Writing in support of the ratification of the federal constitution in the wake of the abortive experiment of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison acknowledged in Federalist No. 10 the fears of earlier philosophers that factionalism in a large republic would ultimately lead to its demise. Madison’s primary political concern at this stage of his career was the ratification of a new blueprint of government for the United States, which would strengthen the notion of federalism and broaden the powers of the national government. His attitudes and writings deviated from the work of the earlier Enlightenment philosophers, who agreed that a heterogeneous culture spread over a broad geographic area could never maintain a republican form of government. Madison disagreed: he believed that the American experiment could work, but only with the proper mechanics in place to act as a check valve on the potential violence of smaller factions.
Madison embraced the idea that a multi-faction democracy with strong opposition parties, providing a constant brake on the potential tyranny of the majority, would be the best way to ensure the success of the young and broadly diverse republic. In fact, he soon found himself squarely in Jefferson’ orbit, organizing the opposition in the form of the Democratic-Republican party and giving the anti-Federalists a political platform on which to stand. The modern American two-party system was thence born.
Since the early 1990s, our nation has been swept by the notion that “bi-partisanship” is what the voters truly desire, but it is interesting to note that the calls for cooperation and civility reach their chattering din only when Republicans find themselves in the majority or, as recent weeks’ examples prove, choose to assert themselves from the Senate and use the tools available to them by tradition to assert minority rights.
A better characterization of what has proven to have worked in our history is Madison’s original notion of factionalism. It is therefore instructive and useful to turn to the nation’s past to seek out the truth inherent in our politics and how we think of ourselves as members of the body politic. Consider: from periods of great factionalism, the nation frequently underwent great and needed social change, often the product of a messy legislative process, and came out the other end of the meat grinder stronger for having survived the onslaught of factional warfare.
While Madison and the early Founders were not advocating violence in the halls of Congress, it is important to note that members of Congress had, on occasion, sailed past the safe harbor of decorum to take matters into their own hands, as it were, and commit acts of violence on fellow members of the legislative branch who stood in opposition to their own opinions. None of the acts of violence resulted in any members of Congress being turned out of office, and many of them won frequent re-election to their seats. This sort of violent factionalism, in its current form, takes the shape of death wishes against sitting vice presidents, conservative members of the Supreme Court, and both former and current members of Congress.
On the more positive side of factionalism, perhaps better known these days as its kinder, gentler moniker “bi-partisanship,” it was the Republican minority in the Senate that worked with the Democrats to end the 1964 filibuster over the Civil Right Act, led by future Senate President Pro Tempore (and former Klansman) Robert C. Byrd. The authorization of both Social Security and Medicare passed with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, contrary to claims made by Democrats in defense of their party-line vote in favor of the Affordable Care Act in both the House and Senate that the GOP did not support either program. Social Security and Medicare enjoy vast popular support of most Americans, while the Affordable Care Act is wallowing through its early implementation and has never enjoyed a majority show of support in public opinion polls.
The political warfare that preceded the passage of the ACA was damaging not only to the future of the program, but also to the political process at large. With no Republican votes in Congress and a majority of the population set against the notion of this sort of change to the health insurance system, the factionalism here was wasted. It served only to harden opposition to a president who, despite a successful re-election campaign, struggles with his second term agenda and his overall relationship with Congress. There were no Republican improvements to the bill, no recognition that the minority faction had valid concerns over the bill’s intent or legitimate suggestions for improving it, and perhaps most damaging to the republic in the long-term, the long-standing Senate tradition of needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster which was cast aside as the bill passed the Senate through reconciliation.
Perhaps the message here is that Madisonian factionalism serves a purpose. Where principles are securely held and clearly articulated they can bring the opposition along, even if in the shadow of a vigorous, healthy competition of ideas. James Madison understood this, and his vision has served the nation well. It is time for the current crop of leaders in Washington to take heed.
Uh – and no – by the way. The Anti-Federalists were not the Democrat-Republican party that Jefferson, reluctantly (with Madison), was involved in – as opposed to the opposition “Federalists.” After all both Madison and Jefferson CONCURRED on the Constitutional design they desired – and both were staunchly OPPOSED TO the Federalist Party (yes) – but they WERE, however, also (Madison even writing the most significant of the “Federalist” papers) the MAIN PROPONENTS of the system – the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution – the Jeffersonian and Madison view was strongly supportive of the underlying aims and logic of the Constitution (and the primary authors thereto – before certain key elements were compromised away – to their dismay – but still not joining the Anti-Federalist ranks).
You clearly know very little political history as well as very little political philosophy.
Well – I suggest you go back and READ (if not RE-READ) Madison – one of the most CLEAR thinkers on the subject.
Because you clearly completely mis-represent his actual arguments in the Tenth Federalist as well as in numerous other places.
The Constitutional logic central to Madison’s plan of government (not to “grow the federal government” – that is anachronistic as the concept was not even “conceived” till a few decades ago) – but to NEGATE ANY AND ALL EFFECTS OF FACTIONS AND FACTIONALISM.
Not to support STRONG OPPOSITION PARTIES – but to refer to ALL PARTIES (and a two party system would be the polar opposite and antithesis to Madison’s views – as it would be the MOST FACTIONALIZED SYSTEM) and their effects as “the mortal disease” of all forms of good government and especially of a popular form.
It was not to have STRONG parties – but to institutionally and procedurally negate ANY PARTISAN/FACTIONAL action – to NEGATE it – NULLIFY it – ELIMINATE it – not to “embrace” it.
While ideally you’d get rid of the CAUSE of factions – rather than merely control its effects – the cost would be too high as that would negate “liberty.”
So the idea was to have such PLETHORA of potential factors in the process of “REPRESNTATIVE GOVERNMENT” – based on the extreme heterogeneity and diversity of the population – such that parties would have NO EFFECT AT ALL … and this would come ideally if there were NONE (and thus he and others (near unanimous in political philosophy until the 20th century) continually argued that parties were ANATHEMA to good government) – and in the worst possible scenario – given the size and scope of the nation and the Separation of Powers and Representation (and even the rational central to the electoral college) – there would be SO MANY minor factions – that they would NEGATE EACH OTHER.
That, actually, is Madison. And that, actually, was the LOGIC of the Constitution’s structure and design. And it had near unanimous support, philosophically, from all spectrums of society at the time.
Well, I think it’s a bit odd to say no Republican ideas made it into the Affordable Care Act, since it’s based entirely on a Republican idea. The individual mandate was championed by the GOP for years, and introduced as legislation by them in the early 1990s. The GOP’s nominee is 2012 passed the model the ACA is based on in his home state! And here is Gingrich, who also was a front-runner briefly in the 2012 primaries:
“I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond”
The GOP didn’t vote against the ACA because it didn’t have conservative ideas or support, they voted against it to make the president look partisan and overreaching. And they succeeded, at the cost of working in good faith to fix the problems they didn’t fix while they were in control of Congress and the White House.
And you mention the GOP of 1935 and 1965- but obviously the party has changed since then. The GOP has gone RINO hunting. Ronald Reagan, who passed EMTALA and granted amnesty and favored gun control- would never survive a GOP primary. Virtually all the moderates are gone. So it was easy for the GOP to be bipartisan in the 1930s and 1960s when they had significant ideological diversity, but that’s gone now.