“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”
–Alexander Hamilton
For more than a hundred years Americans expressed their values and creative energy in numerous organizations and associations. As we saw in the previous post, Americans overcame constraints on their freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.
Generations later, however, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement has been replaced by an increasingly self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Is it these technologies that have isolated us from one another?
Economic historian Niall Ferguson argues no. Rather he suggests that it is “not technology, but the state – with its seductive promise of ‘security from the cradle to the grave’ – [which is] the real enemy of civil society.” He cites the prophetic vision of Tocqueville in 1840, when he imagined a future America in which the spirit of community has been co-opted and neutered by government:
“I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone….
“Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood….
“Thus, …the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
Elsewhere Tocqueville added an explicit warning:
“But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of association?…
“The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and industry if government came to take the place of associations everywhere.
“Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.”
I agree that government has had a part in the deadening of the American spirit. But, I do not think we can attribute the present condition solely to government. I believe the degeneration of attitudes and behavior cannot be divorced from the isolating influences of corporate culture, the dispersion of communities by the automobile, or the gradual loss of a moral, metaphysical center.
Telecommunications and commercial airlines have brought the world together on a macro level, but they have also left us disinclined us to engage with our neighbors.
I believe the long slide to isolation is the consequence of social forces that have followed the trajectory of human progress since the founding of the American Republic, and which we can only fault ourselves for accepting.
Our government is, after all, a creature of our own invention, served by people who have been subjected to the same degraded values and demoralized sense of responsibility as the rest of us.
Tom
Next week: The renewal of core American values.
Note to readers: Your comments and feedback would be much appreciated. As a writer I would find this very helpful.
We find ourselves now at a severe turning point, confronted by the consequences of the past and the anger and confusion of the present. Yet, this is also an opportunity, a rare moment in history that calls us to clarify our purpose and correct the attitudes and behaviors that brought us to this place.
We have lost a sense of ultimate purpose, and thus the conceptual framework upon which rational judgment depends. This has made us vulnerable both to our own vices and to the predatory interests and manipulative power of institutions that know our weaknesses.
To straighten things out will require that we address tough questions with open-minded objectivity. The effort may not be comfortable, but it will be essential if we are to regain our balance and rebuild our resolve.
In his recent book, The Great Degeneration, economic historian Niall Ferguson has provided us with a compelling review of what has come to pass. He considers four areas in which the degeneration of values and loss of social stability in the United States has had devastating consequences.
His four areas of concern are, to use my own words, 1) the loss of personal and social responsibility, 2) the disintegration of the market economy, 3) the role of the rule of law, and 4) the essential qualities of civil society.
Dr. Ferguson reminds us of our past, and in particular the vigorous civil and cultural life of nineteenth century America: “I want to ask,” he writes, “how far it is possible for a truly free nation to flourish in the absence of the kind of vibrant civil society we used to take for granted? I want to suggest that the opposite of civil society is uncivil society, where even the problem of anti-social behavior becomes a problem for the state.”
He goes on to cite Alexis de Tocqueville from the first volume of his famous commentary, Democracy in America, which was published in 1840:
“America is, among the countries of the world, the one where they have taken most advantage of association and where they have applied that powerful mode of action to a greater diversity of objects.
“Independent of the permanent associations created by law under the names of townships, cities and counties, there is a multitude of others that owe their birth and development only to the individual will.
“The inhabitant of the United States learns from birth that he must rely on himself to struggle against the evils and obstacles of life; he has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its authority only when he cannot do without it….
“In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, of commerce and industry, of morality and religion. There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals.”
Dr. Ferguson writes that “Tocqueville saw America’s political associations as an indispensable counterweight to the tyranny of the majority in modern democracy. But it was the non-political associations that really fascinated him.”
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books…. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of great example, they associate.”
What happened to American civil society? And what is the consequence of this loss?
As Tocqueville reports, Americans had once succeeded in overcoming constraints to freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.
Unfortunately, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement, based on committed interpersonal relationships, has been replaced by a self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Surely it is time to restore what we once did so well, and to address the great challenges ahead with renewed strength and responsibility.
Tom
Next week: When individual will is co-opted by government.
The idea of individualism has been an emotional force in the American experience. Indeed, respect for independence and individualism has been a source of honor and pride in the American mind.
Yet, there has been an obvious divergence between the vibrant and spontaneous civic life that characterized much of the early American story, and, at the same time, a record of violence and brutality revealing an arrogance that defied accountability.
Who are we, really? Who do we want to be?
Extremely anti-social behavior will evoke revulsion in most of us. But, historically, the dark side of individualistic egoism has been socially acceptable, even conspicuous, in racist attitudes and practices toward American Indians and African-Americans. And, we have an unfortunate legacy of gang violence, accentuated by the Mafia, drugs, and prostitution.
The destruction we are seeing today goes far deeper, however. We have witnessed a profound deterioration of moral character and social responsibility in recent years, impacting society at every level.
We live in a time of extremes. Mass murder and sexual crimes are proliferating on an appalling scale. Prior to 1960 there were apparently no more than 3 instances of mass murder in the United States per decade.
Definitions have changed, but so far in 2015 I count 42 instances in which 4 or more people died during single events (shootertracker.com). Many more were injured in 353 shootings this year where less than 4 people died.
This is but one example of a profound deterioration we can see all around us in attitudes toward honesty, trustworthiness, and responsibility.
The degradation of the social order has been a gradual and complicated process. But in my view a significant factor has been a lack of effective parenting. Children have been growing up without civilized values or emotional grounding.
The growing loss of moral responsibility even among older adults is especially disturbing.
And, it does not stop there. Institutions we have depended upon are facing financial bankruptcy; systems are breaking down; people are losing their grip.
How is it that we have so completely lost our way, our sense of purpose, our understanding of the integrity of our place in the world? The answer is not simple, but there has surely been a shift in attitudes. America has seen the loss of a once dynamic and thriving civil society, followed by the debasement of social discourse in the face of overwhelming materialism.
Clearly, the individualism that requires mutual respect and embraces civic responsibility will remain ever vulnerable to the dishonor of undisciplined individuals who lose their moral compass.
If Americans wish to regain a civil society in which we engage in meaningful discourse and join one another to resolve problems, we will need to step aside from unproductive bickering, extricate ourselves from the wreckage, and face the complex of dangers that now confront us.
Some have suggested we have inherited attitudes leading to fragmentation in the way we see and understand the world. Certainly early American settlers were influenced by the loss of religious and cultural roots, the dangers of frontier life, and the nomadic and transient qualities of American life generally.
But, the debasement of the social order we are seeing now is a recent development. America has, most certainly, not always been the way we see it now.
A healthy nation depends on an engaged and upbeat civil society. But, civic activities have nearly vanished from community life. Instead we have witnessed a steady erosion of values, the loss of civility, and accelerating disorder.
We now find ourselves at a critical turning point, confronted by the practical consequences of generalized anger and, at times, the emotional rejection of any perceived restraint. Most importantly, we have lost a sense of ultimate purpose – and thus the conceptual framework upon which rational judgment depends.
All this has made us vulnerable both to our own vices and to the predatory interests and manipulative power of institutions that know our weaknesses.
I will enlarge on these thoughts in the new year with observations from the early American chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville, historian Niall Ferguson, and the iconic conservative philosopher, Richard M. Weaver.
I will be taking a short break, and I wish you all a happy, peaceful, and reflective holiday season. We have a lot to think about. I hope to post here again on January 1.
Tom
“Hospitality means primarily the creation of free space where the stranger can enter and become a friend instead of an enemy. Hospitality is not to change people, but to offer them space where change can take place. It is not to bring men and women over to our side, but to offer freedom not disturbed by dividing lines.”
–Henri J.M. Nouwen, Christian theologian
During the period when America was first being settled by Europeans, the emerging identity of the new nation was influenced powerfully by a hopeful confidence in the future: the belief that freedom would lead ultimately to general prosperity and peace.
A new understanding of history had, in the words of Duke Professor Michael Allen Gillespie, “opened up the possibility that human beings need not merely accommodate themselves to the natural world. Instead they could become masters of nature and reshape it to meet their needs through the methodological application of will and intelligence. This new understanding of the relation of man and nature had profound implications for man’s own understanding of his place time.”
The “will to freedom” as conceived and understood by philosophers and treasured by Americans from the beginning, thus became the dominant theme on a continent that seemed unlimited, but for the noble peoples it displaced.
We have not been willing to tolerate anything that stands in our way, including those once proud and independent indigenous American peoples.
The contradictions hidden in the vision of absolute freedom and unlimited prosperity have remained largely unconscious and unresolved, whether they be social, economic, or physical. Forced by extraordinary circumstances, our attachment to inflexible absolutes is today pitching us into a confusion of emotionally charged philosophical and political conflicts.
Several related questions were raised in previous posts.
Do we still think we can make ourselves “master and possessor of nature” without respect for the balances that life on earth depends upon?
Is absolute freedom possible, given the complexity and destructive potential that science and technology have opened to us? What do we expect, for example, of rapidly advancing surveillance technologies that are capable of prying into every corner of our lives?
Finally, what do the new realities we face today suggest about the meaning of freedom? Can we address these questions thoughtfully and retake control of our destiny as wise, creative, and courageous people?
The historic questions have taken on a contemporary character, but they are essentially the same questions. Earlier generations evaded these questions by exalting science and materialism above all else. Consequently, the denial of a rational God and the suppression of religious perspective diverted attention from a logical contradiction that transcended philosophy and belief.
When the constraints and limitations imposed by belief in an all-knowing and all-powerful God were disposed of with the cry of “God is dead!” they were immediately replaced by constraints and limitations imposed by belief in a supposedly mechanical natural world.
It was, of course, assumed that science would soon master nature, human beings would succeed in perfecting rational governance, and humankind would realize absolute freedom. But, nature proved to be far more complex and unpredictable than was expected. And, having rejected the God of traditional religion, humankind has found itself confronted with a severe discipline imposed by nature, but without the grace or guidance of a loving Teacher.
And “rational governance”? Well, we have certainly witnessed in graphic terms the manner in which self-appointed leaders of “rational thought” led us into the totalitarian nightmares of communism, fascism, and Nazism.
Please make no mistake: This past is not far behind us.
If we are to reconsider the cataclysms of the first half of the twentieth century and the horrific consequences of the many bungled attempts to control human destiny – politically, economically, and scientifically – we might start to see the future more clearly. Indeed, we might then avoid potential disasters before they befall us.
The unresolved philosophical problems inherited from the past will continue to torment us if we fail to understand them. And, the danger can worsen with sloppy definitions and confusion about the requirements and limitations of freedom and prosperity.
Agreement among us is not required, but understanding the consequences of our actions in the real world is of immense significance.
We cannot neatly sidestep such fundamental unresolved questions, which I would suggest have embedded themselves deeply in the American psyche.
I look forward to reading your comments.
Tom
Next week: Transcending Our Limitations
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
—John Adams, second President of The United States
Dear readers: Are we, as Americans, somehow different? Are we prepared to pull ourselves together in the crucible of crisis – to forge a rational, humane, and sustainable future?
Tom
Americans today face a critical moment in time, arguably as profound as any in our history. Freedom of opportunity, social justice, and the preservation of our ability to seek personal goals are all at stake. The character of the nation appears to be in question. Our sense of identity as a people has been shaken.
We are experiencing the present adversity as an American crisis, and it is. But it is taking place in the context of a great turning point in the human story, a period of time when an unprecedented number of monumental crises are converging across the globe. Our own crisis is inextricably intertwined with the affairs of the world.
Never has there been a greater need for the stability of the American vision.
I have proposed a simple, yet demanding course of constructive action that can lead toward agreement concerning shared values and principles. If we have the will, it can also provide a platform for seeking a shared vision of the future, and drafting a strategy for getting ourselves there.
This will be extremely difficult for Americans to carry off. But, I do not believe we have a choice. Without a willingness to engage with one another in this a way, I do not expect this nation to survive as a democratic republic.
We must find our way with both grit and grace, navigating through complex, interacting crises. We face a transition that can be expected to dominate the course of the 21st century.
The outcome will depend on our character as a people, and our understanding of the fundamental structural change in social, economic, and environmental realities that will confront us each step of the way.
Necessity presents us with stark, uncomfortable choices. We can give free reign to anger and disillusionment, allowing ourselves to be dragged down to a demoralized helplessness. Or we can determine to stand firmly together as a people, rising above our differences to meet the challenges that confront us.
Are we prepared to preserve core values, even as we forge a genuinely American response to the evolving conditions of an unexpected and unprecedented series of crises?
Will we have the vision, courage, and fortitude to commit ourselves to principled means and constructive action?
I will not offer a political philosophy, nor will I speak of ultimate goals. Fundamental values and a shared purpose must be determined by the American people. Rather, I will propose the means for doing this.
Both this blog and the forthcoming book identify principles I consider necessary for undertaking this endeavor, and suggest the qualities of character, attitude, and responsibility that can bring us through a profound turning point in our national experience.
I ask that we turn away from the dishonesty and deceit of partisan politics to address the needs and problems in our local communities.
A practical approach is offered that transcends religious, philosophical, and partisan views. It leverages the strength of local communities willing to foster genuine unity while capitalizing on their diversity.
I leave the ultimate vision of the future to you: the American people.
In addressing the epic challenges confronting us in the coming years, it will be necessary to manage our relationships and responsibilities with honesty and integrity. These virtues must be sought determinedly and without faltering, however dark the prospect.
I ask Americans to rise above our differences in the conviction that however immense the tests we face, however the world changes around us, however diverse our personal circumstances, this nation must not be permitted to abandon its founding vision and ultimate purpose.
Tom
A note to regular readers: If you wish to offer your encouragement, you may do so by clicking on the “Follow” button on the right side of the page. When it comes time to publish, numbers will make a difference.
“If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?”
–Thomas Jefferson
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain – and most fools do.”
–Benjamin Franklin
“The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.”
–Walt Disney
As we look forward from the current state of disorder, dependable local communities will be the only stable condition in which we can prepare for the future.
Community is the seat of civilization, made real because it is personal. It is in local community where we can engage with one another face-to-face, building trust, tending to needs, learning patience and responsibility.
Our strength comes with diversity and depends upon our readiness to rise above our differences to build a welcoming, all-inclusive society. This is the essence of our humanity, our heritage and the source of the nation’s greatness.
These things don’t just happen by coincidence. They are formed in the trials of hardship and necessity. They are given character by our vision and purpose.
Like marriage, a commitment to community forces us to mature as adult people – emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. Perhaps this is why so many avoid participating fully.
There are, however, other reasons for committing ourselves to local responsibility. Beyond the boundaries of family, community is the place to address the immediate needs we face, to engage in democratic decision-making and to solve problems.
Americans have abdicated personal responsibility for these aspects of civilized life for a long time, and we have done so at our peril.
It was not always this way. Prior to the American Revolution, and for close to 100 years afterward, Americans gravitated easily, even impulsively, toward local governance and an independent frame of mind. We managing our own affairs in cooperation with our neighbors and accepted regional autonomy as a natural condition.
Civil society flourished in nineteenth century America, a vibrant force documented admiringly by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1840 volume, Democracy in America. Americans created an immense variety of civic organizations to address every conceivable social need and activity. People did this on their own initiative, inspired by their sense of belonging and the spirit of the times.
An American return to community, both in spirit and as a practical matter, is as important today as it has ever been. It can only be through engaging with our neighbors in all spheres of problem-solving that we will learn the skills for living and working productively as fellow citizens.
As Americans, we have been here before and we can do it again.
There are those who argue that the decentralist tradition of the American past represents an ideal to which we should aspire. This is an attractive vision. Yet, I think it should be plain for all to see that there must be a balance struck between a constituency of fully engaged local communities and a competent, benevolent and trustworthy centralized government.
At the present juncture, it is difficult to imagine a limited central government managed by mature adults who are responsible for protecting both our freedoms and our security. But, that is what we need. Without law there can be no freedom.
I believe that a valid and well-reasoned vision of limited government for the American future can only come from local communities. Those who understand trust, moral responsibility, and constructive action – and who recognize the very high stakes involved – will build the foundations for the American renewal with their neighbors.
We can only meet necessity through personal initiative and meaningful dialog. And, the most effective leaders will be those who serve with quiet restraint and minimal drama.
Building unity within communities is a gradual process that depends on each of us to reach out across differences of tradition, politics, and culture to influence the hearts and minds of our neighbors, to form friendships and to truly understand one another.
What is essential is that Americans stand together, making firm our commitment to such values as will guide a free and just nation.
This will take time. By necessity we must refocus our vision of the future in such positive terms that partisan politics will be powerless to resist.
Tom
The United States Constitution holds a unique place in the history of the world. The framers devised a new model for governance in 1787, conceived with a vision that has endured for more than two hundred years.
Are we willing to overlook the subsequent missteps and mistakes, the rude and selfish behavior, to consider what is truly of value to us? Are we prepared to step forward to reconstruct and defend what we wish to preserve?
If we let this inheritance die, what will we have lost?
The record has not always been pretty, but how could we expect anything like perfection when we have gathered the human race together from across the world into the managed chaos of a democratic republic?
We are blessed with a brilliantly conceived structure for governance that has channeled the creative genius of the world’s people into a dynamic force for capacity-building and prosperity.
As I tried to illustrate in the previous post, the framers made a studied effort to see the end in the beginning. We now stand at another profound turning point in history, a moment that will require a similar visionary maturity from Americans of all colors, stripes, and viewpoints.
There are those who think 200 years is a reasonable age for a democratic republic to reach its’ natural demise. However, the United States of America is not just any democratic republic. And, I have yet to hear the voices of failure suggest an ultimate outcome.
I think it more reasonable to understand 200 years as the age of maturity, influenced in part by the affairs of the world, when this nation must necessarily come of age.
We have responsibility for a trust that is grounded in the heritage of the American idea. It is the responsibility to provide an immensely complex and now faltering world with the stability required to support the next surge forward by the human race.
This is a trust that no other nation has the vision, the strength of will or generosity of spirit, to embrace. Brought into focus by the vision of the American founders, it shines even now from the darkness, confident amid danger and hardship.
Imperfections remain. Those who point to the evils and injustices of the past are serving a necessary role. We must not forget what was ignoble or wrongly conceived. It is not helpful, however, to condemn the vision and good will that give character to what the world has admired.
Questions remain. Thoughtful citizens will consider the requirements that freedom makes in the way we handle our civil discourse, our disagreements and decision-making. Surely there can be no freedom for thought, for creativity, for economic advancement in the absence of a civil society that provides the space to engage freely and without fear.
Recognizing the necessity for the stable social order upon which all else depends, a practical reality confronts each of us every day. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Have we matured to the degree that we can listen compassionately to one another, explain our own views patiently, and, when necessary, live with our differences?
Do we have the capacity to approach freedom of expression responsibly, to work with one another respectfully? The crises-fueled tensions of the early 21st century leave us wondering.
Ultimately, freedom and prosperity depend upon our ability to engage in meaningful problem-solving, and to accept our differences within the supporting constraints of commonly held principles.
Why should we do this?
Because we are all Americans, that’s why.
Because we can resolve to regain our footing and get ourselves moving again in the right direction. And, because if we fail we could lose everything.
Tom
Next week: American Identity, American Heritage
The structure of the Constitution is simple yet profound. It carefully restrains the passions of factionalism, however intense, from imposing destructively on either minority or majority. It limits the potential for regional conflict and ensures the strength to confront external threats.
It is the antagonistic divisiveness current among Americans that concerns us here.
“Give all the power to the many,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, “they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.”
To understand how and why we depend on the Constitution as we navigate through crises, it will be useful to consider both the carefully reasoned manner in which it was conceived and the negative reaction that it at first inspired.
The founders made a great effort to see into the future.
It can be instructive to review some of the numerous essays and polemics that were published in the American colonies during the period when the proposed document was being considered for ratification. Among these, a series of 85 commentaries was published in 1787 and 1788 for the purpose of supporting ratification by three members of the Constitutional Convention.
The three writers, who originally shared the pseudonym, “Publius”, were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Later consolidated into a single volume as The Federalist, the assembled papers were said by Thomas Jefferson, another participant at the Convention, to be “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written,” a view many legal scholars agree with today.
The Federalist remains an authoritative text often cited in major court cases and has appeared in the debates surrounding virtually every constitutional crisis. Another collection entitled The Anti-Federalist Papers, edited by Ralph Ketcham, is also easily available.
Readers are encouraged to investigate the issues reflected in the debate that led to ratification.
In the end, the outcome turned out not to be in question except in New York, where the State Constitutional Convention passed it by only three votes. But, the debates remain instructive and bear a strong similarity to many of those we find ourselves engaged in today.
As an example, I refer you here to the way the framers of the Constitution addressed an inevitable challenge to both fundamental freedoms and effective governance.
In The Federalist, Number 10, James Madison argues that there is no more important purpose in structuring a sound government than that of limiting the “violence” of factionalism.
Responding to the issues prevalent in the colonies immediately following the Revolutionary War, Madison writes that: “Complaints are everywhere heard…, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
Does this not sound familiar to the citizen of today?
Madison continues:
“As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society…. So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and to excite their most violent conflicts.
“But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.
“The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government….
“The inference to which we are brought,” Madison concludes, “is that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”
Tom
Next week: A different kind of nation
Liberty and the American Idea 