Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Twelve

by Dave Seng

Part eleven can be found here.

Republics historically have had more success against tyranny. This is where James Madison makes a distinction between a democracy and a republic. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”1 Madison clearly argues for a republican form of government and believes it is the best form of rule to protect against the rise of factions. Madison believes in two advantages of a republican form of government. The first is in the representation of the citizens, and the second is the sheer size of large republics as a deterrent to factions. Madison believes that a body of elected representatives will actually serve as a barrier and protection to factious elements in the population. He writes,

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. 2

Madison believes a body of elected citizens would wisely protect the union in a better manner than the people themselves could. This could only work, however, if these elected citizens were well educated in civic virtue, and believed in the institutions they were protecting. Elected officials that do not have a sense of civic responsibility, respect the rule of law, or in Madison’s words “comprehend and pursue great and national objects” do little for the common good. Furthermore, Madison is concerned with national and federal concerns rather than local and state issues. He wants to leave particular and local issues up to the states and strike a balance between national and state concerns. Madison believes that giving people more power at the local level will be better for the public good in general.

James Madison wanted a republican solution to republican problems. He is aware of the problems inherent to democracy. He believes a large republic offers the best solution to the problem of factions. In his view, a small republic with few representatives will be easily corrupted by factious elements. On the other hand, a body of elected officials that was too large would only offer “the confusion of a multitude.” Madison understands that the body of elected representatives ought to be too big to bribe (or, at least not all of them at once). Madison argues for a mean between a body of elected officials that is neither too small nor too big. However, a larger republic will solve the problems found in smaller republics. He believes the larger the republic, the more likely it will be to find virtuous citizens as representatives. And he thinks that in a large republic, factions would be less likely to succeed. Madison explains,

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former rather than the latter. … Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater number variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. 3

In other words, Madison believes that by extending the republic to the many rather than the few, collusion between factious parties will be deterred. He concludes by asking several fascinating questions.

Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic – is enjoyed by the Union over the states composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.4

Madison’s questions and solutions offer many points for reflection. First, in other points of his writing and in Federalist Number 10, Madison argues for proportional representation. In Madison’s understanding the Union would not be the two-party system now in place but a multiparty arrangement that is proportionally represented according to the citizenry. Currently, it is very hard for third-party political candidates to even get on a ballot. Many people with views not sympathetic to either party are simply not represented and opt out of the political process altogether. Further, laws exist to keep third-party representation off ballots. In a proportional multiparty system, parties will be forced to work together for the common good. Harmony will have to be sought above political gain. Coalitions will have to work together rather than a tyranny of one party. Madison was clearly afraid of the tyranny of one party over others. That is clearly why he tells us that a proportional government would protect against “the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?” When one party boasts of passing legislation without any input from the opposing party, that party is clearly acting in a tyrannical and undemocratic manner. However, a government with real proportional representation would depend on a genuine and authentic political conversation throughout the parties represented and at all levels. It would require a national conversation and it would also necessitate that the current parties relinquish their power (which is unlikely). Madison is also aware that an increase in the variety of parties represented would add to the increase of security of the nation. When people are truly represented factions will be discouraged. People will be given a voice in their government and legitimate concerns can be addressed.

1 Ibid.

2 Ibid., 52.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 53.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Eleven

by Dave Seng

Part ten can be found here.

In this post I examine the classical influence on the founding of America and the vision of James Madison.

Now we must jump many years to the founding of the American republic. It is not surprising to find that the founders of America were influenced by classical thought – and all the values of the Western intellectual and political tradition can be seen in the American State Papers and Federalist Papers, including debate, dissent, civic virtue, and the free exchange of ideas. The classical influence of early America can be discovered from the works they read, the architecture they built, and the documents they wrote. One obvious piece of evidence rests in the fact that the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under the names of significant Roman leaders. Furthermore, many of the founders such as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, were well versed in the classics and read Latin.

In America, constitutional government evolved from the idea of constitutional monarchy found in Europe. Although the founders envisioned a republic and not a democracy (they were very cautious of an extreme democracy), America finally became a popular democracy in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, at the beginning of American Republicanism was the conviction that consensual rule was possible and that governments existed to protect citizen’s natural rights and to promote the common good of all people.1 This is the idea of classical liberalism and has become the social-political theory that stresses freedom from undue governmental interference and views the state as the guarantor of the basic liberties and rights of the individual. This is basically a classical idea; however, a thinker like Aristotle would see a closer relationship between the individual and the state.

In the early days of the American republic, there was much debate about the constitution itself. The parties were divided between those who wanted a stronger national government, the federalists, and those who wanted more sovereignty among the individual states – the antifederalists. The friends of the Constitution (the federalists) had the advantage of superior intellectual firepower. Among the federalists were the two most eminent men in America at the time, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.2 Washington himself declared that the choice lay between the Constitution and disunion. Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, under the joint pseudonym “Publius,” wrote a long series of newspaper essays explaining and extolling the new document.3 These essays were later published in book form and are considered the greatest intellectual defense of the Constitution by some of the early Republic’s greatest thinkers.

For example, James Madison, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, was very concerned about the role of human nature and the propensity for people to divide into factions. For Madison, factions are different than regular political parties. He defines a faction as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”4 In other words, factions are those groups which will seek there own power illegitimately and disregard the rights of others in the process. Factions do not regard the democratic principle of equality as an important ideal nor understand or value the idea that in a democracy harmony is essential. People have to be united – a government for the people and by the people must first of all be supported by the people and truly believed in if it is going to work. Madison understands the corrosive effects of factions on a consensual government. Nonetheless, it seems to be part of human nature to divide into factions as soon as individuals are given the freedom to do so. Madison was concerned about how to keep a faction from becoming a tyranny on one hand and how to maintain fair representation on the other. But Madison understood that factions would be a problem to any liberal republic because it is so basic to the human instinct,

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions and many other points as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment of different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their most violent conflicts.5

Madison understands that factions are a part of any liberal society. He is also aware that there are only two solutions to the problem of factions. The first is to eliminate the cause of factions. But this would require the elimination of liberty, an unacceptable option. The other is to give every citizen the same interests, passions, and opinions – and this option is clearly impossible. Madison knows there will always be independent thinkers. So the third option for Madison is to control the effects of factions. Madison believes the best possibility for this rests in the rule of law and to allow factions a voice in their own government.6 He explains, “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”7 Much like Aristotle, Madison understands the value of allowing differing parties a voice in their own government functioning under legitimate legal protection and constraints (consensual government always seeks a check on majority rule to ensure the rights of the minority). Of course, when factions are in the minority they are less likely to prevail in their evil intentions. Madison’s concern rests in what could happen if a faction became a majority. Madison concludes that a pure democracy can not protect itself from this phenomenon. “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”8 He goes on to explain,

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.9

For Madison then, a pure democracy is a government in which every citizen participates, is small in size, and contains no check on majority rule. It is unclear, however, if any such government has existed because the ancient Athenians functioned under the rule of law, and was regulated by assembly, councils, and archons. Rome itself transformed from a republic (also under the rule of law) to an empire without becoming a direct democracy. Nonetheless, Athens was close to being a direct democracy and Thucydides does point out the mob mentality of the Athenians after the death of Pericles. But the point that a democracy can become a tyranny is a legitimate concern, the French revolution being the primary example. The ancient Greek political thinkers were all aware of the tyranny of the majority. And there was nothing more they hated than tyranny.

Next time, I will examine the particular definition of republic held by Madison.

1 Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985), 119.

2 Ibid., 131.

3 Ibid.

4 The Federalist, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 43, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 50.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton believes most factions arise from differences between the propertied and non-propertied classes.

7 Ibid., 50.

8 Ibid. 51.

9 Ibid.

Consensual Government, Education, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Ten

by Dave Seng

The palm of courage will surely be adjudged most justly to those, who best know the difference between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger. — Pericles of Athens

Part nine can be found here.

Historians and political philosophers have wondered exactly how educated the Athenian citizens were during the time of Solon or Pericles. Plato himself saw democracy as the rule of the ignorant. While a democracy based on the rule of the uneducated, would clearly be a disaster, it is unclear that Athens fits this description. In his famous funeral oration, Pericles calls Athens the “school of Hellas”1 (the school of all Greece). He states that education was offered to all foreigners even when it hurt Athenian national interests. He also explains that the average citizen was able to both pursue industry and be involved in the affairs of the state. The citizen was competent and educated enough to do both. Pericles tells us,

Our public men have, besides politics their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless. 2

In Periclean Athens, the educated citizen was required to take part in the governance of the city and his education was such that allowed him to be a competent judge in state matters. Pericles goes on to say, “We Athenians are able to judge all events and … instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all.”3 An important part of Athenian education was dialectic in nature. Socrates with his students, would ask important questions, seek definitions, and rationally reflect on answers along with his students through a process of discussion. Athenian students would actively study the art of rhetoric (public speaking), memorize the works of Homer, and read poetry in public (as Herodotus did). This form of education not only prepared the student for public speaking and debate but also gave him a sense of his own history. Public speaking, debate, and discussion are essential elements of any democracy. Also, it is unlikely that many fools or incompetents played a significant role in public affairs, perhaps no more so than today.4 If a citizen attended no more than half the minimum number of yearly sessions, he would still hear twenty sets of debates by the ablest people in the state, chiefly elected officials or those formerly holding elective office, the leading politicians in all factions, and a considerable number of experts on a variety of subjects. Moreover, these were true debates in which it was impossible to hold prepared remarks.5 This would have led to an incredible education in itself. Many in the audience would have been previous officeholders and could draw from their experience, knowledge, and education to judge the debates.

The next post will explore the classical influence of the American founding.

1 Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 6, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 397.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991), 59.

5 Ibid.

Consensual Government, Education, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Nine

by Dave Seng

Part eight can be found here.

Education is always necessary for any democracy regardless of time and place if it is to succeed. Megabyzus was correctly concerned about a government that was run by the uneducated. If citizens lack the abilities to read, write, discern ideas, and critically think about important questions, they will not be able to differentiate good policy from bad, excellent laws from those that are immoral. If citizens are uneducated it will be impossible for them to contribute intelligently to the important discussions of the day. In addition, if citizens lack a good education they will not be able to adequately judge a debate. Public debate, however, is essential to democracy. Often, an uneducated populace will uncritically believe the first thing they hear rather than reflecting on the facts critically and weighing evidence carefully – the very reason Thucydides wrote his grand history of the Peloponnesian War. “So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand,” he tells us.1

The Greek way of education was called Paideia and means something close to “general education.” It was not a specialized form of education but it did give the student the skills to read philosophy, literature, history, to speak persuasively, and to write meaningfully. Paideia did not prepare the student for a specific vocation – the student would find an apprenticeship for that. What the Greek student did learn was how to write, speak critically, and read carefully. The study of history gave the student a sense of the importance of the past as it influenced who they are and becoming to be. The study of literature captured the beauty of language and imagination. And learning philosophy and mathematics allowed the ancient student to think rationally, logically, and critically. This gave the student the general ability to think and communicate in a rational, articulate, and careful manner. They did not have what is today known as “cultural studies” but writers like Aristotle, Herodotus, and Thucydides wrote a lot about other cultures and the Athenians would assimilate the useful ideas they discovered from other civilizations. (Herodotus could arguably be called the first cultural historian.)

Plays were also a form of Greek education. From such playwrights as Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and the works of homer, Athenians would learn of their history, a sense of tradition (but not always accept tradition for tradition’s sake), and reflect on ideas. Playwrights would often question the ideas of the government and investigate values and civic priorities – as in the case of Sophocles’ Antigone – where the playwright examines the great questions of moral and civil law. The Greek theatre was a place to explore ideas and provide an education for the citizens.

The purpose of Greek education was to create excellent citizens. There was a symbiotic relationship between the state and educated citizens. Part of the role of the state, the Athenians believed, was to produce morally excellent citizens. Then, the educated citizens would be able to make wise decisions regarding the state and foreign policy. Paideia is the kind of education that makes for better citizens. The Athenians believed that “better” meant having more arête or excellence, virtue, or strength.2 It includes the idea of having the inner strength to do the right thing. Athenians believed that good education would make young people better able to use good judgment, to live reverently, and to make decisions with justice.3 Throughout the ages, the Western intellectual tradition has emphasized that education serves the purpose of making morally excellent citizens. As Robert Hutchins explains,

The aim of liberal education is human excellence, both private and public (for man is a political animal). Its object is the excellence of man as man and man as citizen. It regards man as an end, not as a means; and it regards the ends of life, and not the means to it. For this reason, it is the education of free men. Other types of education or training treat men as means to some other end or are at best concerned with the means of life, with earning a living, and not with its ends.4

There is a teleology and significance to learning that goes beyond earning a living. This is an essential and important difference between classical Greek education and the contemporary American conception of education.

Education, in the popular American mind, is for the purpose of getting a job. And American institutions of higher education have blindly accepted this notion. Now, the state and schools will educate its citizens to be good contributors to the state economy, (which in the end amounts to a form of socialism). The state is not primarily concerned with creating excellent citizens as in the classical tradition, but in creating subservient workers who can perform a trade to better the economy. Many who have been educated in this model learn a vocation and can become successful at their trade, but generally do not know how to carefully read, think or write critically about the most important questions of life. Many do not know how to think deeply about critical issues of the day, or how to handle intelligently the obstacles and challenges of life that might occur later in one’s existence. A purely vocational training qualifies one for little more than slave labor – and man is seen as a means to an end but not the end itself. On the other hand, following the Greek idea of paideia, someone with a liberal arts or humanities education is prepared to think broadly and across different fields of inquiry, consider opposing views, weigh evidence, and follow logical reasoning. These skills, based on careful reading and articulate communication are valuable for any number of employers and are really the best education for life itself. Learning should not cease when one finishes college. A liberal arts education will allow anyone to continue the life long process of learning – also skills valuable to employers in the ever changing workplace. More and more, employers are seeking individuals who can change skills quickly and those with a humanities or liberal arts education are able to do this since they are accustomed to move from one field of inquiry to another (such as history, philosophy, or literature). They are trained to read, write, and communicate well. Nonetheless, the pragmatic emphasis of a liberal arts education is a by product of what preparing for life should be. A pursuit of wisdom, learning and eloquence in education is the best preparation for life and work. State education often misses the point that education should prepare one for life and to become a more excellent citizen, not just to become workers in the state economy. The idea that the individual exists for the benefit of the state is a very narrow view of human life. Economics is not the only reality in life. Bill Clinton’s phrase “it’s the economy stupid” is a shallow understanding of human existence. Economics are important but it is only one element among many in determining a valuable, holistic approach to life and learning.5 A recovery of the classical idea of paideia will be a positive move towards a better democracy. Robert Hutchins explains the connection of democracy with liberal education,

This Western devotion to the liberal arts and liberal education must have been largely responsible for the emergence of democracy as an ideal. The democratic ideal is equal opportunity for full human development, and, since the liberal arts are the basic means of such development, devotion to democracy naturally results from devotion to them. On the other hand, if the acquisition of the liberal arts is an intrinsic part of human dignity, then the democratic ideal demands that we should strive to see to it that all have the opportunity to attain to the fullest measure of the liberal arts that is possible to each.6

The liberal arts teach human beings how to be free. The devotion to inquiry, free exchange of ideas, and rationalism allows citizens to think carefully about the most important questions of life – including, what is the best form of government? What sort of thing is justice and how should it be distributed? And does ethical theory hold implications for the community and state? These questions and how they have been answered have powerful implications for society and liberal democracies. A liberal arts education teaches us to strive for personal and public excellence, to think rationally, and to live well in a free society.

In the next post, we will further examine the role of education in classical Greece and explore why Pericles called Athens the “school of Hellas”.

1 Thucydides, 354.

2 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193.

3 Ibid.

4 Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994), 49.

5 A strictly economic study of political reality often misses the point of human nature. Humans rarely function in strict economic categories; rather they are driven by non-economic and non-rational impulses. Irrational emotions and passions often drive people more than economics as is seen in the American economy where it is commonplace to consume more than one needs.

6 Hutchins, The Great Conversation, 50.