No. 10 Is The Best Federalist Paper,  And That’s Why The Left Hates It So Much

No. 10 Is The Best Federalist Paper, 
And That’s Why The Left Hates It So Much  

Robert Curry 

{ thefederalist.com } ~ “The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it,…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…invade the rights of other citizens.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Thomas Jefferson called The Federalist Papers “the best commentary on the principles of government, which was ever written.” It was true then, and remains true today. The masterpiece of American political thought began as a series of newspaper opinion pieces encouraging Americans to ratify the Constitution. The 85 essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym “Publius.”

For the past century and more, one of Madison’s essays, the tenth Federalist, has taken center stage, and the quoted passage above presents, very briefly, Madison’s most famous argument in No. 10. An extended republic of the kind the Founders envisioned, Madison argues, has a built-in feature that safeguards the rights of its citizens arising from the very nature of the society itself. Because there will be many “parties and interests,” the rights of citizens will be safer than in a republic confined to a small society.

Madison’s argument is quite straightforward. Here is the central claim: a small republic can offer no solution to the problem of a majority faction oppressing the minority. Think of it in this way: we can imagine the elected government of a republic of Manhattan Island with today’s population outlawing the ownership of automobiles by private citizens and rescinding the tax-exempt status of churches. But “extend the sphere” of the republic to include voters who live in rural Texas and in Bible Belt states, and assembling a like-minded national majority in support of those policies becomes a much more difficult challenge.

The tenth is often cited as the most important Federalist paper. It is both great and prominent. Its greatness is intrinsic, but its prominence is the result of a decision by the Progressives at the beginning of the Progressive era. They decided to attack the Constitution by attacking No. 10. It has been under constant attack from the left ever since.

Charles Beard fired the first shots. Beard, an early and influential Progressive, offered a Marxist account of No. 10. He argued in his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913) that No. 10 provided “a masterly statement of the theory of economic determinism in politics.”

In those early days the Progressives were much more open about their enthusiasm for everything Marxist. For example, Lincoln Steffens, another prominent Progressive, made a three-week visit to the Soviet Union in March 1919, declaring on his return “I have seen the future, and it works.” The title page of his wife Ella Winter’s book Red Virtue: Human Relationships in the New Russia (1933) carries that famous quote. Beard, Steffens, and Winter were eager for Americans to turn away from the American Constitution and build a bridge to the Marxist future.

The stupendous evil and stupidity of every Marxist state from the USSR to Venezuela has taught the Progressives to be coy about their Marxist roots today. Consequently, they have shifted the ground of their attacks on No. 10, but the assault continues unabated. Garry Wills, for example, attacks No. 10 head-on in his book Explaining America: “What he Madison protects is not the common good but delay as such.” The shift from “economic determinism” to “delay” reflects the Progressives’ abandonment of Marxist utopianism for straightforward opposition to the Constitution’s design and purpose.

For the founders, the purpose of the Constitution was preserving liberty in a regime of limited, republican government. Their design for liberty is a work of genius, enabling the American people to accomplish the incredible feat of governing themselves.

But the Progressives have a different purpose for government. They want to use the vast powers of government to change America. The features of the design Madison and the other founders celebrate for protecting liberty the Progressives deplore for creating “delay.” The Constitution, you see, still occasionally gets in the way of their agenda. Consequently, they want to be rid of it.

Have you noticed the Progressive left’s increasing opposition to key features of the Constitution? They denounce the Electoral College, have taken aim at the First and the Second Amendments, and lately even have come out against the Constitution’s provision of two senators for each state. They won’t be satisfied until the Constitution is unable to hamper them ever again.  

Views: 30

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Never looked into it, maybe I should.

Maybe you should

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service