America’s Founders lived well before the advent of social media, but that doesn’t mean they were unfamiliar with some of the more negative tendencies of our digital public square — particularly the problem of factions.
Consider The Federalist Papers. They were instrumental in shaping public understanding of the Constitution before it was ratified in 1788, and they are still regularly cited today by courts and scholars seeking to understand the meaning of the Constitution’s text.
The 10th essay in the series of 85, commonly referred to as Federalist 10, may be the best known. Despite its age, Federalist 10 remains relevant today. In fact, its lessons are especially important in this time of heightened political partisanship where social media gives the loudest opinions a power and prominence that is disproportionate, at times, to the number of people who hold them.
In Federalist 10, James Madison discussed the problems that factions pose to a republic. Factions, he explained, are groups “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions are a problem when they obtain political power because they put their interests above the common good.
Madison acknowledged that “the public good is 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.” In plainer terms, a faction that comprises a majority of the people may trample the rights of minorities in pursuit of its specific priorities.
What is Madison’s remedy to this problem? A properly structured republican form of government. Specifically, one in which representatives calm the passions of factions and behave like long-term stewards of the health of the country. Madison explained that representatives should “refine” public opinion because their “wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country,” and their “patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
Most people probably don’t think of Congress today as a bastion of wisdom, reason and justice, or that most of its members are genuine statesmen, putting the interest of the country over their own.
The problem today is that many representatives have allowed themselves to be captured by factions, and they seem more interested in advancing those factions’ agendas — most likely because they believe it is in their personal interests to do so — than working towards the good of the entire nation.
But unlike the factions Madison describes in Federalist 10, today’s factions are not tyrannical majorities but tyrannical minorities who shout with voices louder than their numbers would suggest. Still, they wield political power and frequently use that power to advance what is often a narrow, self-centered crusade.
Worse, they are regularly assisted by politicians eager to create division by engaging in identity politics, threatening the independence of the judiciary, and proposing unconstitutional policies in order to pander to particular interest groups.
Is it naive to ask what happened to Madison’s wise and just representatives? Perhaps a little. There has always been bitter — let’s be charitable and say passionate — partisanship throughout our history. But ideals provide us a target to strive for.
What’s more, representatives have historically (with notable exceptions) agreed that, like the Marquess of Queensberry rules, the Constitution sets certain rules of engagement.
But the modern moment is unique in that our constitutional form of government is itself under attack. The Constitution’s constraints are often seen as a barrier to factions’ policy aims rather than the bulwark against tyranny that they are.
Madison called on representatives to “refine and enlarge” the views of their constituents so that “the public voice … will be more consonant with the public good.” We wish more of today’s politicians would do so.
Ultimately, we have no quick fix to restore Congress to Madison’s ideal, only the following admonition: Our republican form of government requires self-restraint and representatives who will, above all else, remember that they are not mere advocates for the loudest or wealthiest of their constituents, but rather, stewards of a great but delicate constitutional experiment.
Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you!
One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.
The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation’s liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens’ rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.
The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.
Today, it appears that the government established by the Constitution is an improvement from that which was established by the Articles of Confederation. At the time however, the Constitution was merely an experiment. Forget what you now know about the success Constitution. Considering its unprecedented nature and the fear that a strong national government would be a threat to personal liberty, would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?
Learn more about Federalist papers.