The nature of man (Very much for my European and Austrasia friends)
Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays initiated by Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton chose and invited John Jay and James Madison to contribute as co-authors under the pseudonym “Publius” (the pseudonym under which all of The Federalist Papers were published, and under which Alexander Hamilton started the series with the Federalist No. 1). Published on November 29, 1787, Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings.
No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against “factions”, or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.
Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man – that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth, and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them, and they will sometimes work against the public interest, and infringe upon the rights of others. Thus, he questions how to guard against those dangers.
The entire situation cannot be avoided — insofar as from his realm of research and study, he concluded that this indeed was a function of humankind’s nature. As such, Madison was keenly aware of the atrocities that throughout history concerned secrecy and corruption in government. Therefore, most of this nation’s Founder’s were aware of the necessity of transparency by the people who became rulers. James Madison wrote that,
“A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both.”
Like it or not, back in 1787 with pamphlets, newspapers, posters, and stamps as a means of communication besides the pub, this shows how informed we ought to be with the Internet, television, messaging services, and of course, the device we carry as our own iPhones.
Madison states, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,” so the cure is to control their effects. He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy, he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws, and, with a republic, he intends a society in which citizens vote for an elite of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community, since, again, common people’s decisions are affected by their self-interest.
I believe contrary to Madison’s incredible observations of the nature of humankind, he also made a sort of commitment to writing on factions. That is perhaps why he favored representative democracy over and above straight democracy — or so that is what historians and elite members of academia have always advocated.
However, my point is and remains, what if a person loathed a particular Party platform and all they had in form of representation were representatives and senators of that Party?
In the last seven plus years factions that have succeeded in the USA without proper or sometimes any information about them are, same-sex marriages, overturning the Defense of the Marriage Act, various rights, and privileges are given to the LGBTQ community as well as illegal immigrants.