Federalist paper 10

The_Minister

Federalist paper 10 by James Madison

The Federalist Papers are one of the most respected set of documents regarding the creation of an ideal republic. Of these Federalist paper 10 is probably the best known. As any discussion of all papers at once would be blunt and messy, I would appreciate if we keep largely to fed 10 in this thread. Indeed, many of its ideas, such as the ones below, could merit their own threads.
Here are some quotes from the document that often arouse fierce debate. I am leaving these here, so that those of you with little patience or time can participate, but I would recommend a complete reading of the document. It is not long or difficult.

Fed10 wrote:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

Fed 10 wrote:

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.

Fed10 wrote:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.

When I first read this paper, I thought its ideas on faction were insightful and amazing (I was just getting into politics), and I still think that it is well-written, persuasive and relevant to today's Democratic Republics especially when we consider the continues growth of Europe.
Many of its ideas still apply to Ireland. The middle arguement is one we have every day in this country.

ISAW

The_Minister wrote:

Federalist paper 10 by James Madison

Written at the time the constitution was being drafted and also having strong contribution from alexander Hamilton and John Jay. This is a PRE Bill of Right time. it was thomas Jefferson who later persuaded Madison to adopt the Bill of Rights.
Many of the fedaleralists feared the "tyranny of the legislature".
Thoreau later reflected this in "civil disobiedience" as a reaction to Alexis De Tocquevilles "tyranny of the majority"

No 10 Federalist takes up the idea of political factions. madison argues that they cant be eliminated but can be controlled. the representative democracy of a republuic is seen as a method to "discern the true intrests of their country" even when the majority of people may not.
Madison also argues against the idea that republics only work in small populations. Independent TDs may have some influence of the Dail but the 166 as a whole dilutes their power to effect national policy.

Neither in the US or Irish constitution are political parties mentioned.

The_Minister

OK......Obviously this thread is a bust. Maybe lockage, and stick the links into resources.

DadaKopf

I read Fed10 years ago in 1st year politics. It haunts me.

I scanned it again today and found something way more interesting than 'factions'. In one passage in the first half, Madison exposes the inextricable link between rationality and emotions - that the political intentions/opinions of any person are a murky mix of rationality and emotion. Basically, every view is self-interested, but may be dressed as objective, necessary truth.

However, in Madison's view, it looks as if the solution is to insulate the state from the polity far too much so that leaders can rule in the 'true' interests of the people so as to bind 'factions' (interest groups, parties, movements) to the elites.

I think one of the biggest problems in politics is this mind-body problem because it generates problems in terms of how communities and societies can govern well. Sometimes the solution is to deny such a link; other solutions involve declaring one's motives and being rigorously honest.

Madison's view - a liberal federalist - may run against the view of Isaiah Berlin and even run close to his criticism of Marxism: that it's a political philosophy in which elites claim to have the key to bring out the 'true person' inside, to unleash their innate freedom. Surely Madison's proto-realist view may run into this problem.

On the other hand, Habermas admits this mind-body problem can never be resolved, but rather than dominating or ignoring the problem, he recommends confronting it by creating an ideal situation in which people can seriously get down to business of politics if people openly declare their interests and prejudices. It's a pipedream, but an important principle of democracy.

Anyway, I thought this aspect of Madison's Fed10 paper was the most intruiging, and definitely gives insight into American politics. Paraphrasing Henry Kissinger, in American politics, it's OK to lie to citizens about the terrible things governments do because a leader's responsibility is to protect the state's territory.

DadaKopf

Here's the section:

James Madison wrote:

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

Chakar

I did a essay on the Federalist Paper Number Ten last year it was good fun reading other books interpreting the paper and the overall idea of the movement.

I was writing about is the Federalist Paper Number Ten relevant to the modern United States.

It was easy enough, I talked about factions and the divisions of power between these factions, the federal system of government in USA was influenced the paper.