As I waited for the debate in the arena at the Sarah Palin rally (because it was free) and tried to read the Federalist Papers amidst a bunch of middle-aged white guys in patriotic button-downs and their wives in accompanying hockey mom/pit bull/lipstick t-shirts, I realized that a lot of what I was reading was being played out in front of me. The Federalist Papers as written by Alexander Hamilton are arguments in support of the new constitution, but they also talk about different parties and the differences in opinions between them. Hamilton writes, “To judge the conduct of opposing parties, we shall be lead to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions and increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations, and by the bitterness of their invectives” (Baym 667). The Federalist Papers supported the new constitution as something that would ensure of the rights of the new Americans, but it also had to balance the role of the government in the situation. The country had just defeated a domineering monarchy, and the last thing the people wanted was another form of this in place. I imagine that the opposing parties that Hamilton is talking about are those for and against the new constitution, and those against it probably saw it as imposing on their lives like the monarchy did. Hamilton battles this by saying that “nothing could be more ill judged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties” (Baym 667). The intolerant spirit seems to be the people against the constitution, and Hamilton recognizes this as a pretty normal thing, which it is. I have yet to see an entire country unite down to the last person on a single issue.
Although we have come a long way from the beginnings of our country and the birth of our rights, the interpretation of these rights is and will always be a matter of debate. The parties now interpret them differently, and both probably far from what our founding fathers thought. So as I sat next to the guy that screamed out “the liberals!” when the announcer on the screen asked who was at fault for the economy, I realized that this is our right, argued for and protected by our founding fathers through these papers. And as much as I may disagree with someone, it is their right to express their opinion as much as it is my right to go and cancel their vote out.
3 comments:
There's nothing like a Presidential election to bring out the factionalism that both Hamilton and Madison were talking about in the Papers. The idea for framing the Constitution as it exists was to keep that factionalism from consuming the government to the point where either nothing would get done, or one group would effectively subjugate another. While the system doesn't always work perfectly, it does see to work. Nice to know that some folks are paying attention to how history affects our present day situation.
I have to agree that the system is far from perfect but it's the only one that we have. The Federalists had a pretty dim view of human nature and decided that if people were bent on antagonizing one another in the political process, better to have that ill-will working to an advantage. It's interesting that the Articles of Confedertion which preceded the Constitution--in some sense--assumed that people would all get together and agree (or agree to disagree). But with no one having the last word, nothing got done. Sorry I missed the Rally but I know one way or anothe we are going to get the person that the majority of the country wanted. And for four years that will be the person who is making a lot of choices for us. Thanks, in part, go to Hamilton, Madison and other Federalists who masterminded Constitutional government.
Your thoughts are very interesting and spur several questions. For example, I wonder what the founding fathers would say if they were here to witness the current election? Would they agree with the current candidates' interpretations of the constitution? Although these questions can never be answered, I think they wrote the constitution in a loose way, so it could be adjusted to different contexts and time periods.
Post a Comment