Kurt R.A. Giambastiani

We’re deep into the current election cycle now, and I urge every one of us to get out and vote.

I also encourage us all to think a bit about what we’re voting for and why. We all hear talk—from candidates, from pundits, from friends and family—of what America “is.” We hear that this election (like so may previous elections) is a “battle for the soul of our nation.” But what does that mean?

What is America?

For my right-wing relations, their answer to that question is very dissimilar to mine, and we quite unhappily go ’round and ’round about the nature of religion, government, and civil rights in our nation. But who’s right? Are any of us right? What did the framers really mean when they drafted our founding documents?

In short, what were they thinking?

One source for answers is The Federalist Papers*, a series of essays published in 1787–88. Authored by three men—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—these essays were essentially an influence campaign designed to increase public support for the newly drafted Constitution, and as I read through their papers, I was able to see more clearly how they defined the “soul of our nation.”

I was also able to see how America today is something they could not have imagined or foretold.

In recommending this book to you, I’ll limit myself to two of the many thoughts and revelations that struck me as I read it.

The primary revelation for me was just how radical our Constitution was at the time. The original idea of a Union, a federation of the many states under a larger, federal government, was unpalatable to many and quite a hard sell. Many wanted each state to remain completely sovereign, while others favored a small group of confederacies, three or four created out of the thirteen states. Ceding even a portion of the states’ powers to a single, central government was seen as a dangerous concentration of power.

Getting buy-in from the public was made more difficult by the fact that the Constitutional Convention pretty much ignored the mandate it was given. Instead of simply reworking the Articles of Confederation—which had already been endorsed and ratified—the headstrong conventioneers deemed those articles fatally flawed and decided to completely rewrite them, drafting what is now our Constitution. And even this total rewrite was seen as flawed, though, lacking protections for specific liberties and rights, which is why the first order of business after the Constitution was ratified was to work on the Bill of Rights. This dismayed me, somewhat, as it proved that the framers saw our Union to be a work-in-progress, subject to change through reasoned debate and compromise; we don’t seem capable of either reasoned debate, anymore, and compromise? Don’t get me started.

Another revelation—and this one troubled me greatly—was that the framers assumed that the representatives the public chose would naturally be the most intelligent and wisest the population had to offer. Living as they were in The Age of Enlightenment, when scientific inquiry and thoughtful philosophical discourse were respected and encouraged, it was simply a given that, as the voting public considered candidates, they (we) would naturally gravitate toward those who epitomized these qualities. While the framers put mechanisms in place to remove individuals who violated their oath of office, the basic assumption was that, as a body, our representatives would have the smarts and long-range vision to defend the Union over their party. In fact, removing bad actors was seen to preserve the party’s reputation.

I think it’s fair to say that, with the rise of anti-intellectualism and factional politics in modern society, a good percentage of the politicians we have put in office today are decidedly not the smartest, most sagacious folks around. I think it’s also fair to say that, in recent decades, preservation of power has become more important than preservation of reputation and, sometimes, even more important than the stability of our Union. For the framers, the norms of honor and dignity carried a great deal more weight than they do today. For them, a man’s character and reputation were critical elements of moral standing. For us, it seems, character has no meaning as long as the outcome is to one’s advantage.

In the Federalist essays, the trio of framers give thoughtful explanations and impassioned defenses of the various aspects of their proposed Constitution, so if you have a specific area of inquiry, chances are they covered it. You can dip into one section and jump to another, leap-frogging around from topic to topic. And while the essays aren’t what you’d call a “beach read,” they are immensely informative and illuminating.

For students of politics or history, or for those who simply want a better understanding of the original intent of the people who brought this nation into being, it’s not too far a stretch to say that The Federalist Papers are required reading.

k

* The Federalist Papers are available in many versions, including free electronic versions. The version that I’ve linked to is a Barnes & Noble Classics edition that has informative timelines, introductions, biographical data, and end-notes.