The History Book Club discussion
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
>
WE ARE OPEN - Week One - March 4th - March 11th (2018) - FEDERALIST. NO 1
Mod
It appears that many of our presidents and I am not talking simply in terms of the latest one do not like to have press conferences even though there should be regular ones scheduled. It as if they feel and the Congress too that to a certain extent that what the "we the people" do not know about the better. Their attitude appears to be that they will find out soon enough what we have passed after it is too late but then they will feel that they cannot do anything about it.
I do hope your attitude of the glass being half full versus half empty is not only an optimistic viewpoint but one we can find some solace and reassurance in as we move forward.
Mod
We will always respond. We will be going on to Federalist Two on the 12th but no matter when you post or catch up - someone will be here to post back. So don't be shy.
Rob wrote: "I'm Rob in California.To respond to your two questions...
Levinson's thought regarding the inclusive nature of The Federalist #1's call, to the point that even Thomas Jefferson would support one..."
I'm Cliff in Hong Kong; an American working abroad.
A small point about Mao's continuous revolution: Mao was mainly concerned about maintaining ideological purity and fervor after a revolution's won. You can hear echoes of that in what's happening now in China. And if you think about it, you also see its relevance to America today. If populism around the world is seen as winning - per Bannon - what happens after it wins? Can populism set up a constitution, as Hamilton and his allies are attempting to do here?
Mod
You raise some interesting points. Obviously Bannon and group are not altruistic and generous of spirit like our founding fathers who did without and took no salaries when they were doing all of this work for our country (in very trying and uncomfortable travel and living conditions at times) and also by the way working with all sorts of different people who had various ideas which they integrated, debated, reflected upon and compromised.
It was also not and never could be 'their way" or the "highway". They had to convince people with dialogue and debate over a period of time and engage.
And the people themselves were engaged in discussions in every community.
It is obvious to everyone that Bannon et al - were not able nor willing to set up even adequately what this country would need. It would have been a disaster. And the end result was in fighting which ended up with a bad exit for Bannon not only from the White House but from Breitbart.
I certainly hope that wiser and cooler heads prevail here and around the world. The people who promise you everything are not the ones you should trust. But we digress.
However, in Federalist One - Hamilton warned of such men and special interest groups, marginalized factions etc. which is repeated in other essays. And I will allow everyone to judge based upon where they are coming from politically as to how they think things are going and what the Federalist Papers are discussing then and now that is relevant to them.
Right now - things are a conundrum and I always say that we will have to wait and see. We have three years before we exercise the right to vote again and that is how our democracy works.
Also this is a quote from Mau which does not sound like what we want here - let us hope that things remain as the founding fathers outlined:
“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” -- Mao Tse-tung
Cliff what are your thoughts about a Bannon or populism for that matter and how do you see that fitting in or not fitting in what Hamilton, Jay and Madison envisioned? One other comment - I think we all agree that populism is what got Trump elected and Brexit did not hurt. However, they too may get as the Washington Post claims a plutocrat rather than a populist.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/0...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/...
or this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...
Hi I’m living in Australia since 1984. Never got into political science or history. Today I’m enjoyed exploring many genres through my reading. The first thing that struck me about the first paper is the cruelest molecules language and sentence structure. It is shows me how much more advanced language was then.
Mod
We are glad to have you with us. I think what you may be pointing out is how learned the men were and how dense each sentence was - quite unlike internet and twitter speech.
Their writing style was dense and packed with meaning with each word choice and nuance - I agree.
We hope to unpack that here for you. Please continue to actively post and let us know your input and thoughts
I believe that there is on thr horizonma strong pitch to be made as California is with Atty. Gen. Sessions running headlong into the maw of their Governor Jerry Brown invoked the Tenth Amendment -- the States' Rights Amenment to our Constitution. The argument is still about immigration, and still about California wanting to deal with their issues as a state rather than as a State. The real summery here is: issues for large States like California are being handle with their own methods, and they don't want Federal ICE officers laying hands on California's necomers who sre contributing to yheir State's economy. They see ICE and the U.S. Attorney General as meddlers' in California's problem, which they feel they are handling quite well without the Feds.
Mod
But I think right now there is a stand off because the courts have given only limited jurisdiction to Trump's ban.
Now the sanctuary cities might be another thing that reaches the Supreme Court as well as immigration - I have no doubt and so far things are working through the system as it should.
These issues require reflection, debate, discussion, compromise and then a decision which is what Federalist One is primarily discussing - which is the process.
However in Congress if you blinked - the discussion and reflection for DACA and immigration reform was over almost as soon as it began.
Congress needs to work with both parties and get something done and the President should stay out of the way. He has already threatened veto of a bipartisan deal and changes his mind daily.
As far as Attorney Sessions and what he is doing or not doing - I will leave that to the group members to reflect upon. But I do not think that he is the primary problem here and that too will be left to the group members to decide on their own. The next election is in three years.
We can only reflect and discuss and debate (smile) - we are not the decision makers but we can influence decisions that is for sure. And we can vote - in our local, state, national elections. We can write and call our senators, our representatives, our governors, and we can let them know what we think on any bill or policy.
That is what happened during the ratification process for the Constitution with a greater degree of involvement than we are seeing now and we were a fledgling nation. That concerns me.
Are we really informed, are we reflecting and looking at the whole picture rather than some sound bytes on our phone. Are we debating and discussing the issues in our local communities? I have to wonder about that when reading the first essay.
But many of our members are still very optimistic so that is a good thing. There is no doubt that these situations will reach the Supreme Court that you mention.
http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/tru...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ot...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-g...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-g...
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-...
Mod
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/politi...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/politi...
Tom wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Would you like to kick off the conversation with a brief intro and start discussing your impressions of the first paper itself or respond to some of the initial discussion questions..."Tom, you made the comment: "Somehow, I made it through public school and college without ever having the opportunity to read this seminal work in our nation's foundation."
In High School I took Advanced American Government. I have not studied political science at a post-secondary level. We did not have to read the Federalist Papers nor do I remember studying the many founding fathers who were Anti-Federalists even though some of them made important contributions. I am not sure if government is even taught anymore let alone examining some of these key documents. It begs the question of how well we are really preparing our young people to participate in government. I am grateful for what I did learn in that class.
Bentley wrote: "Hamilton's warning could not be more timely considering the climate of polarization and the resistance to "reflection, open truthful discourse and after all of the above - choice - which is not based upon personal biases or personal interest". I think Hamilton did believe that the people of that period would reflect and listen to their better angels. Do you think that the people of this time period reflect, study, debate and then make a choice for the good of the country?
..."
As I have read material from our founding fathers I have been impressed by the sheer amount of reading and writing they did. They spent an amazing amount of time thinking and meditating on the classics and reading vast amounts of material. They did not have TV, movies, social media, etc. These things can be helpful but I believe they actually create a level of "noise" that stands in the way of the kind of deep reflection and thinking that was common in their day.
Bentley posted: One other thing from Political Factions:"Some of the obstacles Hamilton was painfully aware of came from those who opposed the Constitution. He accused many of them of resisting all changes which might remove power from their hands, “perverted ambition” of those who plan to benefit from not having a Constitution, gaining from the continued division of the country as opposed to the formation of a Union.
“Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives, not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support, as upon those who oppose, the right side of a question.”—
Source: Political Factions
How does one deliberate between concerns forwarded during the constitutional debate that had the rights of the people and states in mind and those that were self-serving. Hamilton would have had in mind opposition that existed among delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Remember some of these founders that resisted the ratification of the constitution opposed it because it promoted a strong central federal government but was week on individual rights and liberties. They feared and erosion of states rights which I believe we can see today. Some of these arguments resulted in the Bill of Rights which, we might agree, is a good outcome.
Mod
Michael I do want Tom to respond to you because that is who you posted to.
Tom please see Michael's note to message 61
But I have to agree with you Michael - The Anti Federalists were not light weights and had some good points too.
They included:
Notable Anti-Federalists
Patrick Henry.
Samuel Adams.
George Mason.
Richard Henry Lee.
Robert Yates.
James Monroe.
Amos Singletary
James Winthrop of Massachusetts
George Mason of Virginia
Plus the yeoman farmers who populated rural America
And because of them we have the Bill of Rights which was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified plus some amendments. They were also concerned about taxes and debt and they had some good points too.
As far as Civics, Ethics, Government - your guess is as good as mine - I think the classics, Latin, government, ethics, civics just were not considered as important as other stuff crowding the curriculum which maybe should be re-evaluated. The answer is we are not really preparing them and that is our fault.
Note: I have to give kudos to Hamilton who was the driver here and brilliant and Madison who basically penned the Constitution with input and the Bill of Rights with at least 85 suggestions or rights to add and he was able to distill it to what we have today.
Mod
Michael by the way welcome - I am delighted that you are part of this on going discussion on The Federalist as it was called or as it is now being called The Federalist Papers (Essays).
Yes, I think that the Bill of Rights was a good thing and I believe that the amendments were too overall - of course some of them occurred much later than Madison. Madison was the driving force in the writing of the Constitution - he was the brains and he was brilliant too. I honestly do not see an erosion of states rights aside from some of the necessary federal overrides which in the case of immigration have been checked so far. I think a lot of what Sessions is doing is theater and the states are standing up for themselves which they should and have been doing with all of the suits filed on immigration to date which for the most part they have had many victories.
However we are not the 13 original colonies any more and even our economic delineations have changed with not as many yeoman farmers in rural America which were part of the 13 original colonies. The dynamics have changed, the make up of our citizenry has changed, many are not of English ancestry either and the list goes on and on at how diverse we have become.
The arguments of the Federalists and the Anti Federalists still seem to be the same but they have been intertwined with different political parties of different names and sometimes they switch back and forth as rallying cries for one or the other.
I think what is missing is the voice of the people and their driving force - they need to speak up and be counted and if their representatives or legislators are not listening - they need to be voted out. That is our system.
We do not have to agree with each other but I do think we need to listen to each other - reflect, debate, discuss, come together in our communities, speak/write to our legislators and make sure we are heard and we listen too, then we can make an educated decision based upon what is really good for the country and not our lobbyist's efforts on behalf of corporations, the NRA, gas and oil or whoever happens to be the lobbyist "flavor of the month". There are way too many special interests and factions which cannot be satisfied.
I think why Congress is getting historically low marks is because it is not reflecting, not debating, not discussing, not compromising - debate has been shut down whether it was for poor Merrick Garland nominated by President Obama and yet the poor man never was given a hearing or a vote which is uncalled for. And they all liked him too but McConnell and the Republicans wanted to wait for a year to get a shot at their own person which is not supposed to be the way things work.
Look at DACA or Health Care or any number of things that are brought up - they are more concerned with whipping their party into shape to vote for something they have not even read, debated or compromised on versus working in a bipartisan way and that goes for Ryan as well.
In fact, I cannot recognize Paul Ryan any longer with his vacillations - no wonder he is leaving as are many. It is a disturbing legacy that they are leaving and the only way any party learns and does not do this continually is if they are voted out of office. Period. The debate is really ours and these officials work for the people - not the other way around.
Federalist One discusses the power of the people, reflection, debate, discussion, compromise and then choice. Right off the bat - this is quite apropos (no matter I might add whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent or Undecided about anything to do with political parties) - at least we all should agree on what is good for the country or be able to reach consensus and compromise in one form or another.
One other thing that is so amazing is that these essays were published in the newspaper and read in the open in communities and debated - this was a big deal. Can you imagine this happening today? I wish I could.
Michael, in what ways do you think that states rights have been eroded substantially?
Mod
Hillsdale College’s John Miller hosts a series of podcasts on the great books for National Review.
In the podcast posted this past January 30, 2018 - John interviews Claremont McKenna College Professor Charles Kesler and Claremont Review of Books editor Charles Kesler on the Federalist Papers. Charles wrote the introduction and notes for Clinton Rossiter’s edition of the Federalist Papers. He knows what he is talking about and he is a natural teacher. This is an introduction that pleases while it instructs.
Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives...
Source: Powerline, National Review
Many posts - thanks all - so my most interesting take away from the first paper was the ardent request by Hamilton to the citizens to think, know the real facts and make a rational decision about their votes. He points out, likely much more impactful then than now, that the US was a new experiment in governance and the first real modern western democracyI will try to look at the various resources that so many sent but leave on vacation on Monday so will do what I can
Thanks all
Mod
A Few Things to think about:
What kind of character do we need to maintain our constitution in terms of the American people - do you think that the character has changed since the time of Madison and Hamilton?
Truly the only authority for the constitution was the consent of the American people at that time and the ratification process. They needed only nine states.
And the only authority for the constitution was their consent.
The people of the United States gave it life at that time.
One worry that the founding fathers had was that passions and desires have superseded the law in some failed democracies and if that happens - these failed democracies have given up their freedoms.
From what Hamilton is saying in Federalist One - there is a danger in any republic which comes from the people themselves.
But if the American people are vigilant they will not succumb.
And that we cannot give in to narrow self interest - but must act with reason. Hamilton I think saw that the people who vote for the government are flawed and that the folks who run for office might be corrupted by power. Their checks and balances were meant to overcome both.
I know you are a big thinker and have a very reasoned approach to these issues - so do you think that the character of the American people right now demonstrates that they will make rational decisions versus ones for personal interest or due to factionalism?
And what about our leaders and elected officials - how do you feel about their ability to reflect, etc versus at the time of the founding fathers?
Mod
If you have not posted yet, please post your ideas, your questions, your concerns and a little bit about yourself. This thread will be always open and you can post about Federalist One any time you would like.
The Federalist Two thread will open March 12th. We are always here for you. We have gone through the explanation for Federalist One on this thread for any of the basic questions.
Hello, My name is Christine and I live in the Albuquerque, NM metro area. This is my first group and event that I have chosen to participate in.To be honest when back in school I only learned as much as I needed to, to get by, and thought it was a waste of time. Now that I have "matured" I am now suddenly fascinated with American History and have been devouring books here and there is politics.
To me the Federalist 1 means, we are opening up a forum to discuss our new society and Union so that it could be ratified with reflection and choice and not the political bias of self interest but the good for the "whole".
It is very prophetic to read the first paper, and the mention of the obstacles that may be encountered. I think that in this era people cared about the choice and reflection. Now it seems like it is more about power, self interest. Not much on being a moderate republic any longer. Too many groups seem to be more about "me" rather than "us", driving our society further apart.
Michael wrote: "Tom, you made the comment: "Somehow, I made it through public school and college without ever having the opportunity to read this seminal work in our nation's foundation." ... It begs the question of how well we are really preparing our young people to participate in government. I am grateful for what I did learn in that class. .."I can't speak from personal experience about the state of modern education as the public education I received was long ago. (Students with tablets had to supply their own chisels.) Speaking in general, though, I believe that we are often too quick to denigrate modern institutions when comparing them to the way things were back in the day. I suspect that time clouds our memories. My daughters are both in college now but for many years I have been awed by the things that they learned in school, things that I either never learned of forgot decades ago. I can't help but think of the high school students from Parkland who learned how to debate the subject of gun control in the classroom and are now using those skills to kick-start the March for Our Lives Campaign.
In MSG 38 Bentley Wrote: "Lately we have heard of bills and policies being rammed through Congress and folks haven't even read them nor have they been allowed to debate them - yet they are forced by their leadership to vote them through without debate or a proper forum."I think that this is a huge problem that should have the American people calling their senators and representatives demanding proper process in Congress. The executive has many times over the past few decades found work around strategies to get what they want without what many of us would call due process. I think Obamacare was one of these. I currently live under a universal health care system and while it has its cons the pros far outweigh them. This was a bill that should been debated and discussed by both parties with free and open debate and a willingness to do what was best for the American people.
Bentley also wrote: "If it is a good one - then it will eventually pass and if it isn't - it should not have passed in the first place if the arguments and the debates will tank it." I think naming it Obamacare got backs up in certain quarters right off the bat. Perhaps it made it a one party issue before it even got a decent hearing. Family and friends asked me what I thought about it since we have universal health care. I basically told them if Obama was smart he would order a survey of the various universal systems across the globe (Cuba's is the best by the way) and adopt their best practices. Then look at the weaknesses in these systems and put into place fixes for those. This would give the US the strongest system in the world. However, it was forced through too fast which threatened a party, did not gain the backing of the medical system, threatened the piggy banks of the insurance industry and failed to allow state legislatures to truly come to a place of support. It would have taken longer but the American people would have been the biggest winners.
MHO: Obama hurt his own cause by his use of Executive Orders in this situation. He hurt the cause and gave us an example of executive overreach. By the way, not the first president of either party to do so.
Michael wrote: "MHO: Obama hurt his own cause by his use of Executive Orders in this situation. He hurt the cause and gave us an example of executive overreach. By the way, not the first president of either party to do so. "This is pure Republican propaganda. I'm not saying that he didn't issue executive orders, rather that his use of them was excessive. If you number the executive order on a per-year-in-office rate, Obama's 34.6 is the fewest of any president since Grover Cleveland which, by the way, predates the systematic tallying of EOs. (Fun fact: FDR wins the grand prize with 3,728, an annual rate of 307.8.)
Also, he's not the one who called the Affordable Care Act Obamacare. His political opponents did that as well. I suspect that the jury is still out on whether the name will help or hurt his legacy.
Mod
To be honest when back in school I only learned as ..."
Welcome Christine from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
I have to say that I agree with you that "something" feels different than how Hamilton and Madison describe the populace and what history tells us happened back then. They however did have some brutal elections and campaigns as well in their history - but I wonder whether the character of the people was different. Were folks more restrained, more introspective, more reserved and reflective? Did they care more about the future rather than the present? Did they live more - so that their children and their grandchildren could have better lives and dreams - much more than they had? Were they more interested in the common good and the welfare of their family and country more than a new iPhone 10 or a new or bigger vehicle (which of course we know they did not have then - but let us say more horses and a better carriage (smile)? Or were they just interested in things for themselves and did not look beyond narrow self interests? I think those are the questions that I am asking myself - I am wondering about the character of America and what it really holds dear.
I think that we all want to believe in the best of others and in ourselves but do the images and the events of the past couple years reflect those differences and are they the image of the best that is yet to come. I certainly hope not.
You raise some of the same questions that I have - when was the last time that I heard a discussion that was one of deep reflection and debate of the issues in a reflective and introspective fashion about our government and what it would take to work on a solution in a bipartisan way - where there was compromise on all sides? And I realized that I could not remember when that last was? It sort of mirrors our society where everybody wants what they want when they want it and they will just hold out until they get it. And it appears to be more about them than anybody else.
Also I am positive that unlike what our Supreme Court ruled that neither Hamilton nor Madison envisioned a corporation as being considered a "person" where they could buy into a election or ruling with investments of cash which no ordinary citizen could afford. I doubt that would have happened either in the founding fathers time if these entities existed because they were very concerned about individual rights and destiny.
So here we are - and maybe discussing and reflecting on what the founders had in mind might bring us back to the core that strengthened our resolve to be the best that we could be. I do want to add that the world is much more complicated now and global distance is no longer a factor nor a deterrent so what we say and what we do can have far reaching effects and outcomes.
I am delighted that you are with us Christine.
Mod
Tom, I really like your posts because you remind me of some of the positives which somehow get obstructed with the news of the day. I think that time does cloud our memories.
However having said that - when in Hamilton's or Madison's time were children in schools or educational settings worried about a crazed individual (a student) shooting up the place with an AK 15 and it not being an isolated incident. I applaud the students of Parkland - I really do. In the time of Hamilton and Madison though - kids grew up fast and many were working and helping to put food on the table in the fields or farms.
But I do applaud the students of Parkland and what they are accomplishing - but I truly also wish that they had not been placed in that situation in the first place. And they will be the voters of tomorrow and the elected officials better listen to their input and reflect.
Aren't their discussions in Washington that you would have hoped were going better where both sides actually could sit down, reflect, debate, compromise and come up with a better solution than if they were in a vacuum or doing it behind closed doors in secret? That is what I wonder about every day? Also why are special interests, lobbyists, corporations with huge sums of cash being able to "factionalize" our country and sway our politicians. These are problems which we should try to address and solve in some way I would think so that our legislators can really concern themselves with what is best for the country rather than themselves and their next election and being able to pay for it. Money and power do create problems as Hamilton has stated.
Bentley wrote: "Tom wrote: "Michael wrote: "Tom, you made the comment: "Somehow, I made it through public school and college without ever having the opportunity to read this seminal work in our nation's foundation..."My response to Michael's question focused on differences in curricula now and when I went to school. If the conversation included how students' lives have changed over time I would have thrown in that in my day I had to walk to school ten miles through the snow, uphill both ways after milking the chickens.
Bentley wrote: "But I do applaud the students of Parkland and what they are accomplishing - but I truly also wish that they had not been placed in that situation in the first place. And they will be the voters of tomorrow and the elected officials better listen to their input and reflect."
I heartily agree. Sometimes our young people seem to have a blind spots that keep them from seeing the obstacles that hinder change. The Vietnam War is one example but, perhaps more germane to this discussion, Alexander Hamilton was only seventeen when he first became active in the political arena at King's College.
Mod
Michael my recollection might be different. This is what happens I think - one side or one person tries to add a name or a tag and make it stick to denigrate the other side or a person - Lying Ted, Little Corker, and I could go on and on. And with our limited "reflective patience" these sound bytes catch on as being true and travel around the world in a nanosecond.
Obamacare was never called that - the bill was the Affordable Care Act and to get Republicans on board - they even finally decided on a version of the Romney Health Care plan that he had used in the state of Massachusetts.
And believe me if you were in the USA, you would wonder why we could not have affordable healthcare like every Western nation does so that you are not one health catastrophe away from bankruptcy. That is what our citizenry has faced in not being able to get insurance at all due to some pre-existing condition.
The Republicans refused to work with the President in "any" bipartisan way - just another example of the gridlock in Washington and you are correct it works on both sides but I only bring this up because that was the subject of your post.
And I could not agree with you more that this was a bill that should have been discussed and debated, reflected and compromised on for the good of the American people. But it wasn't - but it was a long shot better than "nothing". And "nothing" is not what the American people want to go back to.
And if it had not been pushed through - there would have been no healthcare for people period in this country.
I had a great plan already through my long term employer - fantastic and I was told that we could keep our plan - well that did not happen and I was personally dismayed with that.
But the benefits and policies of the Affordable Care Act actually curbed the insurance companies in many instances including having to cover pre-existing conditions which is a positive thing for everyone.
It is not the single payor plan or anything like what Congress has for themselves which by the way seems upsetting enough. That for themselves and their faction that they can have something vastly superior than what they are offering the American people -- but that is our reality.
Could this have been better for the American people - you bet. The Clintons tried too but because Bill had Hillary handle trying to put something together to study - the Republicans cut it to shreds and Hillary too as I recall.
But this was just another example of the Republicans - in this instance - stonewalling the conversation. And another was when they were trying to overturn it in secret and nobody knew including their own party - what the dickens they were going to have to vote on? Rand Paul was going from one office to another to find a draft of the bill that he had not even been allowed to see or read like everybody else.
To me - that is not reflection, not debating and discussing and getting the facts out in the open for reflection, it contains no compromising elements and that approach will never lead to a positive outcome for anyone including the party in power whoever they might be. But right now the Republicans are in power and you can be the judge of how that is going. And believe me I do not think that things would be dramatically better if it were different except to say that I think there would be at least a DACA and immigration bill of some sort but that is just conjecture. But one problem that we do have is that one party is controlling all three branches of government and I have never found that to be that great for anyone - no matter which party was in control. But again that is just MHO and nobody needs to agree with that.
One thing which I find interesting is that neither Hamilton nor Madison really embraced the party concept - they probably viewed it as factionalism or a special interest group deeply entrenched in their positions - the - "I am right" and "you are wrong" mentality that permeates all sides in DC and unfortunately in our country right now. And maybe they (Hamilton and Madison) were right - I don't know.
But shutting off debate on any subject by any party should not be allowed. Not talking and not communicating and not compromising is what gets us into these donnybrooks in the first place.
I like your idea about looking around the world and taking the best ideas - that would have been stellar - but at the end of the day - I believe even if it was the best plan on Earth that McConnell would have prohibited debate or discussion or reflection or compromise. It did not happen so that is conjecture but I just look at history to predict what might have happened given his and Ryan's normal operating procedures.
Believe me when I say this - I agree that the other political party has exhibited the same behavior on occasion but not with the same degree of open obstructionism that we have seen lately. And the Republicans are in power now and things are the worst they have ever been. No willingness to compromise on anything.
Graham tried to work on a bipartisan bill on DACA - they had one - and then the President just blew it up. So now there is no debate and discussion going on at all in Congress regarding this topic - because McConnell and Ryan control the debate and it has been cut off.
That has been the sad story of our Congress. And where we are today. And the tax plan that they rammed through is not helping anybody I know - but the Warren Buffets yes and that is another example of closeted secreted discussions without reflection, debate or compromise where they whipped the party into shape to vote for it - kicking and screaming along the way. (smile) And that they rammed through.
Ahhh - reflection, debate, civil discussion, compromise and choice in America - doesn't seem like what Hamilton and Madison are talking about - but I stand to be corrected. And if anybody has any other ideas I stand to be corrected in this case. So I welcome hearing from all of you.
I wish Michael that your idea had been followed - that would have been wonderful. The stock market has done better but has some hiccups, the tariffs are going to create great conflicts with our neighbors and we will have to see how that pans out and so much yet to talk about in the Federalist Papers. Reflection and choice are the major themes of this first essay.
Christine wrote: "Too many groups seem to be more about "me" rather than "us", driving our society further apart."I agree with this statement Christine and I fear that this selfish approach in our general population may be the thing that threatens our national longevity the most.
Mod
Tom wrote: "Michael wrote: "MHO: Obama hurt his own cause by his use of Executive Orders in this situation. He hurt the cause and gave us an example of executive overreach. By the way, not the first president ..."Tom please to do get me wrong with regard to this issue. I am by no means an Obama fan. Actually am not a card holder in any party. Also, I am handicapped by not living in the states. For me it is not about the number of executive orders used but where and for what. I also am not sure who labelled it Obamacare but the name stuck and it leaves the impression that it is a one man proposal. Where I live I have universal health care and I strongly believe the US should adopt universal health care. My greatest point here is that the failure to take the time to build a blueprint for it and taking the time to build support at all levels of government as well as at the grass roots may have cost our citizens in the United States and effective program that would be a blessing rather than a political battleground.
Mod
Tom I know - 17 - can you imagine - folks grew up fast in the days of Hamilton and Madison and this tragedy has deeply effected Parkland too.
Mod
I agree on that Tom but it is hard sometime with all of the soundbytes out there for folks in other spots to actually know what is going on. But the stats that you posted are accurate. Obama may have been very careful and very cautious and maybe seemed to deliberate to the extreme but I would much rather have a careful person who can be reflective and has the ability to discuss and understand and compromise - no matter who the leader or individual might be.
Thanks Michael. My response was not intended to pick an argument nor to suggest that you hold one view or another. I only wished to correct a couple of errors that are widely believed to be true.
Mod
Michael - you make an excellent point about the plan which I already touched upon. Very true but when you have lemons - you make lemonade and Obama did the best he could with what he had to work with. I believe that about him but he was deliberate. Sometimes excruciatingly so.
And at times he could be arrogant too but he was a "reflective"person.
Tom wrote: "Thanks Michael. My response was not intended to pick an argument nor to suggest that you hold one view or another. I only wished to correct a couple of errors that are widely believed to be true."No sweat! This is one of the recent policy issues that illustrates what we have been talking about with regard to open debate, reflection and well reasoned arguments. I think the danger of what we are seeing right now is that the parties are so busy working their own agendas they cannot slow down enough to truly represent their constituencies.
Our long-term politicians have lived in DC long enough that they lose touch with their voter base and the desires of the people back home which I seem to remember speaks to the one of the concerns of the anti-federalists.
Tom, one of the things I appreciate about these discussion in our club is that we can have open debate, we can teach each other, learn from each other and hopefully correct each other in the spirit of the founders. One of the few places left were we can agree to disagree and still move on to the next discussion as friends and fellow readers. (smile)
Bentley wrote: "Michael wrote: "Tom wrote: "Michael wrote: "MHO: Obama hurt his own cause by his use of Executive Orders in this situation. He hurt the cause and gave us an example of executive overreach. By the w..."Bentley, your comment here may actually speak to what could be a building problem with our executive branch office holders. In the days of the founders they had to know how to debate, they had to be adept at bringing the sided together to come up with solutions. Is it possible that in the modern era moving into the 21st century we are seeing a falling off in this ability? That our leaders no longer understand how to bring consensus? Or maybe with the changes in our culture everyone wants their way rather than might be best for the majority?
Mod
Very true Michael and everyone has the right to feel the way they do but I think that it is great that we can talk about it civilly and reflect and actually listen (through reading) to each other. I love that about this group and I have enjoyed this back and forth at a time when some of us on the East Coast should be sleeping (smile).
LOL, Thank Bentley. I should be sleeping as well, however, I am on night shift at 911 and it is one of those nights where everyone is behaving so I get to catch up here.
Mod
I'm Kendra and this is my first time participating in a discussion in this group. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and reflections on this short but dense essay and I'm looking forward to further discussion as the weeks go on.I believe the majority of people in the U.S. have pure intentions about wanting to be an informed voter and involved citizen, but for many - myself included - it can be so overwhelming to face all the issues and topics that one has to educate themselves about and reflect on. Staying informed about current issues can be a full-time job. I also think it's easy to feel inadequate when trying to become informed - so much so, that many surely just give up and blindly trust their elected officials to figure it out.
Savannah mentioned in message 31 just how fragile democracy really is - it hasn't succeeded much in the past and I think it is easy to forget that it could collapse. We could all use a healthy sense of fear to compel us into action and cooperation. I think all people of any political affiliation would agree that they want this country to continue, so a humble realization that we need to work together to ensure that happens would be helpful. Actually, a little humility in general by everyone in DC would be a huge breath of fresh air.
Mod
The essays are dense and so full of content but we will get through these fabulous writings together so all is well.
You aptly explained how you and so many people feel but nobody can leave their involvement to someone else and your input is every bit as valuable as your elected official. Remember that you count too and that is important. We should not abdicate our freedoms, liberties and our government to other folks and be on the sidelines ourselves. We know we want the best for our country and that is why we need to stay tuned (smile) - but I understand.
I agree - humility seems to be in short supply in DC these days but that would help tremendously.
What about Federalist One resonated with you and why?
Mod
From what I have ..."
Savannah - welcome - I am not sure if I responded to you earlier with the postings. But we are glad to have you with us.
I never knew that you were an organic chemist.
Hamilton and Madison thought that kings were an anathema. He did like George Washington but as they were hashing things out - they did decide to have three separate branches of government with checks and balances which serve us well. I have read different writings where folks have said that Hamilton was not against kings in general just the one that we fought our revolution against. But I don't think that is entirely true - I think he wanted a stronger central government but anybody who had come through the revolution naturally did not want a king or anything that entailed. But there are different opinions on this of course.
Your last paragraph is especially thought provoking - Savannah.
You said:
"If democracy is to survive (and it very, very rarely has) the ordinary people must have the intellectual and moral ability to know where their rights end and another person's rights begin. That is usually a very formidable task. I can't help but think of Montesquieu's Tale of the Troglodytes, a fictional people, who overthrew a despot, became prosperous because they took into account the greater good and then collapsed into greed, apathy, and licentiousness and lost their freedom. Not an optimistic view of our future.
Let us hope that folks look out for the common good.
Mod
Link: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra...
Is this what Hamilton and Madison were worried about - these kinds of groups which unduly influence with infusions of campaign dollars? And tie up our courts?
Hi everyone. My name is Nate and I am from the United States, but currently reside in Bogota, Colombia. I have enjoyed a life-long love of history, and I am excited to read everyone's thoughts and comments and contribute as I am able.Recognizing the important themes that Hamilton very directly articulates such as the ability of the citizenry to elect their representatives, engage in thoughtful discourse, and put aside personal and party interests/bias in favor of the public good, what struck me most was Hamilton's appreciation for the importance of the moment in the broader arch of history.
It is easy to look back from our current vantage point and recognize just how pivotal the process of crafting and ratifying the constitution was, but Hamilton drives this point home while he was immersed in the difficult task of shepherding a recently independent nation through its early, difficult years. His perspective goes beyond recognizing the important choice facing the people of the United States generally, and the voters of New York more narrowly. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, Hamilton underscores what he views as the very broad impact that wrong choices by the electorate could wrought: "...a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."
I also appreciated Hamilton's call for ideal conditions for debate and discourse coupled with his frank acknowledgement that these conditions were unlikely to manifest due to special interests, local considerations, etc.
Mod
Particularly:
...a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."
I also appreciated Hamilton's call for ideal conditions for debate and discourse coupled with his frank acknowledgement that these conditions were unlikely to manifest due to special interests, local considerations, etc.
My name is Jeff Taylor. I graduated from William and Mary with a major in history. I also managed to do so without reading the Federalist cover to cover even though I bought, and still have, a copy when I was in school. I think I had more exposure to the work studying government in Junior year of high school that I did in college. I'm using a paper edition published by Meridian in 1961, ed. by Jacob E. Cooke.
I'm impressed by all the work that went into providing all the background information for this reading.
I too am reflecting upon the importance of particular interests and factions and the power of wealth to affect electoral choices. I am also concerned that the insipid Citizens United decision of our Supreme Court has enabled the efforts of national and international corporate persons to further their particular business by enabling the use of dark money to buy space in mass media and use advocacy groups to influence governmental policy. To respond to question one, I worry that this is a fundamental perversion of the one person, on vote rule essential to democracy.
Mod
We will be doing the entire set - but it will take us awhile and we are not in a rush (smile). They are rather dense and there is a lot to talk about along the way.
There is no problem in terms of what set you are using - and they are also all available on line but sometimes it is handy to have your own copy with you to fit this all in. You can read a paragraph here and there and get through the one essay a week fairly easily.
Thank you for your kind words. The backdrop of these essays is very important in order to understand the time period - why these men were involved, how they came to write these essays and why they were very important to our country at that particular juncture. We do not realize how close we came to not being the United States of America many times. So that frame of reference is critical to understanding the pivotal importance of the essays themselves. It was a rough and tumble world that Hamilton, Madison and Jay lived in.
We seem to have more "paralyzing factions" every day - you are right and I too am not a fan of the Citizens United decision which btw - Roberts did not have to do. He initiated that case and opened up a pandora's box because he obviously wanted to. And we can only guess the reasons since he even shut down Souter's rebuttal and dissenting opinion.
See the Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...
See Daily Kos -
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012...
See Huffington Post -
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-w...
I agree totally and this is absolutely NOT what our founding fathers had in mind and this really is a stain on Roberts. I think he has tried to amend his reputation on other cases and I was surprised that he was so even handed on some of those but Citizens United has created an insidious attack of our democracy and it does so every single day that the decision is not ameliorated by our Congress. It gutted the McCain Feingold bill too. It is also unbelievable that Congress has done nothing to counter this which they could do.
Update:
This is what one of our most influential judges had to say about the Robert's argument on Citizens' United:
Judge Posner stated: "In other words, today, donors can give and candidates can receive legalized bribes.
Perhaps the best explanation of the enormous damage that the Roberts Court has done to the country was provided by conservative Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, seen by many as the nation’s most influential judge outside of the Supreme Court Justices.
In an interview with NPR, Judge Posner said, “Our political system is pervasively corrupt due to our Supreme Court taking away campaign-contribution restrictions on the basis of the First Amendment.”
Judge Posner has written on his blog that “[I]t is difficult to see what practical difference there is between super PAC donations and direct campaign donations, from a corruption standpoint.”
Chief Justice Roberts’ notion that contribution limits can be justified only by quid pro quo exchanges, or bribery, is a joke and is divorced from reality.
Common sense and history tells us that if an individual can contribute $500,000 to an officeholder’s individual-candidate Super PAC, the donor, in return, will be able to obtain influence over government decisions from that officeholder, without any need to articulate that the money was given in exchange for that influence or decision.
The Supreme Court recognized this in 1976 and then repeatedly for the following thirty-four years. The Roberts Court’s new view that corruption means only quid pro quo exchanges is completely out of touch with the real world.
The system of legalized bribery created by Chief Justice Roberts and his four Supreme Court colleagues is corrupting our democracy and fundamentally undermining the faith of the American people in our government.
The Roberts Court’s campaign finance decisions are a national disaster. They must, and eventually will, be overturned in order to restore the integrity of our constitutional system of representative government."
I live in rural, middle Georgia (USA), on the border between Baldwin and Putnam counties. I strongly agree that to understand this document, or any historical document written in a period different from our own lived experience, that we must view the document in terms of the context in which it was written.
It's not difficult to understand that during a single semester a document of this length would not be required reading in a college class. There is so much material to cover that other sacrifices would have to be too great. As you suggested, sections were read as stand alone readings and at that, I believe they were in upper level, more focused classes, than Freshman and Sophomore history. Which was probably when I bought the copy I am reading now. That's a long time on the to be read list, about 52 years.
Mod
Well you are not alone Jeffrey - a great many of us are in the same boat and it is not easy to stay focused - so we are doing it a little bit at a time (one essay a week) and we can always come back to specific essays if something is in the news or another Supreme Court decision is influenced by one of them.
However - Scalia was the latest originalist and he is no longer with us. His passing was a shock to everyone - none of us knew that he was not in good health - of course he looked overweight but he seemed quite active. And these plus the language of the Constitution in its literal form were paramount to him. Of course, Trump nominated Gorsuch who may have taken a page from the same book (he is a textualist as well).
The Federalist Papers have been extremely popular since their inception in a way that Hamilton, Madison and Jay never would have imagined.
MSG 97 touches on something I have been thinking about for quite some time and I think it speaks to election reform. I must say that some of these groups(the special interests) speak to issues that I agree with and many speak to issues I do not agree with. Having said this I think they have been allowed too much access by virtue of the funding they can throw at a candidate's campaign. We need to find a place for these voices to be heard but it needs to be a place and time that cannot influence an election in the moment. And in a way that does not influence a Senator or Representative to ignore the wishes of the voters of their state.At the risk of over simplifying the issue I would like to float an idea. Debates: A balanced number of debates paid for out of a federal election funds set up for the purpose and not moderated by media personalities but rather actual debate coaches assuming our places of higher learning still have debate teams. This would allow us to see an actual debate. Questions could be originated from the population somehow rather than what the sponsoring media outlet wants to ask.
A federal election fund set up to pay for campaigns. Each network would give equal airtime determined beforehand for each candidate for their add spots to highlight platform not sling mud. Each candidate at the various levels would get the same amount of campaign funds (if a candidate that is not wealthy runs they are not outclassed or outspent by wealthy candidates). No independent fundraising allowed. No contributions for individuals or special interests allowed that would influence the campaign. I think you could arrive at the federal funds by having a small set amount that every tax payer pays that can only be used for federal elections. Each state could do something similar. By small amount I mean very small not more than $5. Like I say I risk oversimplifying. But something needs to be done to level the playing field and neutralize outside funds that sway a candidates vote based on money given to them.
Just some thoughts that I will be giving more thought and is very lightly outlined here. But somehow the elections need to take place on a more equal platform; in a way that returns the power to the voters (We the people...).
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency (other topics)Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought (other topics)
The Federalist Papers (other topics)
Saving the Revolution: The Federalist Papers and the American Founding (other topics)
The Federalist Papers (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Joshua Green (other topics)Charles R. Kesler (other topics)
William F. Buckley Jr. (other topics)
Alexander Hamilton (other topics)
James M. Fallows (other topics)
More...
Hamilton assumes that his readers CAN be informed, educated and made comfortable with a dramatic change to the political system to date. Thus he believes in their capacity to understand the stakes but also the benefits of taking the risk in the new system.
Unfortunately our political leaders have not deemed Americans mature or intelligent enough to participate in a like debate today. This is not a recent phenomenon-as Presidents from Johnson on have neglected to speak plainly about the challenges we face and the trade offs that are part of any solution to intractable problems. Today’s leadership is wholly incapable on either side of engaging the people in mature and deliberate ways to understand imperfect solutions. We continue to acquiesce in our leaders treatment of us as children and are surprised when nothing gets done.
On the other hand I am a total optimist about our politics and country. While the airwaves are full of invective and misinformation, there are countless (including goodreads) sources of reasoned debate and communication. There are some leaders who see the middle not as a place of indecision and weakness but a source of practical solutions, and many Americans who only want good governance.
I believe that Churchill was right about us after all, in the end Americans will end up doing the right thing but only after trying everything else,(to paraphrase him inaccurately I know) .