Posted on 12/25/2002 9:43:34 PM PST by fire_eye
True. Maybe the founders were trying to avoid the violent sectarianism of previous centuries and their wars of religion. "Pluralism" is a 20th century concept, but one could apply it to the desire of the founders to build a society in which people could live together without fighting over doctrines and dogmas.
Madison would draw people out of their little communities, ethnic, religious, income and occupational groups to work on projects with a broader appeal and hope that it would keep those groups from battling with each other for dominance. But his frame of mind didn't forsee massive cities, corporations or bureaucracies or increasing secularization and the decay of older moral foundations, so it's natural that some people would be disillusioned with how things worked out.
I think Madison's project will succeed and hope it will. It's easy to criticize it. Moving beyond the little religious, ethnic or local communities to a national or global society can mean leaving moral values and limits on power behind. But looking around the world at the various ethnic and religious conflicts suggests that Madison may have been on the right track after all.
The problem with "pluralism plus progressivism," though, is that it slights traditionalism. The majority will often tend to feel that such a formula gives their own traditional views less value than those of minority groups or modernizing elites.
Standards of financial virtue have tightened up over the centuries. "Insider trading" wasn't a crime in the 18th or 19th century. English Whigs saw themselves as great friends of virtue and liberty and of increasing legal equality, yet they shared offices and government business opportunities among themselves. Putting their own money and children into government ventures was a way of backing up public spirited activities by putting their money where there mouth was. I'm not sure I buy this convenient rationale. It was one the founders would have understood, though.
I've been very critical of Thomas Jefferson and his worshippers, but he does seem to have been right about corruption. Had we gotten all of the federal institutions and projects that Hamilton and the Adamses wanted, had we made Washington DC into the real capital of the country and not just a provincial city, we would have had far more corruption. Getting government out of most things, probably did help to keep corruption down in the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras.
The Jeffersonian or negative concept of public virtue differs from both the government activist and the prohibitionist concepts of public virtue, and fits in well with the idea of limited government. Some will always found it inadequate, but it does seem to minimize financial corruption in government.
Actually Gary Wills in one of his books suggests that Madison thought the opposite. Pluralism could only work on a national stage because it tended to mitigate provincialism. Wills views Madison as sort of a closet federalist in that aspect. I suspect Madison would welcome more inclusive institutions.
So at least in one area, political officials today are judged by a higher standard than their predecessors. I also see in today's paper the complaint that there is too little money in politics. Campaign contributions equalling what we spend on sausage (or something like that). But it may be not that we spend too little on politics but that politicians are sold for bargain prices.
x, I've been tortured over this thread for weeks now. I swear I have an answer, but it's not exactly clear. My best effort so far was kick-started by Huck's post on that thread above, reply 18
I picked up a book on the history of American corruption. When I'm done with it (it sucks for history, but it's fun), I'll ring back.
Hmmm, this thread of threads is like that chess game Spock and Kirk used to play...
Anyway, I wish I had time to dig into Madisonian writings--I rarely if ever find small quotations sufficient--but I don't have the time. I will just say that my impression is that Madison believed certain virtues to be necessary, but that he did not rely upon virtue alone. Virtue was one essential ingredient, but there were others. And--this is something I identify with in Madison--he hedged. Checks and balances were a hedge. He made the argument that factions--a source of strife--were actually a hedge against a dominant majority. But I don't think Madison ever thought that human virtues were so abundant or so prevelant that we could get by without the hedges, which is why he hedged. The whole system--three branches, the enumerated powers, etc--is one big hedge. Not exactly an endorsement for human virtues.
Not sure if any of this helps. I'll sip my coffee, and get to work, and if something else happens on this subject, please ping me. I would like to follow along if I can. Cheers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.