[lit-ideas] Re: Theory of democracy...
- From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:57:51 +0900
May I recommend to those now eager to despair of the Republic, the=20
first couple of paragraphs of Federalist Paper No. 1. Hamilton (writing=20=
as "Publius") begins with a challenge to his readers,
>
> It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to=20=
> the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide=20
> the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or=20=
> not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or=20
> whether they are forever destined to depend for their political=20
> constitutions on accident and force.
Almost immediately, however, he introduces a note of caution,
> If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are=20
> arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that=20
> decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act=20=
> may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune=20=
> of mankind.
The great experiment may fail, and the reasons are clear,
> This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of=20
> patriotism to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good=20=
> men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be=20=
> directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed=20
> and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.=20
> ***But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be=20=
> expected***[emphasis added]. The plan offered to our deliberations=20
> affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local=20=
> institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects=20
> foreign to its merits, and of views, passions, and prejudices little=20=
> favorable to the discovery of truth.
But Hamilton's purpose is not the wailing and moaning of those who=20
despair. If it were, the Federalist Papers would end with this page and=20=
the American Constitution would not be regarded as one of the great=20
works of political statesmanship.
What I find refreshing about reading the Federalist Papers is that the=20=
authors are fully aware that human motives are various, and that cool,=20=
objective, public-spirited reason is constantly contending with greed,=20=
ambition, and factional loyalty, a situation in which only the=20
hopelessly naive will expect that the announcement of a clear and=20
simple idea manifestly in the public interest will always carry the=20
day. There is a deep realization here that democracy is a messy=20
business and that no set of rulers whatsoever, whether royal,=20
patrician, or plebian in origin, should be expected to behave in ways=20
universally regarded as True, Beautiful, and Good.
That is why the remainder of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution=20=
they defend are concerned not with what voters or their representatives=20=
may think but rather with what they can do=81\ with, in other words,=20
constructing a system of checks and balances that prevents ambition,=20
greed, and factional loyalty from getting too far out of hand. Reason=20
is given a chance. Its victory is not assured.
There is also a proper note of caution concerning the motives that we=20
attribute both to our political opponents and ourselves. First, the=20
opponents,
> I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve=20
> indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because=20
> their situation might subject them to suspicion) into interested or=20
> ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may=20=
> be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much=20=
> of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make=20=
> its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least if not=20
> respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray be preconceived=20
> jealousies and fears.
Now us, on the right side, as we perceive it,
> Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many=20
> other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well=20=
> upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a=20
> question.
Are the institutions that the Founders created perfect? Of course not.=20=
But who among us would prefer the institutions of imperial Rome in the=20=
era depicted in "I Claudius"? Or those of the German States during the=20=
Thirty Years War? Or those of imperial China when a dynasty was falling=20=
apart? Do we really believe the astonishing claim, based on a highly=20
tendentious reading of a mere couple of recent decades of North=20
American history, that we already live in this sort of society?
Can our rulers make stupid mistakes, be motivated by simplistic and=20
clearly erroneous ideas, and take actions with catastrophic=20
consequences? Clearly the answer is "Yes." It has ever been so,=20
throughout human history. Does any other system of government offer a=20
better hope of correction than a democratic republic in which their=20
errors can be recognized and the perpetrators voted out of office?
I await a convincing answer, and Philosopher Kings, Omniscient=20
Computers, and similar fantasies will not do.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
