Blahseblog

Some of those conflicts among the young states, which are foretold by F7, continue to hang around now that the states are no longer quite so young (though still pretty restless!)

Boundary disputes? Still around. Georgia v. Tennessee: in this time of drought, who owns the river?

Commercial competition between states? Look at the lengths to which North Carolina is willing to go, in order to lure companies to set up shop here instead of somewhere else: NC gave Dell Computers $300 million in tax breaks to get the company to agree to build a plant in Winston-Salem. NC is even getting sued over it. You bet the states are still competing with each other for economic advantage.

States and local governments in debt? Of course! New Jersey is struggling under a mountain of debt created by increased pensions for public employees, and Vallejo has just achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the largest city in California to declare bankruptcy.

With his second ‘post,’ John Jay offers some specific arguments for the benefits of union when regards foreign policy. As an added bonus, he defines just causes for war:

1) broken treaties; or

2) direct violence.

Jay argues that a single government will better prevent war on both potential causes. And for both, the more convincing argument is that a national government would pick fewer fights than the several states or confederacies–legal or physical. More states = more treaties = more chances for breach. Also, inconsistency among the various treaties would lead to equally various interpretations and subsequent political action on the treaties (which I suppose to mean more chances for breach or, eek, managerial headaches).

Jay then argues that the states are more willing than the national government to pick fights. By way of example, he notes that not “a single Indian war has yet been produced by aggressions of the present federal government … but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.”

Jay figures that the national government will be less prideful than State governments, and being more coolheaded, will be the better to dissolve conflicts. This seems right, but I would be interested in a book that examines this claim in light of U.S. history and compared to other balkanized governments that Jay figures would have been picking hot-headed little wars.

It is worth highlighting one of Jay’s key assumptions: the national government will draw wiser leaders. “When once the national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it ….”

His reasoning is that the bigger pool of contestants for the national government will produce the very best results. State and local governments may have fine folk, but the national government will require “more extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications.” Jay figures that an mediocre mayor that might reign in provincial backwoods would not stand up to the scrutiny of national government. I wonder whether this notion holds up.

Jay assumes the similar types of scrutiny and selection go on in local and national politics–so that a bigger pool of contestants simply means better quality in the ultimate selection. But isn’t it so that a national candidate will be much more unknowable to most selectors than those local candidates that towns and states choose? Except for the few powers-that-be that prop up national-scope leaders, we are not really aware of these interstate candidates until well-nigh election time.

It is only slightly possible today–with internets, medias, and so forth–to earnestly track and reasonably compare would-be national leaders. How, exactly, did Jay envision voters doing this in 1788? Assuming he envisioned State legislators tracking would-be Senators, or, Congress tracking would-be Presidents - how would these folks really elevate the best folks to National attention? It seems to me Jay is ignoring the role of chance, etc, in such things.

Federalist # 2 is John Jay’s first appearance as “Publius.” He echoes several of Hamilton’s themes from Federalist # 1, not least Hamilton’s caution that “we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.” As a logical consequence, Jay adds, “[L]et it be remembered, that [the Constitution] is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration, which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive.” (Emphasis original.)

What an extraordinary way to argue! They are effectively saying, we don’t want you to agree with us unless you’ve really thought hard about it. Don’t just follow the herd in endorsing our desired outcome (i.e. the ratification of the Constitution), and be done with it. Instead, agree with us for the right reasons (i.e. the reasons we are going to lay out for you in these papers).

These days we are pretty familiar with exhortations to civic engagement, but if you think about the historical context of Hamilton and Jay, you begin to see how groundbreaking and imaginative this is. A mere generation before Publius, the mass of the governed were not expected to participate in their government. They might get to send representatives to Parliament, but that was theoretically only because the king allowed it. Sovereignty ultimately rested in the Crown, not in the people. But Federalist # 2 is setting the bar higher by saying: “Look, you are free to accept or reject this, but at least give it some thought.” I think that is one reason why so much space is given throughout the Federalist Papers to arguing that the decision about whether to ratify is IMPORTANT. People were not yet in the habit of having to think about these things very hard. (In fact, we still might not be in that habit . . . )

The last few lines of Federalist #2 contain more evidence of Jay’s imagination and his effective use of emotional as well as logical argument. “Farewell! A long farewell, to all my greatness!” is a quotation from Shakespeare’s Henry VIII. The speaker is Cardinal Wolsey, reflecting on his fall from power. (Read the Cardinal’s full speech here.) But as of October 31, 1787, the date of Federalist # 2, America was a long way from achieving greatness! It was a ten-year-old, motley collection of squabbling colonies. But Jay has the foresight to see the huge potential of the new united nation. His patriotism, indeed is reflected throughout the paper, from his descriptions of America’s beauty and vast natural resources (“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other”), to his repeated praise of the Philadelphia delegates, who he describes as “highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men.”

We are taking up a project, tonight, to read and blog The Federalist. We will record at least a post to each of the columns that appeared in the New York papers to urge adoption of the newly written Constitution. The famous defense of the Philly convention’s product needs little more introduction.

So, starting with No.1, the introduction

Alexander Hamilton, the initiator of The Federalist, wrote an introduction to the columns to set a high-minded tone: we believe in dispassionate deliberation (so, trust us, we’re smart and came to our opinions through the best of reasoning). Federalist No. 1 is a quick discussion on the fallibility of human reasoning, the subsequent need for caution in political discussion, and an outline of what’s to come.

The intro’s main point is that it is impossible for folks to think on an issue without bias. I like this point, less startling as it is now by post-modern sensibility. Hamilton tees up the upcoming arguments by saying, look- there is no such thing as an objective point of view. And you all thought Stanley Fish came up with that?

Various arguments might be dismissed as coming from folks afraid of change, or coming from an opportunistic urge for change, or coming from this that or another wicked motivation. Truth is, says Hamilton, even the truth might be argued by someone with bad motives. So it is best to avoid distractions and stick to the substance.

This is a good point–as I read it, I overlooked it. Thinking back now, it is forward thinking and important to today’s distraction-prone political conversations.

Hamilton closes with an unsurprising admission that the authors favor adoption of the Constitution, and will adress all the criticisms they’ve so far heard from the cynics.

One more nice twist: Hamilton begins No.1 with an evocation of the momentous occasion before his audience–they will be proving to the world whether or not deliberative democracy is possible; and more pressing, whether it is possible to create a government “from reflection and choice, or

whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

This passage is, I think, simply urging the audience to take up the question of ratification, or not, and to think it through with due consideration. I can’t help but wonder, though, if the rhetoric sends an undercurrent message as well: is the “wrong election” that will ruin mankind rejection of the Constitution? New slogan: Adopt the Constitution, save the world.