Ambition and Greatness: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
P. Schultz
"When your overriding
value in life is self-glorification, what you tend to get is the moral
cowardice and fecklessness of people like Obama, the Clintons, and, in truth,
all centrist politicians. They’ll do whatever they have to do to rise to
power, so they can realize their 'destiny'—of being powerful. They’ll
always try to please 'both sides'—a binary notion that leaves out the genuine
left, which is to say the interests of the large majority of people—because
that is the safest and surest road to power"
This quote appeared recently – see the link below – and
it reminded me of one of the most significant differences between those who
supported the constitution proposed in 1787, the Federalists, and those who
opposed it, the Anti-Federalists. This may be summed up briefly as follows:
Whereas the Federalists tended to embrace ambition and the ambitious, the
Anti-Federalists did not. In fact, the latter group tended to disparage
ambition and the ambitious as dangerous to a republican, that is, genuinely
representative government.
I can put this another way. Whereas the Federalists
wanted to create a government that appealed to the ambitious, that drew the
ambitious to it, creating offices that the most ambitious of men would seek
out, the Anti-Federalists wanted a government that would not appeal to the
ambitious. The Anti-Federalists feared that the ambitious types and especially
the most ambitious would control the government at the expense of the many, the
middling people who are not generally characterized by ambition. The
Federalists, ala’ Alexander Hamilton, defended the Constitution and especially
the presidency because it would appeal to those who “love fame,” which Hamilton
took to be “the ruling passion of the noblest minds.” Where Hamilton saw
“nobility” the Anti-Federalists saw narcissism or a lust for power that would
undermine any republican political order. It is not too much to say that the
Anti-Federalists were aware of the tendency of the ambitious to seek
“self-glorification.”
It is this thought that lay behind the Anti-Federalist
argument for creating “a simple government,” a government devoid of offices with long
tenures or great powers. A simple government would be “simple-minded,” meaning
not prone to great projects of social reform, as we might say. Simple
government does not seek greatness. Rather, it seeks to protect individual
freedom while maintaining the peace and good order of society. Simple
government does not seek to remake civil society and it certainly would not
seek to remake the world, to create “new world orders.”
Listen to Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratifying
convention: “Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a
simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our
imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they
suffered in attaining such a Government – for the loss of their liberty? If we
admit this Consolidated Government, it will be because we like a great splendid
one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an
army, and a navy, and number of things: When the American spirit was in its
youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the
primary object.”
As the leading Anti-Federalist scholar summarizes this
thought: “Ambitious Federalists, captivated by visions of ‘stately palaces’ and
‘dazzling ideas of glory, wealth, and power,’ wanted us ‘to be like other nations.’ That is just what we should not be.” [What the Anti-Federalists Were For,
Herbert J. Storing, p. 31]
Embrace ambition and the ambitious, seek glory, wealth,
and power, seek greatness and lose your liberty. For the Anti-Federalists, that
was the choice. Given our current
situation, one may easily get the idea that the Anti-Federalists were right,
that that is the choice and that we
have chosen unwisely.
No comments:
Post a Comment