The past few months, these political
articles have used the Federalist Papers to examine Neil
Gorsuch's Originalism and compared the parties of the
original Constitutional questions with their claimants: the
Republicans and Democrats. Though these issues are over two hundred
years old, hopefully one can recognize their relevance today, for as
long as the United States stands among the nations of the earth, its
citizens will repeat these debates. This is the second to last
article regarding the Federalist Papers, with a final resolution next
week.
Today's topic encompasses and expands
the recent articles, religion,
taxation,
and national defense. In these prior two accounts, the
Federalist and Anti-Federalist debated the specific purposes of a
national government, and the tools to ensure its success. Central to
the debate between these two factions was the question of supremacy.
Should the states or the national government rule supreme? The
failures of the Articles of Confederation led to two opposing
opinions. The Anti-Federalists searched for a solution to empower the
States to solve the problems of instability, while the Federalists
sought to construct a singular force, to manage all those subservient
to it. With the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist
vision, the United States, became such a creation, ruling over the
states who composed it.
Alexander Hamilton envisioned this
outcome. In Federalist
27 he says “Various reasons have been suggested, in ...
these papers ... that the general government will be better
administered than the particular governments; ... that the extension
of the spheres of election will present a greater option … that
through the medium of the State legislatures ... that [the Senate]
will generally be composed with peculiar care and judgment; … that
they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and ...
out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors ... which, in smaller
societies, frequently contaminate the public councils … and
terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust.”
The general government will be
better administered than the particular governments. Hamilton's
words. In this example, the general government is the United States,
while the particular governments are the states. He presumes the
general government will be superior, because its members will be
collected from a nationwide society, with its elevated officials
chosen by their peers in the states. The preeminent statesmen will
be elected by their compatriots to serve at the national level. The
senators will be chosen by the elected officials in each state
government (until the 17th Amendment in 1913), and because
of the method of election, these men will be above petty biases.
Unfortunately, the history of the
United States exposes Hamilton's naivete, or his incredible ability
for self-deception. Throughout the history of the country, (and not
just the last decade) citizens have watched as the small-minded, the
prejudiced, the illiberal, and the provincial have held the highest
offices of the land, whether Representative, Senator, Supreme Court
Justice, or President. These regrettable results certainly aren't
confined to elections after 1788. Why did Hamilton believe the
Constitution would generate a different result? Because, since its
inception, the United States has succeeded compared its competition.
In spite of the argument's
deficiencies, Hamilton was correct to claim the United States would
be (and is) broader in belief than any singular state. The
narrow-mindedness of any particular state is balanced by a different
intolerance of another state. Hamilton claimed Senators would not be
tainted by faction, a half truth. Political parties are not
factions, but composed of many interested parties. An entire State
in 1800 may have been devoted to a singular faction, yet the expanse
of the Nation, both in area and population have always limited the
reach of any particular faction (though modern communication has
expanded their range). Citizens are born in a specific town, a
state, and a region. Each of these possess their own internal
interests, which are in conflict with the interests of other towns,
states, and regions. Political factions have difficulty forming
across imaginary
lines, because they are
birthed by individuals, focused on their own local interest.
Hamilton trusted that the vastness of the future United States
would preclude any single faction from dominating the nation. It
would be, he thought, impossible for a majority of the population to
share an interest detrimental to the health of the whole. Senators
might be factionalized, yet never would a majority of Senators belong
to a single faction (and as unrivaled statesmen would still place the
national interest ahead of the provincial).
Hamilton trusted the national
government would exercise superior judgment, because no faction would
rule. He hoped future citizens would fix their gaze upon the United
States instead of their own state. He wrote, “I will ... hazard an
observation … the more the operations of the national authority are
intermingled in the ordinary exercise of government, the more the
citizens are accustomed to meet with it … the more it is
familiarized to their sight and to their feelings … the greater
will be the probability that it will conciliate the respect and
attachment of the community.” Over time, Hamilton assumed, as the
national government developed, the citizens of the United States
would be likely to interact with it, observe its superior
administration, and as a result, develop an attachment to it in
preference to their own states.
Again, this seems ridiculous.
Ironically, it is because Hamilton either forgot or misunderstood the
influence of faction. As he knew, a State can be ruled by a singular
faction, and so most States are controlled by one party or another.
In such a state, the ruling party can pass laws unopposed, and
whether the laws are good or bad, the State government at least
appears efficient to its citizens. The general government is
composed of many opposing interests, and the procedures required to
institute a law necessitate a super majority of approval, leading
often to failure. Today, roughly ten percent of voters approve of
Congress, but a majority of voters approve of their own Senators.
Unsurprisingly, citizens trust their own senators, but not those who
oppose them. It's no surprise voters disapprove of the apparent
inefficiency national government. Yet, part Hamilton's statement is
true. Voters no longer observe the actions of their representatives
in the State capitals as they used to. Instead, political opinion is
focused on the national level, with news stations describing the
exploits of the President, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme
Court. Most voters know the names of their national officals than
their state offices. Presumably, voters believe national officials
wield extensive power to alter the status of the United States. This
isn't a complete condemnation, Hamilton would have preferred it.
The question remains, which political
party's ideology most closely aligns with the belief in a strong
central government, which supersedes the states in authority. This
is really two parts. The Democratic party is that which supports an
energetic government, while Republicans only seem to appreciate this
aspect as directly relates to military force. Yet, which party
believes the national wields the final authority is a matter of
politics. When Democrats held the White House, they complained of
the Republican led states which instituted stronger anti-abortion
laws, and resisted laws legalizing same sex marriage. Now that the
Democrats are on the outside looking in, they are fighting to protect
legal marijuana, sanctuary cities, and environmental regulation. The
party out of power always retreats into their political strongholds
to refine their policies. Fortunately, while the national government
maintains its position as final arbiter, and has many tools to
implement its decisions, the system is complex enough to allow
expansive leeway for the states to experiment, as long as they
recognize their secondary status.
It didn't have to be this way.
Hamilton and Madison could have failed to convince their compatriots,
but their arguments contained something which swayed the people
(note: the Constitution was approved by special committees, elected
for this singular purpose, not by a popular vote - “the people”
is a figure of speech). But because of their argument and vision,
the United States reigns supreme over its components.
Recent:
Originalism and the Federalist
Papers
Comments
Post a Comment