On Factions II

Article V Blog ^ | February 1st 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Our Constitution confronted and minimized the dangerous consequences of factions made possible by overly democratic governments. To the nationalists at the Federal Convention of 1787, the measure of a free government was its ability to control factions, for without control they were certain to grow and eventually tear the social fabric apart.¹

In his defense of the Constitution, James Madison devoted Federalist No. 10 to factions. Too popular, factional governments are unstable and rent with injustice and confusion.² Madison identified two ways to minimize the problem of factions; remove their causes or control their effects.

There are two approaches to deal with the causes; destroy the liberty that feeds factions, or “give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests.” The first typifies authoritarian regimes, and the second is but an unreasonable and impossible dream. Neither will do in republican America.

So, that leaves control of the effects of factions that is consistent with liberty. As Madison put it, “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of (majority) factions, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, was the great desideratum of republican government.” This is a tall order. We see its modern failure on a regular basis when the media trumpet Leftist laws, like Obamacare and Progressive Taxation, passed by congressional majorities, that single out minority victims. The apportionment of taxes on various sorts of property should, according to Madison, reflect the “most exact impartiality,” yet taxation is the premier target of factions. The stronger, majority party prevails at the expense of the minority.³

Today, as the burden of taxation falls to an ever-shrinking minority, we often hear from Article V opponents that the solution to these assaults on liberty is to elect better people.

[Jacquerie]

Madison shot down this Utopian fantasy: “It is naïve to say than enlightened statesmen will adjust the clashing interests, making them all subservient to the public good.” Since angelic and perfectly virtuous people do not exist, “either the negative passions and interests in a majority faction must be prevented or that faction must be rendered unable to effect schemes of oppression.”⁴

[fieldmarshaldj]

Curious you fail to mention why (again) that the 17th Amendment came to pass, that being the Senate itself only had themselves to blame by becoming hopelessly corrupt and each representing special interest groups, requiring but a small amount of energy to purchase their office. The public could not longer brook this abomination any further.

To frame the ratification of the 17th Amendment as the worst thing to happen to the Republic is ludicrous. It was expansion of the enfranchisement beyond what the Founding Fathers intended that caused the greatest harm, changing us from a “Republic” to that dangerous “Democracy.” Voting should be a privilege reserved for those individuals who have the earned the right, not just because they simply “turned 18.” Those who have served in the military, those who contribute to the society (own businesses, create jobs), those who own property, pay taxes, etc.

[Jacquerie]

I addressed the progressive falsehoods surrounding the late 19th century senate over a three-part series of squibs beginning here.