Today, we celebrate the 238th anniversary of the publication of the very first essay in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 1 from Oct. 27, 1787, marks the start of a seminal work in political philosophy by Hamilton and his compatriots James Madison and John Jay, all sharing the pseudonym Publius. But perhaps just as importantly, the essay demonstrates the need for vigilance in supporting civil discourse.
With Federalist No. 1, Hamilton launched Publius’s project to defend the structure and purposes of the proposed new U.S. Constitution. Federalist No. 1 was an essay heralding a true time for choosing, to borrow a line Ronald Reagan would use centuries later on this day as well, Oct. 27, 1964. Hamilton argued that the new Constitution was “the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness,” and he proposed to discuss the particulars of why “in a series of papers” we now know as The Federalist Papers.
Although The Federalist Papers are most often read for their lessons on constitutional interpretation, Hamilton also wanted his readers to understand the imperative of civility in discourse, a presumption of good faith applied to one’s political opponents, and the importance of respecting different opinions when engaging in the most important, often contentious, conversations of the day. In today’s political climate, we should take note.
IT IS TIME FOR PEACEFUL PROTEST RALLIES AND VIGILS
Hamilton warned that deliberation over the new Constitution would be heated, and consumers of the debate must remember that he who is loudest is not necessarily he who is right.
Hamilton worried that the debate on the Constitution that was about to consume the young nation in 1787 would be an appeal to extremes, to emotion rather than reason. He feared the debate would “let loose” a “torrent of angry and malignant passions,” where “opposite parties” would undoubtedly believe they could win their argument and “mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives” rather than through persuasive analysis.
Unfortunately, the “ill-judged” and “intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties” that Hamilton warned about in Federalist No. 1 has only increased these tendencies and helped drive our immoderation of thought in even everyday politics today.
Hamilton’s rules for civil discourse described in Federalist No. 1 advised that all serious positions be taken seriously, opposing opinions be respected and considered before receiving a response, opposing views not become the subject of mean-spirited attacks, and debate be used as a means of testing arguments, thereby allowing the best ideas to rise to the top in a marketplace of ideas. For example, Hamilton called for “establishing good government from reflection and choice.” Calling for a resistance to bias and spin, he emphasized, “Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good.”
Hamilton requested that we use “candor” to admit that those with differing views really “may be actuated by upright intentions” and opposing views may “spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable.” This is needed in spades today. We must start with a presumption that our opponents are sincere in their beliefs, and that, if they are wrong-headed, they could just be committing what Hamilton described as “honest errors of minds led astray.”
Hamilton asked that we separate a person’s ideas from judgment about that person’s character. We should not assume improper motives or evil intentions by those with whom we disagree.
On this point, Hamilton reminded us of an important lesson that should prove equally true in all times of political debate. Hamilton called for a principle of mutual respect for the opinions of others and for avoiding ascribing bad motives to others, instructing, “So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that 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.”
Furthermore, if we accept this fact that exogenous factors make all humans capable of error, shouldn’t we have greater skepticism and humility about the correctness of our own beliefs rather than so quickly become entrenched in our ideological camps? As Hamilton counsels again, recognizing the risks of our own intellectual fallibility should “furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.”
YES, LETITIA JAMES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED
In fact, each of us might take responsibility to evaluate our own beliefs about “truth” carefully, because we too are prone to biases as much as our opponents, as are those who agree with us. Here, too, Hamilton understood the human condition. He explained that “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.”
Today, we live in a world with a lot of noise and too little adherence to these lessons about the necessity of civility in political discourse embraced in Hamilton’s words. For discourse to be civil, for respect to flourish, and for knowledge to advance, we should revisit key lessons in Federalist No. 1. Civil discourse is an imperative because it is a prerequisite to the meaningful reasoning that is necessary for progress.
Donald J. Kochan is professor of law and executive director of the Law & Economics Center at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School.
