2013 APRIL
16 FEDERALIST PAPERS # 10
As a preface
to this piece I’m going to quote my own words which you’ll see again at the
end:
‘We the People of the United States’: The very phrase itself captures the essence,
the core, of our nation. We are PLURAL; we are diverse INDIVIDUALS – we
are ALSO UNITED.
Push doesn’t come to shove very often but we’ve seen it in
our lives. Let’s not forget that. Diverse
does not mean divided.
Do NOT tell me that this nation is
not UNITED.
Okay, onward
we go.
Because I’m
pretty sure that the Federalist Papers are in the public domain, I want to copy
and paste some sections here rather than try to paraphrase for you. If I get in trouble and wind up in jail at least I'll have three squares and a roof.
Remember
that Hamilton is explaining the Constitution to the people who will have to
vote on whether to accept it as their form of government, or reject it. He wants them to understand it. The Articles of Confederation under which
they had been functioning just wasn’t cutting the mustard any more and an
elected Assembly had convened to come up with something new and different. Each State had, still has, its own
constitution, too. Those were not what
this was all about.
These are
the words of Alexander Hamilton, addressed to the People of the State of New
York, in 1787:
‘Complaints
are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally
the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty,
that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in
the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided,
not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by
the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously
we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known
facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be
found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses
under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our
governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not
alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that
prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for
private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These
must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with
which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.’
He’s talking
about factions, special interest groups, political ambition, etc.
‘By
a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority
or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse
of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the
permanent and aggregate interests of the community.’
I reckon
that’s a pretty good definition. He goes
on to say:
‘There
are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its
causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There
are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying
the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every
citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.’
He then goes
to eliminate the option of removing the causes of factions : in the first place, destroying liberty is NOT
AN OPTION; in the second place, people
are people - they have their own ideas and the freedom to promote them, and it
ain’t never gonna happen that everyone will all be on the same page at the same
time.
He got a
little long-winded on that issue so I give you the short version.
Onward we
go. Here again is Hamilton:
‘The
inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be
removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its
EFFECTS.
If
a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the
republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister
views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the
society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms
of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of
popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling
passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To
secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a
faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular
government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government
can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be
recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By
what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the
existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must
be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must
be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and
carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity
be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives
can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the
injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to
the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes
needful.’
Here he goes
into the differences between pure democracy and a federal plan.
I think he’s
pointing out a couple of things:
1) A pure democracy, even when the group is
small, is still vulnerable to the machinations of ‘factions’. For example, even when such a small group as
a high school class has to vote on something, individuals within that class can
lobby or convince a majority to go along with them to, for example, spend the
entire class budget on an entirely inappropriate purchase. In a pure democracy, the majority truly does
rule, even if the actual leaders of that majority might be few. By contrast a federal government is more apt
to provide a more balanced representation of the constituency as a whole. The different factions have their say, but
it’s a more EQUAL say; small factions can be just as well-represented as large
ones. In other words, in the federal
government, small states have equal representation in the Senate as the big
ones. The fact that some states are more
populous than others is where the House comes in. More population equals more
Representatives. The whole thing is that
‘We the People of the United States’ ELECT these people to represent US – and
that goes for both the state and federal levels.
2) A pure democracy might work okay for
a smallish population and geographical area although even then it’s susceptible
to the manipulations of ‘factions’; on the other hand
a federal form of government lends itself more readily to representing both
a growing population and a growing geography.
The geography can expand; the population can expand – the form of
government stays stable, adding representation as the expansions happen.
Keep in mind
that this was 1787/88, there were thirteen states, and the population stood at
about three million people. The western
‘border’ was the Mississippi River and there were territories already waiting
to become states, or parts of confederacies, or SOMETHING, depending on what
those thirteen states decided to do about adopting (or not) the
Constitution.
He goes on
to discuss the pros and cons of small versus extensive.
Opponents to
the Constitution wanted a number of smaller confederacies, not one united federal
government by which all States are bound.
Basically he
makes the point that the larger the pool to draw from, the more likely true
representation will happen. Hence his
recommendation for a union - a federal
form of government rather than a bunch of smaller individual independent pools.
He gives us
a warning:
‘…
on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them
through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best
discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of
justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial
considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public
voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant
to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for
the purpose. On the other
hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices,
or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first
obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.’
His point
seems to be that the more people a person has to convince, the less likely
‘factious tempers’ are to succeed. There
will be others to stand against them to give the constituency a wider choice.
He also
points out that:
‘It
must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on
both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too
much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little
acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by
reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too
little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal
Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and
aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to
the State legislatures.’
And finally,
he emphasizes another benefit of preserving the Union:
‘The
influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular
States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the
other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a
part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire
face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that
source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal
division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be
less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of
it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a
particular county or district, than an entire State.
In
the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican
remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to
the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our
zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS.’
The point being, I think, that we are protected by our very DIVERSITY from any single faction
becoming powerful enough to overwhelm the whole. Paradoxically (a paradox is when two things
are seemingly totally incompatible yet in reality fit together like a hand and
glove), the UNITY of the diverse
factions protects us not only from outsiders but from each other if necessary.
Take it down to the smallest common denominator: family units.
WE can whine and criticize each other, but an outsider saying the same
things will find he is facing a united front.
Take it up one more step:
communities. WE can condemn our
football coach all we want but if you’re an outsider you’d best keep your yap
shut or the locals will run you out of town.
Extrapolate from there to state and federal levels and you’ll know
exactly what I mean.
‘We the People of the United States’: The very phrase itself captures the essence,
the core, of our nation. We are PLURAL, we are diverse INDIVIDUALS – we
are ALSO UNITED.
Push doesn’t come to shove very often but we’ve seen it in
our lives. Let’s not forget that. Diverse
does not mean divided. That’s the
paradox.
Note: All three of the writers of these papers -
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – have been ‘named’
PUBLIUS.
Note: Underlines and highlights are mine.
#
Ha. Now I get to patter a bit about my own
reactions to all of the above.
In regard to
the diversity which we (my own self included) tend to view as antagonistic here’s a
thought for you:
Within my
family we are a diverse group. Among us
are a variety of strengths. Once I drew
a circle with my mother, my sisters, and myself. To each I assigned the strength I most
associated with that individual. I do
not have to BE all of them because each is available to me through the
others. We don’t have to all get along
perfectly all the time; dissent is normal.
But if push ever came to shove, guess what. Whoever’s doing the shoving would probably be
sorry. And that’s not even counting the
men.
Also within
my own family, some of us have firearms while others do not. If one of us was about to be mauled or killed
by a wolf or mountain lion and had no weapon, do you really think an armed
family member would stand there and say, ‘See?
I TOLD you so! Too bad so sad, I
guess you’re a goner.’? They would shoot
the bloody beast, if only because it would likely come after them once it had
taken care of the unarmed person - but more likely their first thought would be
to protect the other person.
South Dakota
might get irritated with North Dakota when we ease our flooding by letting the
Missouri River past our gates, but I’d be willing to bet that if North Dakota
was ever under attack, South Dakota would be running to our aid. We take that for granted.
How many
times in the recent past have natural disasters hit one state or another? Have ANY of them been left high and dry by
the others? NO. And you notice that it doesn’t matter if the
state happens to be Red or Blue or Green or Yellow or Purple or Orange.
Personal
case in point: Some years ago I was in
Pennsylvania when the Red River of the North flooded. It was national news. On my race home through all of those
intervening states I did not get pulled over once by any of their officials
although I saw a number of them. I can
only guess at why they let me pass through their territory without slowing me
down any. My guess is that the license
plates on my vehicle told them where I was going and why I was in such a hurry
to get there. And they didn’t stop me
although I reckon they probably should have.
Despite my
rush I noticed things. Every time I had
to stop for gas others would let me go first once they saw my plates. Without exception they expressed their care
and concern and support and hurried me on my way.
In EVERY
state I saw stations set up for the collection of relief items to be sent to
the flood victims. Not a one of them sat
empty or idle.
Nobody
asked, ‘Are they Republicans or Democrats or Baptists or Catholics or pro-life
or pro-choice?’
That’s one
incident among many.
You ALL know
how ‘We the People of the United States’ react to emergencies.
Factions DO
exist. SO WHAT? We can, have, and
DO set it aside in the face of a larger issue.
Do NOT tell me that this nation is
not UNITED.
No comments:
Post a Comment