Federalist No. 3 - “the best men”

by John Jay

The same Subject continued

I think it’s useful this week to pick up Federalist No. 3 at its very end.  Jay is explaining why it would be to his readers’ advantage to reside in a “strong united nation,” as opposed to a confederacy of smaller nation-states.  As an example of what the young nation should not aspire to, Jay uses the example of the Republic of Genoa—once a sovereign maritime republic and major commercial power:

In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him.  He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms.  They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation?

First of all, the all-caps “France” and “Powerful” brings strong Donald Trump tweet energy, and I love that for both of them.  Don’t believe me?

(Told you! Indistinguishable. Even if I cheated a little bit by adding one word at the end.)

But I am more fascinated by what kind of leaders Jay thought should lead this new, strong, united nation.  That too is addressed in Federalist 3: “the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it.” Oh. My. Goodness. “The best men.”

(Let me acknowledge briefly the material difference between “people” and (white, mostly land-owning) “men.” A worthy topic, but not one I’ll attempt to address here.) Accepting that we have 230 years of consensus from John Jay to Donald Trump that we should be led by “the best,” what does that mean?  There are two lessons here, and I’m going to reach back to Federalist No. 2 for the answers.  First, Look how Jay describes the First Continental Congress:

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

Wise.

Experienced.

Diverse in origin, thought, and expertise.

Selfless.

Knowledgeable.

Focused on public liberty and prosperity.

Recommending that which is prudent and advisable. 

That paragraph jumped out at me because it is so different than what so many politicians today promise during campaign season and deliver after elected.  Sure, there are suggestions that candidates are themselves experienced and wise, but experience and wisdom make for terrible tweets and 30-second campaign spots.  So we are frequently left instead with virtue signaling and emotional appeals.  Who is on our side?  Who will fight for us?  Who will protect us against them? And then things start getting really crazy…

My friends, you and I are partly responsible for this. High paid campaign consultants know that we have been TikTokified to the point we rarely know (or care) as much about the education, professional background, and life experiences of candidates as we do about the little letter after their name:  R or D.  Or about how they feel about our favorite issue. I know I have been guilty of this, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t love where it’s gotten us politically.

My suggestion this week is that we change the lens with which we view future candidates.  Let’s demand people and policies that encourage wisdom in the halls of government.  Let’s demand candidates who put our liberty and prosperity ahead of their own ambition.  Let’s step out of our cable news and social media echo chambers to think and vote with a dedication “neither 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.”