The Anti-Feds

I think Quarles is right on, though I doubt his opinion needs my reinforcement. My question regards your conception of democracy, Brad. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated this question extensively (and there was a lot more on the line then than there is now in this blog discussion). The Anti-Federalists wanted political decision-making localized to the greatest extent possible. Localization was necessary for democracy, they argued. The further away decisions were made from the people, the more democracy became a convenient, merely nominal title. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson proposed dividing the country into small communities he called "wards." (He must have had a chat with Brother Joseph.) Again, localization of decision-making allows citizens to become sufficiently acquainted with their political situation and gives them a more meaningful shot at influencing policy. At least, that is the argument. The Federalists, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of a strong national government. Above all other goods, such a government would provide security. The country would be protected from international threats and minorities would be protected from the tyranny of the majority.


Certainly, neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists were opposed to liberty. Their differences derive instead from their ideas about what liberty is and what threatens it. (I should note that I am generalizing for ease of discussion. Both the Feds and the Anti-Feds had disagreements with themselves; each member had his or her nuanced view. Nevertheless, they did share general positions. That may go without saying.) Anyway, the Anti-Federalists stress that democracy is itself only when the governed are able to participate in their government in a meaningful way. What meaningful participation is exactly is not self-evident, but they are clear that it cannot occur unless government is localized.


For the Federalists, democracy must be restrained if liberty is to be preserved. They reason that "the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." It is the job of the elites, the enlightened statesmen, to "refine and enlarge the public views" so that the will of the people might be in accordance with reason and justice. This process of refinement appears to be antithetical to the dictates of justice according to the Anti-Federalists. Liberty and justice require that the will of the people be mirrored, not filtered (and thereby critiqued and checked). The Federalists respond by claiming that liberty is of little worth without security from the masses, domestic and international. Indeed, the preeminence of security is one of the leitmotifs of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton continually refers to the universal baseness of men as a threat to national (and therefore state and individual) security. The intent of the references is to convince Americans of their need for government to protect them from the dangerous caprice of their neighbors next door and abroad.


The question seems to be that we choose between a paternal government or a subservient one. Do we give up decision-making power completely to the leaders we elect because of the sophistication required to make good decisions? Or do we ask our leaders to tell us how they see it, but ultimately let us decide? Are we Anti-Feds or Feds?