Democratic Thinking: Lessons from Madison
Madison, the principle architect of our constitution, argued for imperfection.
From October 1787 to May 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote The Federalist Papers to argue that the new constitution should be ratified. Approval was far from certain, and those in favor of ratification were often overshadowed by the Anti-Federalists, who wrote articles against ratification. Both sides wrote under pseudonyms, typically names from Roman history, as if they were adopting avatars to post on Reddit4.
Looking back on the process of forming our government, we tend to assume that the early leaders of the first modern democracy were measured and rational. Far from it. The debate was often heated and personal, as often happens in anonymous publications. Then and now.
In Federalist Number 38, Madison makes an interesting argument for ratification: The process of writing the constitution was messy, and the final document is imperfect.
Approve this document, Madison says. Why? Because it’s imperfect.
Madison lists a number of reasons for the document’s flaws:
· Human beings have limitations. The “imperfections of the human faculties” cannot create a perfect form of government.
· Language is also limited, and “no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea.”
· Discourse often devolves into rancorous and partisan bickering, and “public measure are rarely investigated” with “moderation.”
Despite these limitations, Madison says, the members of the constitutional convention held “a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good.” The willingness to keep “the public good” in mind allowed the members of the convention to draft a good—not perfect—document. The imperfect document has lasted for 236 years.
This is about identity. Not the kind of identity of identity politics, which can become muddy and divisive. Madison is writing about the kind of person we need to create a democracy and sustain it. In the same essay, Madison writes:
Persons of this character will proceed to an examination of the plan submitted by the convention, not without a disposition to find or magnify faults; but will see the propriety of reflecting, that a faultless plan was not to be expected. Nor will they barely make allowances for the errors that may be chargeable on the fallibility to which the convention, as a body of men, were liable; but will keep in mind, that they themselves are also men, and ought not to assume an infallibility in judging the fallible opinions of others.
If we accept (1) that those we politically oppose are imperfect humans and (2) that we also are imperfect humans, (3) if we are willing to come together in good faith, (4) if we are willing to compromise, Madison is saying, we can produce and approve a document that is good, not perfect.
Like Montaigne, Madison believed that we should strive to be more human, not perfect.
Also like Montaigne, Madison believed that reflection on our experience can teach us how to live better and how to live better together. He knew that the proposed constitution would need to be emended. As the experiment of democracy continued, as we reflected on our experience of building a country, we would be able to find ways to improve it.
Like Hannah Arendt, Madison believed that people who are “beyond good” are as detrimental to democracy and people who are “beyond evil.”
It is interesting that Madison and the other founders did not speak of utopias. Revolutions that began with utopian dreams end in violent nightmares.