Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: The Federalist Papers Nos. 9 and 10
The power that a group of people united by common passions can wield, and the danger this can present to those outside that group, was top of mind for the men who wrote the Constitution. And it was the topic of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 9 and James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, both published 238 years ago today.
Written under the pseudonym of Publius, their primary concern was curing “the mischiefs of faction.” By faction, Madison means “a number of citizens…united and actuated by some common impulse of passion,” against the rights of other citizens or the interests of the community.
In Federalist No. 9, Hamilton argues that a strong, unified nation, as provided by the Constitution, is one way to do so. “A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States,” he writes, “as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
Looking to history, Hamilton observed how the weak republics of Greece and Italy devolved into anarchy and tyranny. The Constitution, however, through “the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy,” was designed to suppress faction, guard the internal peace of the states, and increase national strength and security. Building upon Hamilton’s arguments, Madison explores in Federalist No. 10 what it would require to abolish factions altogether.
Despite their destructive tendencies, getting rid of factions is not an option. Doing so would mean snuffing out the liberty that allows people to organize. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,” Madison writes. You could get rid of fire by eliminating air, but you need air to breathe; the same goes for liberty and faction. It is impossible to ensure everyone has the same opinions about everything because people are created with differing skills and interests.
Because factions cannot be eradicated, Madison argues, we must control their effects through structural constraints. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 convened to address the structural failures of the Articles of Confederation and propose a new Constitution, which would establish a republic, not a democracy. In Federalist No. 10, Publius explores the differences between democracies and republics. “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”
Unlike a pure democracy, where the people vote on every issue and policy themselves, voters in a republic elect people to represent them. These elected representatives act as a filter “to refine and enlarge the public views,” determine the true public good, and make policy.
But these representatives, after earning enough votes, can easily become “Men of factious tempers” when in office and betray the people who elected them. This is why a republic’s second distinction from democracy is crucial: its ability to expand over large territory.
By covering a larger territory and including a greater number of people, extensive republics ensure a higher likelihood of qualified candidates for office, a larger electorate, and greater diversity of interests. This makes it less likely that unworthy candidates will garner enough support to get elected and that a majority of people will have a common motive and act as one to invade the rights of others.
A larger republic can pose some challenges too. If representatives are so far removed from their constituents, “you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances.” But that’s in part why the Constitution’s federal structure balances power between the national and state governments. Each state is also promised a republican system, which provides additional layers of representation.
A pure democracy, however, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” A common passion can easily infect a majority of the people, with no check upon the majority’s desires, leaving minority groups and individual interests on the sidelines. This is why democracies have a history of “turbulence and contention,” Madison adds. Democracies frequently undermine people’s rights and have often “been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
“As a rule, democracy devolves into tyranny, for mob rule inevitably breeds impulsive citizens who become focused on petty pleasures. The resulting disorder eventually becomes so unbearable that a demagogue arises,” Shaun Rieley wrote. Unless there are sufficient barriers to control the effects of faction, these commotions will accumulate like snowballs, destroying everything in the faction’s path.
For this reason, democracy cannot protect individual liberty, limit government, or lead to good governance. The Founders chose a republican form of government because they understood the dangerous effects of consolidated power, violence, and mob rule. Because consolidated power can corrupt absolutely, it must be checked: This includes power given to a majority and power given to elected officials and bureaucrats.
Pacific Legal Foundation’s work across its practice areas focuses on limiting power and protecting liberty from the whims of government and the reaches of any mob—as the Constitution requires.
The separation of powers imposes constraints on factions by vesting the popularly elected members of Congress with the legislative power only and leaving other powers to other branches. Property rights and economic liberty ensure that all people have the ability to improve their lives and prosper: These shouldn’t be left to governments or democratic majorities to take away.
Yet, many Americans are still harmed by unchecked power wielded by groups adverse to their interests.
Bill Slayden, owner and CEO of Slayden Plumbing & Heating, Inc., was forced to enter into project labor agreements with unions, which eventually led to several cancelled building contracts, lost revenue, and employee layoffs.
People like Annette Hubbell and Jay Greene have been discriminated against because of immutable characteristics, even though our Constitution clearly protects equality before the law.
These stories demonstrate why we must defend our Constitution and its foundational principles. Hamilton and Madison understood the dangers of unchecked power, including the power of people organized by common passions against the common good. The Framers created a Constitution that established a geographically large and decentralized republic to reduce factions’ ill effects and ensure a society where individuals could thrive without undue interference. Upholding the Constitution means upholding the limits on power—of presidents, bureaucrats, and factions, alike—that can be used against individuals.
As our politics become more nationalized and the allure of faction grows stronger, Pacific Legal Foundation’s work becomes even more valuable.
