Recently, I've been plowing through The Federalist Papers. It's been a few years since I've cracked them, and now I see why folks only assign #s 10, 51, and a handful of the other famous ones. They tend to be pretty repetitive, and addressed to very specific (and sometimes, very off-base) concerns of the Anti-Federalists.
In terms of the content, the Founders continue to impress me with the dangerous line they walk between idealism and realism. They obviously had a great deal of faith in human beings as rational entities with a capacity for good. On the other hand, they were fully aware of the self-interested and short-sighted aspects of the human condition as well. The Constitution represents a bold attempt to navigate those murky waters.
It's a thrilling moment in history, and one of my favorites of the Federalist Papers is #41 where Madison bluntly states that it is possible that the newly empowered federal government might do bad things. Despite that risk, Madison argues that to continue with the current weak Articles is essentially certain destruction, and that more good can come out of taking the risk of a stronger federal state than not. There is a lot of *courage* in what Madison is saying - a willingness to trust in the capacity of citizens, the quality of leaders, and the skill of the Founders themselves to design a quality political system. This is a brave, bold, but dangerous endeavor - and you can feel them sweating bullets. I love it.
But, the Federalists also frustrate me. My biggest problem is that, well, there is a real lack of "first principles." I'm not sure if that's quite the right term or not, but it seems to fit. In other words, I'm troubled by the lack of clearly stated values - there is no real foundation here present, not in any detail. There is not a discussion of the ends of human existence, the goals of governments, or even a close analysis of human nature. Sure, they allude to some organizing ideals. In #39, Madison argues that the goal of the state is "republicanism" (understood as some type of popular sovereignty) and "federalism" (shared powers with local governments). There are later allusions to notions of the common good and justice. But these are not spelled out in any detail. It's not clear what they mean, what these values look like in action, or how we might discern their presence or absence.
Maybe such an exercise wasn't necessary. After all, the Federalist papers are *political* documents more than they are philosophical tracts. Further, it is possible that there was broad agreement on what values the state should be striving to fulfill. [I sort of doubt that, as Madison actually seems to cheat on what a "republic" is in #10. He posits it is representative government. That is just way wrong. So, either he didn't know or he fudged, and if he's fudging, I'm going to intuit there was some conflict over what "republicanism" meant at the time.]
But, even as practical documents that defend a system, rather than an ideal, first principles would be useful. There is, concurrently still, a lot of conflict over what was intended by the Founders, what should the scope of government be, etc. You cannot help but wonder if we were to have some sort of a *guideline* - an ontological starting point - that these debates would be easier.
Of course, there are some clues to the basic philosophical foundations of the United States. The Founders were clearly liberals, influenced by John Locke. They were also republicans, in the vein of Montesquieu. The Romans, particularly as viewed by Polybius and Livy, are certainly present. Of course, the Founders were Christians. They were also firm believers in the Enlightenment and human rationality. While none of these strains of thought are exactly at odds, they all also do not just gel inherently, I would argue. It would be nice to know how the Founders synthesized all these pieces into the "spirit" of the nation.
Look at some of their influences: Plato would argue that a government shoud pursue justice, via the proper weighing of reason, appetites, and spirit. Aristotle would suggest that the state should purse happiness, best done through moderation and inclusion of everyone in the polity. Locke would talk about propery, and our ownership of our own "bodies." J.S. Mill argues that utility is the aim of the state, and this is achieved (in part) through freedom, limiting behavior or speech only when it threatened others. Kant argues that rationality is what matters, and we have to respect the rationality of others. Hegel sees us as interdependent, and reliant on the recognition of other rational subjects. There's a whole slew of first principles out there. In addition, we can see that a lot of the thinkers used by the Founders took radicallly different approaches to social theory. Yet, the Founders never seem to come to terms with what their collective take on these thinkers is.
Now, a first principle doesn't fix everything. Take Plato: he says we should balance reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason should rule. But what is the correct proportion? Are there times when spirit should rule? How do we determine reason itself? Or take Mill: he argues that free exchange of ideas gets you the most utility, by allowing good ideas for social organization to be hashed out. He relies, thus, on a kind of empirics. But, what if it turns out that I find a better way to produce more social good through a system of repression? Do we lose liberty then? [This is why I prefer inalienable rights, a la Kant or Hegel myself. I know that Mill tries to get there via human fallibility. I'm just saying that *technically* if I could prove that I was getting more pleasure my way, he would have to give up his claim to rights.] So first principles are not perfect - but they would seem to give us more insight into what the state should be (and who *we* should be).
Frankly, I think it's all about Montesquieu. He was obviously a huge influence. To be fair, Montesquieu does say that laws should be in accordance with reason. Then he goes off and argues that different societies have different "spirits" and their laws should accord with what is, essentially, their "character." It seems to deny change, whether rational progression or just natural drifting (re: Polybius and the changing of political orders). First principles and the ends of the state seem really underplayed in Montesquieu. He does say that a constitutional republic is the best way to go - but he also doesn't do a great job of decrying despotism either.
On the flipside, I guess we could see the absence of a basic foundation as a good thing. It keeps the Constitution open as a document, so it is flexible. Which can be a good thing, as it allows it to adapt to new circumstances.
In this vein of adaptation, the federal system itself is a mixture of different forms, not inherently tied to one political tradition. What is particularly interesting is how the Founders rely on history - looking at Germany, Holland, England, Rome, and other republics and federations in building their new system. In fact, it sort of makes you wonder: with modern theories of politics, collective behavior, and human psychology combined with corresponding research techniques (such as ethnography and sophisticated statistics) - what kind of government would the Founders develop? Further, should we re-evaluate our system in light of this new information? Certainly, the very open-minded Founders might have wanted us to undertake such an experiment....
But of course, it comes back to that first principle - if the system is not working, we should change it. But how do we define "not working?" In a lot of ways, the system is built to not work (re: two years terms in the House ensure that every year is an election year or the year *before* an election year, a brake on drastic change). If we knew what the ends of human existence or the American social contract was .. if we had more developed definitions of ideas, rather than buzzwords like "justice" and "equality" and "republicanism" .... The system is good. But I think, with more insight, it could be *better.*
In terms of the content, the Founders continue to impress me with the dangerous line they walk between idealism and realism. They obviously had a great deal of faith in human beings as rational entities with a capacity for good. On the other hand, they were fully aware of the self-interested and short-sighted aspects of the human condition as well. The Constitution represents a bold attempt to navigate those murky waters.
It's a thrilling moment in history, and one of my favorites of the Federalist Papers is #41 where Madison bluntly states that it is possible that the newly empowered federal government might do bad things. Despite that risk, Madison argues that to continue with the current weak Articles is essentially certain destruction, and that more good can come out of taking the risk of a stronger federal state than not. There is a lot of *courage* in what Madison is saying - a willingness to trust in the capacity of citizens, the quality of leaders, and the skill of the Founders themselves to design a quality political system. This is a brave, bold, but dangerous endeavor - and you can feel them sweating bullets. I love it.
But, the Federalists also frustrate me. My biggest problem is that, well, there is a real lack of "first principles." I'm not sure if that's quite the right term or not, but it seems to fit. In other words, I'm troubled by the lack of clearly stated values - there is no real foundation here present, not in any detail. There is not a discussion of the ends of human existence, the goals of governments, or even a close analysis of human nature. Sure, they allude to some organizing ideals. In #39, Madison argues that the goal of the state is "republicanism" (understood as some type of popular sovereignty) and "federalism" (shared powers with local governments). There are later allusions to notions of the common good and justice. But these are not spelled out in any detail. It's not clear what they mean, what these values look like in action, or how we might discern their presence or absence.
Maybe such an exercise wasn't necessary. After all, the Federalist papers are *political* documents more than they are philosophical tracts. Further, it is possible that there was broad agreement on what values the state should be striving to fulfill. [I sort of doubt that, as Madison actually seems to cheat on what a "republic" is in #10. He posits it is representative government. That is just way wrong. So, either he didn't know or he fudged, and if he's fudging, I'm going to intuit there was some conflict over what "republicanism" meant at the time.]
But, even as practical documents that defend a system, rather than an ideal, first principles would be useful. There is, concurrently still, a lot of conflict over what was intended by the Founders, what should the scope of government be, etc. You cannot help but wonder if we were to have some sort of a *guideline* - an ontological starting point - that these debates would be easier.
Of course, there are some clues to the basic philosophical foundations of the United States. The Founders were clearly liberals, influenced by John Locke. They were also republicans, in the vein of Montesquieu. The Romans, particularly as viewed by Polybius and Livy, are certainly present. Of course, the Founders were Christians. They were also firm believers in the Enlightenment and human rationality. While none of these strains of thought are exactly at odds, they all also do not just gel inherently, I would argue. It would be nice to know how the Founders synthesized all these pieces into the "spirit" of the nation.
Look at some of their influences: Plato would argue that a government shoud pursue justice, via the proper weighing of reason, appetites, and spirit. Aristotle would suggest that the state should purse happiness, best done through moderation and inclusion of everyone in the polity. Locke would talk about propery, and our ownership of our own "bodies." J.S. Mill argues that utility is the aim of the state, and this is achieved (in part) through freedom, limiting behavior or speech only when it threatened others. Kant argues that rationality is what matters, and we have to respect the rationality of others. Hegel sees us as interdependent, and reliant on the recognition of other rational subjects. There's a whole slew of first principles out there. In addition, we can see that a lot of the thinkers used by the Founders took radicallly different approaches to social theory. Yet, the Founders never seem to come to terms with what their collective take on these thinkers is.
Now, a first principle doesn't fix everything. Take Plato: he says we should balance reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason should rule. But what is the correct proportion? Are there times when spirit should rule? How do we determine reason itself? Or take Mill: he argues that free exchange of ideas gets you the most utility, by allowing good ideas for social organization to be hashed out. He relies, thus, on a kind of empirics. But, what if it turns out that I find a better way to produce more social good through a system of repression? Do we lose liberty then? [This is why I prefer inalienable rights, a la Kant or Hegel myself. I know that Mill tries to get there via human fallibility. I'm just saying that *technically* if I could prove that I was getting more pleasure my way, he would have to give up his claim to rights.] So first principles are not perfect - but they would seem to give us more insight into what the state should be (and who *we* should be).
Frankly, I think it's all about Montesquieu. He was obviously a huge influence. To be fair, Montesquieu does say that laws should be in accordance with reason. Then he goes off and argues that different societies have different "spirits" and their laws should accord with what is, essentially, their "character." It seems to deny change, whether rational progression or just natural drifting (re: Polybius and the changing of political orders). First principles and the ends of the state seem really underplayed in Montesquieu. He does say that a constitutional republic is the best way to go - but he also doesn't do a great job of decrying despotism either.
On the flipside, I guess we could see the absence of a basic foundation as a good thing. It keeps the Constitution open as a document, so it is flexible. Which can be a good thing, as it allows it to adapt to new circumstances.
In this vein of adaptation, the federal system itself is a mixture of different forms, not inherently tied to one political tradition. What is particularly interesting is how the Founders rely on history - looking at Germany, Holland, England, Rome, and other republics and federations in building their new system. In fact, it sort of makes you wonder: with modern theories of politics, collective behavior, and human psychology combined with corresponding research techniques (such as ethnography and sophisticated statistics) - what kind of government would the Founders develop? Further, should we re-evaluate our system in light of this new information? Certainly, the very open-minded Founders might have wanted us to undertake such an experiment....
But of course, it comes back to that first principle - if the system is not working, we should change it. But how do we define "not working?" In a lot of ways, the system is built to not work (re: two years terms in the House ensure that every year is an election year or the year *before* an election year, a brake on drastic change). If we knew what the ends of human existence or the American social contract was .. if we had more developed definitions of ideas, rather than buzzwords like "justice" and "equality" and "republicanism" .... The system is good. But I think, with more insight, it could be *better.*
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
[Edited on Jul 22, 2005 8:01PM]