What is Federalism?
Dr. Peter Schultz
Having
raised the question, “What is Anti-Federalism,” it seems necessary to raise the
question above, “What is Federalism?” That is, what were the Federalists for?
Here we
enter a thicket from which we might never emerge if we were to try to figure
out and summarize the views that have been attributed to the Federalists. As
the victors in the debate over the ratification of the Constitution in 1788,
the Federalists have garnered much more attention than the Anti-Federalists, as
is always the case with winners and losers. Moreover, because they were the
victors, their cause was victorious as well and, hence, people use them to
support their various causes as they can provide a kind of imprimatur for these
causes.
So to avoid
this thicket, I will not be spending time reviewing the various interpretations
of the Federalists and their cause. Rather, I will move into what I think their
cause was, paying attention to points of intersection between them and the
Anti-Federalists.
If the
Anti-Federalists may be said to be partisans of “small republics,” the
Federalists may be said to be partisans of “large republics.” Or as James
Madison argued in Federalist #10,
they were proponents of “a large, commercial republic.” So it may first be
asked, What was the problem(s) with small republics and how was or were these
addressed by the creation of a large republic.?
Most
importantly, the problem with small republics may be called “the tyranny of the
majorities.” That is, it was thought that in small republics, majorities could
form rather easily and because in a republic the majority legitimately holds
power, then once formed these majorities would prove to be oppressive. One advantage
of a large republic, perhaps even the
advantage of such a place, is that it is more difficult for such majorities to
form. As James Madison wrote in Federalist
10, a “multiplicity of interests” necessarily spring up in large and complex
societies making it more difficult for “a permanent majority” to form. Emphasis
should be placed on the word “permanent” because, of course, for anything to
get done in a republic majorities would have to form. However, in a large,
complex, and economically developed society, these majorities would most likely
be temporary, coalescing in order to pass a particular piece of legislation, to
endorse a particular policy and then disappearing.
Moreover,
because these majorities were temporary, it was thought that there was a
likelihood that they would actually come to agree on something that was very
close to or resembled what might be called the “common good.” Of course, no
particular group was interested in the “common good” but because of the
negotiating that would be necessary to form working majorities, it was thought
that something resembling the “common good” would emerge from the political
arena. At the very least, the rights of minorities would not be compromised
given the absence of a permanent majority.[1]
However, it
must be said that there is more to the appeal of a large, commercial republic
than reducing the possibility of majority tyranny, an appeal reflected by the
character of the government created by the Constitution. A large, commercial
republic was also appealing because such a republic would be able to rival
monarchies in terms of greatness, in terms of what was called in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere “a great
empire.” To create such an empire, a powerful, complex, and central government
was needed. Simple government controlled by “simple” – read “middling” –
persons would no longer suffice. A government that merely reflected the middling majority would need to be replaced by a
government composed of representatives who represented a refinement of those of the middle class. Moreover, these types of
representatives should be permitted to govern for long periods, to be professional politicians for the same
reasons that these types were allowed to populate other professions, their superior talents. Unlike the
Anti-Federalists, the Federalists did not aspire to “sameness” or “likeness” in
their representatives.
And of
course such a republic must have a government that is composed of offices of
great powers and much prominence. For example, there might be an office fit for
the greatest man of the day, just as the presidency is often said to have been
created with George Washington in mind. If such an office then helped make its
occupant the greatest man of the day, the nation’s leading man accompanied by
“the First Lady,” that would be fine as well. After all, it is not possible to
have a government capable of doing great things without great offices and great
men to occupy them. The greater the office, the more it would appeal to those
men who are driven by, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, “the love of fame, the leading passion of the
noblest minds.” Men of noble minds want to do noble things and a government of
great offices is the only way to make such doings possible.
So whereas
the Anti-Federalists argued that “no great talents” were necessary in a
government, the Federalists did not. It is important though, to do justice to
both sides in this debate, to recognize that neither argument is persuasive
absent a consideration of the appropriate ends of government. If the wish is to
have a government do great things, to remake society in significant even basic
ways, then it is indispensable to have “great talents” in the government. It
takes “great talents” to do “great things.” On the other hand, if the wish is
to have a government that does not seek to do “great things,” that seeks to do,
say, “good things,” then it is not
necessary to have “great talents” in the government. In fact, as the
Anti-Federalists liked to point out, such men would be dangerous, as great men
with great ambitions always are.
So at
bottom then, the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists,
the differences between what we call “small republics” and “large republics,”
come down to differences over the appropriate ends of government. And it might
even be said that these differences come down to differences over whether
governments – and of course human beings – should seek greatness, to do great things, or should seek goodness, to do good things. If the wish is to pursue greatness,
then a great government, composed of great offices filled with great human
beings, is absolutely essential. However, if the wish is to pursue goodness,
then a simple government, composed of simple offices filled with simple human beings,
is absolutely essential.
The
Federalist had, it has been said by the leading authority on the
Anti-Federalists, the more powerful argument.[2]
Such would seem to be the case. The appeal of greatness, of doing great things,
perhaps even as a recent president thought, of ridding the world of evil, is
about as seductive an appeal as is imaginable. To do great things, to do the
greatest thing, to create, would
appear to be almost god-like. To conserve,
on the other hand, as even Lincoln pointed out,[3]
pales by comparison. But while the argument for greatness is more powerful, we
may wonder if it is better. The more powerful arguments are such because they
appeal to our passions, while the better arguments, although weaker, appeal to
our reason. And so it is worth wondering whether, even though the
Anti-Federalists made the weaker argument, they did not also make the better
argument. They would not be the first example of human beings trying “to make
the weaker argument appear stronger.”
[1]
That this argument makes some sense, think of the areas where something very
much like a permanent majority exists in the United States, viz., race, and
then think the oppression of and what great effort it took to overcome the
oppression of the minority race.
[2]
See Herbert J. Storing, What the
Anti-Federalists Were For.
[3]
See Lincoln’s speech “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.”
No comments:
Post a Comment