Federalist #1

noel · Veteran Member

Federalist #1

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Absolutely they did. They recognized the inherent advantages of America's resources and geographic position, and they anticipated that the United States, if it remained united, would be a leading power in the world. They also felt the role of "city on a hill" to the rest of the world--America would be an example of freedom and good government to all.

I found this passage interesting:

"We, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy."

Hmmm.....sounds like something I've said recently on this board.

This part was also instructive:

"An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people ...will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good"

Hamilton recognizes that the worthy motives on both sides will be portrayed by the other as evil and unworthy. And that there are worthy motives on both sides. How much we need this spirit in our public discourse today--both sides of an issue have important points to make, and both sides should refrain from paintings their opponents as having ill motives.

The entire essay shows a brilliant understanding of the workings of popular governement--this essay could easily be applied to our public discourse today.

noel · Veteran Member

Shiz,

Yes!

We could read this article today and think it addressed a current political controversy. There is a timeless quality to Hamiltons observations.

This passage also caught my eye;

"And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antogonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question."

So much for the notion that espousing the "right" platform can substitute for personal character, or that good character can long avoid "getting it right". Personal life cannot be separated from public conduct. (I believe the word in vogue was "compartmentalization")