By Tony Williams
The
second installment of my series of essays on The Federalist will examine the understanding of human nature
presented by Publius. This topic is
profoundly important because Publius’ view of the basic nature of man logically
shaped the kind of government they were advocating.
Across the ages,
examining the basic presuppositions of political philosophers about the nature
of man reveals what forms of government followed from those premises. For example, Aristotle believed that man can
form habits of vice or habits of virtue.
Therefore, a rule by a single leader could assume the best form of
government in a just monarchy or it can be worst form of government under a
corrupt tyrant. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
believed that man was good and perfectible in his nature and corrupted only by
institutions. As a result, a unicameral
legislature with no checks and balances was a logical form of government. Finally, Thomas Hobbes posited that man was
by nature evil and that life in a state of nature without law would be nasty,
brutish, and short in the war of all against all. Therefore, he advocated an unlimited
sovereign, Leviathan, whose job was to enforce law and order.
Thus, the view
of human nature as presented in The
Federalist is a crucial question for understanding the Constitution. It should hardly surprise us that in an
overwhelming Protestant nation of various denominations, Publius formed a
generally pessimistic view of human nature based upon Original Sin. Indeed, in Federalist #51, James Madison uses religious language to explore
the basic nature of man. Madison averred:
But what is
government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
If men were angels, no government would be
necessary.
If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
The implicit conclusions Madison draws from his
conditional (if-then) logical statements are plain. Men are not angels, and therefore government is in fact necessary. Moreover, men are not always governable by
angels or God. The people follow their
passions and leaders suffer from ambition for power. Thus, internal and external controls on
government are necessary because men
are governed by men.
Madison continues,
explaining how to frame a republican government, considering his argument
regarding human nature:
In framing
government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty
lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and
in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The writers of
the Federalist were also steeped in
classical philosophy and believed that man was mired by passions,
self-interest, and habits of vice but also capable of self-control, reason, and
habits of virtue. They believed, with
Aristotle, that each person had an ethical duty and the reason to govern
himself and restrain his vices to live a happy and free life. So too could a people govern itself justly and
virtuously in a republic.
This influence
is evident in Madison’s
Federalist #55, where he even uses a
classical allusion to illustrate his point about human nature:
In all numerous
assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the
scepter from reason.
Had every Athenian
citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.
At
the end of the same essay, Madison
further discussed the subject. He noted
the heights and depths to which humanity could rise and sink. The existence of republican self-government
posited the better angels in our nature, but since humans were still subject to
their passions, checks on human nature were still necessary. He wrote:
As there is a
degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of
circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which
justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.
Republican government presupposes the existence
of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
Alexander
Hamilton shared Madison’s
sober view of human nature. Passions and
self-interest usually predominate over reason and self-control. In Federalist
#6, Hamilton
asks two rhetorical questions that he believed were answered by practical
experience and knowledge of human nature.
Has it not, on
the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate
interests, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than
general or remote considerations of
policy, utility, or justice? . . . .
Is it not time
to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age and to adopt as a practical
maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other
inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect
wisdom and perfect virtue?
Madison and
Hamilton had great hope that Americans, and thereby humans, were capable of
governing themselves by their own consent.
They believed that republican ideals of virtue and self-government as
well as institutional checks and balances would provide the means for Americans
to govern themselves and enjoy their natural rights and liberties.
Not every
Founding Father agreed. Founders such as
Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson often took a more liberal
view of human nature. Paine and Franklin
supported unicameral legislatures because they did not believe that human
nature needed many checks. Such ideas
were considered at the Constitutional Convention and rejected. Jefferson, for his part, was in Paris, and more favorably
disposed towards the ideals of the radical French Enlightenment and the French
Revolution, which believed in the basic goodness of man and the evil of
institutions.
But, the writers
of the Federalist was more realistic
as were the Framers of the Constitution.
The next essay in this series will explore the institutional checks and
restraints upon the government given their understanding of human nature as
flawed but capable of aspiring toward higher ideals.