Tag: federalist

Federalist No. 3

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Federalist No. 3 continues the discussion as to why a unified national government would be better than thirteen sovereign states or any number of weaker confederacies of the states. Once again the logic is sound, but it exposes how we have strayed from the government envisioned by the founders.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us. (emphasis mine)

Is there any person in this nation today that would argue that our federal government is efficient in any sense?

Nations and individuals around the world who would fight against us are unlikely to fear a bloated national government that would take the time to bail out a financial investment firm like Bear Stearns when they have not managed to secure our own borders (and I’m not talking about immigration as an economic and social issue here, I’m talking smuggling as a national security issue).

A federal government as confused and confusing as ours has become does not invite the most capable to manage it – instead it invites those most comfortable with the vagaries of the bloated system regardless of their capability to lead and/or manage it.

Such a daunting system does not encourage a society of people who dare to risk and dream, rather it encourages people to seek any kind of personal security that another person is willing to offer them, making them reliant upon and susceptible to those who would take advantage of insecurity.

The federal government has grown large enough that the individual states are no longer cooperating within the federal government, but competing to influence it. It’s time that we worked to return to a more efficient government and remind our citizens that:

. . . a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised . . .

Tags documents, federalist

General

Federalist No. 2

Federalist No. 2 has been a really interesting read, and I look forward to Nos. 3-5 which continue discussion of this issue of union vs separation. One of the things I find so fascinating is that I agree with the argument, that union is preferable to a looser confederation of the states such as regionalism, some of the premises are not as true in our nation today as they were in the 1780’s

. . . notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . .

Rather than a people that are united in the ways described above, more and more of our nation descends from ancestors that were not common to the Americans of the 18th century, there is a growing schizm in our language as immigrants – especially latino immigrants – cling to their native tongue rather than join in the conformance to a common language, while the majority of our citizens profess some Christian belief system that majority continues to shrink and we have expanding proportions of many belief systems even outside the Abrahamic traditions that are dominant in nearly all the world.

The lack of unity in these things is not nearly as worrisome as the recitation of what naturally happened after the First Continental Congress convened and made recommendations to the various states:

. . .the memorable Congress of 1774 . . . recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress.

This degradation of officers of government from being servants of the people to beginning to serve their own interests was noticed within a few years. How ready are we for a cleansing when there has been over two centuries for such attitudes and actions to become ingrained in the psyche of our officers of government.

Before our nation was founded, the American people were confronted with politicians advocating division:

. . . politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous (that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united), and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

Today we have no such politicians professing that division is preferable to unity, but we have two very powerful parties that encourage us to take sides in a war against our fellow Americans. They have in common the trait of offering an us-against-them mentality to all who would enter their respective parties.

Is unity preferable to division among the people? Yes, but it need not be a union of universally held beliefs and perspectives. What we really need is a union of universally applied civility and a common striving for the good of the nation and the defense of the constitution upon which our nation is based rather than slipping to the baser instinct to pursue personal gain in the public arena and victory at all costs through the politics of division.

Tags documents, federalist, parties

General

Federalist No. 1

Starting on my goal to read the federalist papers and glean a greater understanding of the logic of the founders, today I tackled Federalist No. 1 – the introduction. I like the way that the topic is opened with the admission that noble intent may lead to the wrong side of a great question just as base intent may lead to the right side of the same question and we must therefore look to the truth, and not merely the intent of those who make the argument.

I also enjoyed the predictions of how the public discussion would play out – it sounded very familiar:

. . . we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

I also really liked that despite the goal to lead people to the truth so that they could make up their own mind the bias of the author is freely given:

Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it (the constitution). I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. (emphasis added)

It seems to me a mark of a strong character (and probably a strong position as well) that an author would openly admit their bias on the subject of their writing so that it can be openly challenged. It reminds me of one of my favorite quips if someone says I’m biased about my wife being pretty or my children being smart:

Just because I’m biased does not mean I’m wrong.

Tags documents, federalist, ideal