Info Brief: Publius's Vision for Constitutional Politics

Let’s end by exploring the broader vision of constitutional politics that Publius laid out in The Federalist Papers. There, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay set out a compelling vision for the American republic.

On the one hand, the American people had just fought a revolution against an abusive, distant, out-of-touch Parliament and King. As a result, they were concerned about creating a new government that was similarly abusive, distant, and out-of-touch. It’s little wonder that they set out to create a limited government—one that would curb the threat of tyranny and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to themselves and their “Posterity.”

On the other hand, the Framers were disappointed with the governments that they had already created. The Articles of Confederation set up a new government that was too weak to govern America, and the early state constitutions gave too much power to the most popular parts of their government—the lower houses of the state legislatures—and too little power to the other parts of their governments.

As a result, the Framers also set out to create a national government that worked. While they still remembered the tyranny of King George III and Parliament, they were also concerned about the failures of the Articles of Confederation and their state constitutions. Setting out to improve on the Articles, they framed a new government with the power to raise revenue, promote cooperation between the states, and secure the young nation from threats at home (mob violence) and abroad (foreign interference). And in response to the failures of the state constitutions, they bolstered the power and independence of the other parts of the national government: dividing Congress into two houses and empowering the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the U.S. Senate to check the lower house of Congress: the U.S. House of Representatives.

By drafting and ratifying our Constitution, the Founding generation sought to create a national government more powerful than one created by the Articles of Confederation, but also one of limited powers. This was no simple task.

In The Federalist Papers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay envisioned a constitutional system driven by reasoned debate and principled compromise. In part, they feared majority and minority factions as enemies of public reason, and, in part, they sought to build a system that guarded against majoritarian tyranny, making it hard for (as James Madison put it) “stronger factions [to] readily unite to oppress the weaker.” This is the familiar American constitutional story: separation of powers; checks and balances; factions counteracting factions.

However, that’s only part of the story. The Founders also sought to design a system that worked—one that promoted public reason and filtered the views of the American people through representative bodies filled with America’s best and brightest.

While elections to the U.S. House were intended to align the government with the views of the American people, the Framers also designed a “complicated” system—one that was not simply driven by the immediate preferences of the people themselves.

Through the new Constitution, Madison sought to limit the dangers of party passion and factional unreason. For Madison, “the aim of every political constitution was . . . , first, to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society.” (Federalist No. 57) While states often had a limited pool of quality candidates for their legislatures, the national government would have, in John Jay’s words, “the widest field of choice.” (Federalist No. 3) Since the Framers “extended . . . the spheres of elections,” a larger universe of potential candidates would be available for each position in the national government, and only those with well-established reputations would win. (Federalist No. 27, Hamilton) This would result in elected officials who were “temperate and cool,” (Federalist No. 27, Hamilton) congressional deliberations filled with “moderation and candor,” (Federalist No. 27, Hamilton), and decisions that were “more wise, systematical, and judicious, than those of the individual states.” (Federalist No. 3, Jay)

This form of representative government would “refine and enlarge the public’s views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, would be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” (Federalist No. 10) The Framers’ goal was to build a system that would govern well and, in turn, cultivate increasing levels of support from the American people. The new national government would attract great leaders. Those leaders would deliberate, compromise, and enact policies that would promote the common good. This policymaking success would build public confidence in the national government—which, in turn, would attract another batch of great leaders. And so on.

The system as a whole was designed to slow the political process down, filter public opinion, and lead to good decision making. The people would elect the members of the House directly and indirectly play a role in the selection of the new government’s President and Senators. And any idea or piece of legislation would face considerable obstacles before it could be enacted into law. A successful coalition would have to win election. The piece of legislation would have to pass both houses of Congress, and it would have to survive both the presidential veto and any challenges inside of the courts.

Ideally, this process would block bad ideas, rework flawed ones, and perfect good ones. Over time, by slowing our politics down, national policy would promote the common good—or, at least, so Publius hoped!