In last week’s column, I argued that the 18th century wisdom revealed in the Federalist Papers remains relevant in the 21st century.
Sadly, many today disagree and claim we have nothing to learn from men who went to work wearing powdered wigs. Perhaps their ideas made sense in the horse-and-buggy era, these skeptics acknowledge, but the world has changed. Others go even further and argue that the founders of our nation were racists and slaveholders who should be reviled rather than revered.
Just as sadly, another group of 21st century Americans have resorted to treating the founding documents as something akin to Holy Scripture. In their view, the work of those men in powdered wigs was flawless and not to be tampered with by contemporary mortals.
The truth is to be found where it usually lies — far from either extreme. The important lessons available to us can be gleaned only by recognizing that our founders were both brilliant and imperfect.
There was, for example, a notable blooper in Federalist 3.
That column was written by John Jay who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had long been active in the movement to end slavery and provide education for black Americans. In 1787 — the same year he wrote four of the Federalist Papers — Jay helped found and financially support New York’s African Free School. Later, as governor, he signed a law that ended slavery in New York.
Federalist 3 was one of many in the series arguing that the young nation would be far better off with a unified government rather than 13 separate state governments (or several regional governments). The absolute importance of unity rings loudly throughout the Federalist Papers. In the view of Jay and his colleagues, adopting the Constitution was the only way to accomplish that goal.
While making this case, the future Supreme Court justice noted that many individual states had trouble finding qualified people to serve in their governments. Jay thought the Constitution would fix that. “When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will be generally appointed to manage it.”
Jay reasoned the federal government would be better because it could choose from a wider pool of applicants. As a result, he mistakenly assumed that the federal government would “never experience that want of proper persons” to guide the ship of state.
Looked at from the perspective of the 21st century, that view could be described as either quaint, naïve or laughable.
We now live in a world where just 23% of voters believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job. Rather than thinking that the best and brightest serve in Washington, voters place more trust in state and local governments. Most want rules and regulations written closer to home. And, of course, our last presidential election featured a pair of candidates who were each viewed unfavorably by a majority of voters.
To say that Jay missed the mark on this point is an understatement for the ages!
So, why should we listen to someone who got it so wrong?
First, because he got so many other things right (including his efforts to end slavery). Many of his other arguments for the benefits of union have stood the test of time. To take just one example, Jay correctly foresaw that foreign powers would attempt to take advantage of any disunion between North and South. The British did just that by aiding the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Second, Jay had practical experience at creating governments — something that no 21st century American can claim. He was active in the Continental Congress, negotiated the treaty ending our War of Independence, served under the Articles of Confederation, was involved in drafting the New York State Constitution, and corresponded with those creating governments in other new states.
In other words, he had the wisdom that comes from one of America’s deepest traditions —pragmatic problem-solving.
Jay and his colleagues didn’t just theorize about how government should work, they studied the issue intensely and were deeply immersed in the practical realities of governing. Just as important, that practical experience was gained in service of a noble ideal — the creation of a self-governing society whose government existed to protect the people’s natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Their efforts should never be dismissed as irrelevant or held up as unchallengeable gospel truth. Instead, we should carefully consider the merits of their arguments and how they apply in the 21st century.
We should carefully consider the merits of their arguments and how they apply in the 21st century.
We should do this by recognizing the greatest success of our founders. Because of their efforts, and despite their mistakes, 94% of Americans still believe in the American creed —the idea that every American has the right to live their own life as they see fit so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.
Our task today is to build upon that success and pass the lessons on to future generations.
Scott Rasmussen is an American political analyst and digital media entrepreneur. He is the author of “The Sun Still Rising: Politics Has Failed But America Will Not.”