Which is Better: More National, Or More Local?

The Federalist Papers is one of the greatest collections of thoughts and analysis on freedom available. There is a wealth of knowledge and passion for establishing and maintaining a society that fosters freedom, opportunity, and widespread prosperity.

The authors—Hamilton, Madison, and Jay—are deep thinkers and powerful writers. I often wrestle to understand many of their concepts and phrases, but it is well worth the struggle!

As I’ve been studying the Papers again, I keep finding myself disagreeing on a common point over and over again. Normally in a book I’m excited about the disagreement, I will write an argument or a reference for why I see they are wrong and what I think the correct perspective is. With these Papers, though, I haven’t been as apt to write my initial disagreements and thoughts as I am with other books and authors. I’m concerned that I am wrong and that I just don’t understand why they are correct yet.

Let me make a quick aside. I disagree with many things written in the Federalist Papers, where I think they have something flat out wrong. But when it comes to this caliber of men and women or this caliber of classic, I take some extra time to think and process to make sure I’m finding the principle and not disagreeing over a surface issue.

The Disagreement

For example, in Federalist Paper #23 Alexander Hamilton makes his argument for “giving the Union energy and duration” through a strong national government. He says, “we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America.” My initial response was an emphatic, “no! We do not want more national control over the individual!” Then I stop, think about it, and say, this is Hamilton we’re talking about, what is he seeing about the principles of freedom that I am not?

This is one example out of several where I have had the same line of thinking with Hamilton and Madison. I’ve been mulling over this for several days now as I continue to read, and I think I understand what is happening. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, we must understand the times!

As the Power Pendulum swings from one pinnacle of Tyranny to the other of Anarchy the direction we should be facing is completely different.

Understanding the Times

In the Era of the Founding Fathers there was not enough federalism, not enough Union, not enough national strength. They had just broken off from a tyrannical head and were slow to accept another head that was further than a few days’ ride. They were weary of confederating together into another national government that would boss them around. They were on the brink of anarchy and desperate for the balance, security, and strength that Union brings.

Today, in the 21^st century the power pendulum has overcorrected—thus the too perfect analogy of the pendulum swinging—and have too little “anarchy” or a far more localized power into a very top heavy national, and barely even federal, government that bosses individuals around.

There must be a balance of power between the different levels of governments and the different sectors of society. And depending on where we are as a society and where we should be heading to find the freedom balance—where the pendulum rests in the center. We must be aware of the current playing field and adjust accordingly.

Taking the exact words of the Federalist, or any of the Founding Fathers, and applying them into our modern world will not work. It will not produce freedom in our day and age like it did for them in their time. We must seek out the principles, the reasons and the understanding they had because these can be applied to solve and improve our current situation. Hamilton and I don’t disagree as much as I thought, we’re just living in different times and need to apply the same principle differently.

Two Methods of Approach

When studying the classics there are two main approaches, or perspectives.

There is the approach I mainly discussed above. Study the classics looking for the principles, thinking, and education to be applied directly to the issues and problems of today. The second approach is a historical perspective. Study why they thought and acted how they did, studying what was going on in their time. Obviously studying the historical climate of the time provides principles and application for us today, but the questions, focus, and lessons are completely different than a more principle based approach.

Approaching classics for learning principles to apply or studying the historical climate around the classic can both powerful and great. When I didn’t know I was discussing and arguing with the classics with one foot in each method it can be rather confusing and potentially even dangerous. The principles in the classics can come out warped, twisted, and misunderstood. It makes sense now why the conclusions and answers weren’t adding up for me.

Perspective and approach are key parts to getting a truly great leadership education. Make sure and work with your mentor, make sure and ask great questions, and make sure the approach used is understood and utilized properly. I’ve been enjoying arguing with the classics a great deal more with separating these two methods in my thinking.

A Key Principle for Rule by Law

By Ian Cox

Power of the Scoreboard

A lot of power in any field is lost when there isn’t a scoreboard to check against. How do you know who is winning and who is losing? How do you know when to play harder in order to beat the opponent?

Montesquieu says that having a written constitution gives you that scoreboard on government. You can read the constitution and check it against the government’s actions. The Federal Government must abide by Constitutional Law checked against the scoreboard of the written constitution.

This means that to centralize and expand powers in the government is much more limited, it takes longer, and the debate is usually over specific words and clauses, and any major change must be justified—or else blatantly ignored.

The written scoreboard is always there for everyone to review and ensure that the actions of the government and the system of laws are done by law and not the “whims of men” as John Adams said.

Key Concept

There are many powerful and great aspects in the Constitution of the United States that ensure our nation is a nation of law: the intricate system of checks and balances, the division and separation of powers, the amendment process, the very process of ratifying the constitution, among others.

One of these seems especially pertinent in solidifying the culture and principle of “a government of laws” for our nation. It is a process that is often referenced, hard to use, and rarely accomplished. The last time this key principle of “a government of laws” as opposed to a government “by the whims of men” was last used in 1992.

In and of itself the amendment process may not be all that fancy and strategic like the checks and balances or separation of powers, but the principle found here truly is key.

The Principle

The Amendment power teaches us many things. First and foremost, the Constitution as it stands is not perfect, there may be unforeseen needs, there may be more or better constitutional measures that come to the surface as the constitution itself is put into practice over the years.

The ability to change the constitution is separated, checked, and balanced. It leaves the majority of the constitutional writing power to the states, as it was with its original ratification. This again suggests that we are a Federal Republic form of government, several states united for greater success.

Change should not be arbitrary, but a systematic and deeply analyzed process governed by law and not the whims of the people or government officials.

This simple process of amending the constitution can be seen mirrored in every other part of the constitution. This one constitutional power holds in itself most of the vital principles and processes of law, if not all of them, that the American Founders studied in history and wanted to guard against any possible tyranny—or in other words, rule by law and not the whims of men.