The Federalist, No. 10

It has been over 200 years since the publication of The Federalist Letters, but are their authors’ arguments still applicable today? The answer of course would be a resounding “yes,” since in their words are outlined many of the fundamentals the country was built on. In particular, works like, “The Federalist, No. 10” by James Madison convincingly detailed the benefits of a republic over a direct democracy, but what he could not predict was how with time, a new, less commendable government has taken shape.

Rightly, Madison grounded his arguments in an astute observation regarding human nature. He recognized that inevitably there will always be a “zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government and many other points” which will divide “mankind into parties, [inflame] them with mutual animosity, and [render] them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good” (670). Examples of his assertion are everywhere. There are conservative people who would think less of another simply because they agree with liberal ideals (and vice versa). Looking at newspapers, the “talking heads” on television, and radio broadcasters, it seems everyone has an opinion, and of course, it is the right one. Simply think back to the last time you witnessed a yelling match erupt between two supposedly professional journalist on a cable news network, and then it becomes not hard to understand what Madison was up against.

What remedy is offered for this unavoidable predicament built into human nature? Madison says a representational government, or republic, is the answer, but is it truly the cure he proclaims it to be? Obviously, others agreed, for it is how the country is run today, but what consequences have befallen us? Madison theorized that with a republic “it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves…” (672). The only safety net he offers is to surmise that because of the greater number of citizens in a large republic, there is a greater probability of candidates being of “the right choice,” since “it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts” (672). Essentially, he is relying on the masses to be so drawn to the common good, that they will effectively quell those small factions who work only to further their own unscrupulous ends. True, if everyone where to be involved in every decision, the public would be voting daily, and nothing else could ever be accomplished. However, Madison’s hope that good will prevail fails to consider just how powerful and influential some special interest groups or individuals can be (especially those with money). Oftentimes, these powers corrupt the political process, making legislation more about what will benefit them instead of what will be better for the people. This is easily scene in the many tax breaks afforded to large oil companies (It has not been until recently that congress repealed the 18 billion dollar exemptions afforded these companies, but that was only because gas was climbing over the $4 mark. If prices had not skyrocketed, would these companies still be reaping the benefits their lobbyists worked hard to create?) .

Another problem comes from one outcome of the republic Madison does not seem to provide for: the factions of the representatives themselves. He surmises that the republic’s security lies in “a greater variety of parties and interests” making it less probable that a majority will become organized enough to act on what might be “a common motive” (673). Unfortunately, it seems people have defied his predictions and mobilized behind two distinct, dueling parties. It is not the majority controlling the minority that Madison worried about, but it is a likewise unfavorable condition as the country is arguably split between two sizable groups. When a program or policy fails, Democrats and Republicans become more concerned over blaming their rival rather than finding a solution. To vote outside of one’s party lines makes the individual cause for suspect as they “cannot be trusted” anymore. Certainly, it is a wonder anything ever gets done given the amount of separation present within a single government. Besides, the “variety of parties” meant to keep these groups in check and the republic healthy arguably does not exist anymore (Especially if one considers how the Independent party’s candidate is not even invited to debate).

Madison, James. "The Federalist, No. 10" The Norton Anthology of American Literature Vol. A. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007. 669-674.