the first place. But this would be like arguing that we should eliminate
air because of the possibility of fires. Liberty is the lifeblood of
politics. Without it, we have no politics worth discussing.
Another option for removing the causes of factions would be
attempting to fashion the same opinion and interests in the minds of all.
This is out of the question, given the diversity of opinions and needs, and
the importance our nation has placed on defending freedom of conscience and
protecting each citizen’s right to form his own opinion.
So we can’t remove the conditions that give rise to
factions. That a substantial minority or even a majority would organize
around a particular interest or passion is inevitable. We must, then,
create safeguards that will effectively manage factions as they arise.
When a faction is a minority, democracy works fine because
it can put down the nefarious faction by a vote. But when a faction gains a
majority, moral goodness and religious conviction alone are inadequate to
quell it. This is why a pure democracy, in which a society is small enough
to meet and govern its own affairs in person, is insufficient. Nothing
could persuade a faction that’s established a majority to relent from
sacrificing the smaller party. This is why pure democracies have always
been tumultuous and short-lived, and come to sudden, violent ends.
It’s also why the Constitution proposed here is a
republic—rather than a pure democracy. A republic refers to a government
that rules by representation. There should ideally be a large body of
representatives to defend against the chances of a handful forming a cabal.
The representative model also increases the odds that the
more vicious or sinister candidates are weeded out. With a large republic
representing a large variety of groups and interests, it is unlikely that
any one group will consistently rise to the top. The fewer the number of
parties and the smaller the republic, the greater the odds of oppression.
|
|
3. Without a
national government to unite the states, the new nation will likely
dissolve into anarchy.
A Union is vital for establishing our political safety and
lasting happiness. Without a Union to which we are constitutionally bound,
we are heading toward anarchy. The pathetic national government we
currently have is not enough to safeguard the rights of the people.
We have no army, no treasury, no law-making body that all
states respect, no sense of unified interests. We have a loosely associated
league of states, and it cannot pursue any common course of action
seriously. Some vital territories are currently in the possession of
foreign powers. For instance, we have no access to the Mississippi River
because of the Spaniards.
We are limited in our means of conducting commerce. We are
losing respectability, which makes us look weak and exploitable to other
nations. This is a problem because we have no army with which to defend
ourselves, nor even a unified sense of our interests needed to parley with
them.
Why is a nation so richly endowed with advantages
experiencing such pandemonium and poverty right now? How did we get here?
Our nation finds itself at the edge of a cliff because it has accepted the
counsel that a Union is a dangerous idea. It’s not enough that we’ve been
brought to the precipice, but those who reject the Constitution insist on
pushing us over the edge.
Those opposed to the Constitution would whole-heartedly
agree that our national government is impotent, but they continue to resist
any efforts to invigorate it. They desire ideals that can’t possibly
coexist: a stronger national government that won’t diminish state power;
and a sovereign Union that will also allow unfettered autonomy for the
states that comprise that Union.
It’s astounding how erratic we humans can be, that even
under the growing weight of bad experiences with the current form of
government, some still refuse a Constitution.
Our experience has clearly disproven people’s cherished
belief that states would naturally and happily pursue national interests
and comply with the Union. This is a naïve view of human nature. The reason
we need government in the first place is that people don’t naturally live
in accordance with virtue and reason. We need government to protect the
rights of citizens from destructive excesses of human passion.
Without a law-making apparatus that the states take
seriously, and some kind of body that can enforce the law and punish those
who break it, states will naturally prioritize their own interests. People
don’t like being told what to do. When they have power, they resist others
interfering with it. Some superintending body comprised of elected citizens
to create a representative council is of utmost importance.
Why cling to a worn out principle that’s so demonstrably
flawed? We need some kind of alliance between the states beyond mere lip service.
It’s dangerous for the country to continue in this way.
Without a Constitution that meaningfully unifies the states, friendships
and hostilities between states will rise and fall according to whims and
circumstances. Without a higher commitment to the prosperity of the nation
more generally, we will be little more than a smattering of fractious
states. This situation leaves us ripe for exploitation by foreign powers.
Without a national body that carries some clout and provides
a unifying vision and without national administrations, nothing will be
accomplished and we will continue to be vulnerable to in-fighting that
other nations can take advantage of.
|
|
|
|
4. A republic is
the only form of government worthy of the American people.
The form of government for the people of America must be a
republic. No other system will do. It’s the only system that honors the
brilliance of the American people, the essential convictions that animated
the revolution, and the belief held deeply by so many of the citizens that
people are capable of self-government.
Now, when we speak of a republican form of government, we
must define our terms and principles as our starting place rather than
current practice. For England, Holland, Poland, and a number of other
nations describe their governmental systems as “republic,” and in doing so
do great injury to the form of government we are proposing.
By “republic,” we refer to a government that has power
because the people have given it that power, directly or indirectly.
Moreover, the government is comprised of officials whom the citizenry
elect. These elected officials represent the people, and then only for
specified periods of time, and then only if their conduct is proper.
It is critical that the government be comprised of elected
citizens who represent society more generally—not a large proportion of a
privileged class who can form a clique of elite nobles. This is why there
will be absolutely no titles of nobility given to politicians at a state or
federal level, however meritorious their efforts.
The president is not exempt from impeachment if his
misbehavior merits it. A judge enjoys a longer tenure than the president or
a legislator, but his station also depends upon his good behavior. What
better form of government is there, than one in which even the most
powerful government officials can be deposed for misbehavior, and no one
can claim privilege of nobility?
|
|
5. A system of
checks and balances harnesses humans’ natural tendency to hold onto power,
in a way that protects citizens from tyranny.
The election of officials to the national government by the
people is a way to ensure that the interests of the people are represented.
The government is comprised of the people and must exercise its duties on
behalf of the people. The division of power is another safeguard for our
liberties.
The Constitution lays out a number of solutions to the
problems power mongering could present. It’s not a solution that hopes
those in government will be on their best behavior, but considers greed
into the formulation of the national government.
The Constitution thus proposes that, given human nature and
our propensity to enjoy power overmuch and overstep boundaries, the
national government should be divided into several distinct branches, and,
in some cases, even subdivided. The executive, legislative, and judicial
arms of the government will each have distinct roles and exercise
decision-making power in their respective realms. Moreover, elected members
will have as little involvement as possible in the election of members from
other departments.
The best way to manage the power of the national government,
and resist the gradual accumulation of power in any one person or
department, is with checks and balances between the arms of government. The
system gives each branch constitutional grounds to push back against
encroachments that will very likely come from the other two branches.
The structure proposed takes selfish ambition and personal
motives of politicians for granted. Government is a sobering mirror of
human nature. If people were angels, we wouldn’t need government. But since
they are not, we need a system that makes those in power answerable to the
people and to others also in power.
In this way, not only is the government under the watchful
eye of vigilant citizenry, but the division and delegation of unique powers
to each department ensures that the government polices itself.
It’s vital, and at the same time difficult, to create a
government capable of controlling the people that is also obligated to
control itself. The Constitution being proposed lays down a framework for a
government that will do those very things.
|
|
|
This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the
busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio —
go premium and download the app today.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment