Federalist No. 1 - “zeal for the rights of the people”
First, a brief introduction.
When I was in high school and college, I read as little as possible. Basically, I read only as much as needed to get a B or C on the test or book report. Good enough for government work! And then it was back to sports, Sega Genesis, and 90s rap music.
In other words, I was a moron. (Well, except for the 90s rap music. I had that right.)
Only now do I realize how much I missed out on reading. I’ve caught up on many of the classics as an adult, though I admit never having quite found the patience for Shakespeare or Thucydides. But one thing I’ve always wanted to do was read—from 1 to 85—the Federalist Papers.
I’m starting now, and this is my invitation for you to join me!
Here’s how we’ll do it: I’ll read each essay for us both, and I’ll write a short post with the highlights, applying it to our modern times. (To the extent you care, I’ll be using the 1818 Gideon Edition of the Federalist Papers.)
We’ll take our time, exploring just one essay every couple weeks. Easy, right? Even if you are in the Sega Genesis stage of reading enthusiasm.
If you’re down, consider subscribing here. Federalist No. 1 starts below…
No. 1
by Alexander Hamilton
Introduction
I think one of the things that most fascinates me about the Federalist papers now is that these dusty old essays suddenly seem so relevant. In this first essay, Hamilton asks “whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government.” There may be few times since 1787 that we have asked that question as frequently and as sincerely as we do today.
In urging his fellow citizens to adopt the new constitution, Hamilton considers two potential opponents: the first, “the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument and consequence of the offices they hold.” Does that remind you of our current state of affairs? Why would a legislator vote to end the gerrymandering that got her elected? Why would a state senator vote to institute ranked choice voting or reform the primary system, when he won that primary and was duly elected in the general? Why would any well-funded politician choose to reform campaign finance?
The second opponent Hamilton considers is “the perverted ambition of [those] who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies.” Does that ring a bell as well? Anger and resentment drive engagement on social media. Partisan rancor drives cable news ratings. For too many, confusions and subdivision are a matter not just of preference, but profits.
There’s one final passage that stuck out to me in Federalist No. 1, which strikes at a particular populist movement today. Hamilton observes that “a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people” and “of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career, by paying an obsequious court to the people…commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” Is it any wonder that so many of our politicians who claim to be “for the common man” are themselves so rich and powerful? We need only look at how actions which display a seeming “zeal for the rights of the people” are immediately followed by fundraising emails.
So let us be wary of both demagogues and tyrants and, in the coming months, see what else we can learn from this treasure trove of American history. As the Bible’s book of Ecclesiastes observes:
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.