Federalism vs. Republicanism

[LMT]

It seems that the aftermath of the 2000 elections is still with us based on the number of political threads on the board rallying or ribbing the Democrats/Republicans, Liberals/Conservatives. In reading several of these political threads, and participating in, Marxist’s thread “Heritage not hate” I have noted that many of the points in those posts can be distilled down to arguments for, or against, Federalism or Republicanism.

I would like to ask the following questions: Which of these visions of the United States government seems the most correct to you? How relevant are these issues to your personal politics? If you are a globalist, or a member of the European Union, do you feel that these questions have anything to say about the issues your government may face in the future?

Please note, this thread is not intended to entertain arguments about the relative merits of government policy (i.e. Socialism, Capitalism, etc.) but to discuss the fundamental nature of the American government and what lessons it might have to offer about governing large and diverse populations.

 

[LMT]

The second part of my post is intended to give those not familiar with American political history or the differences between federalism and republicanism a chance to participate in the discussion. If you are already a history buff or a political junkie, like I am, feel free to skip it.

The birth of Party Politics
Immediately after the revolutionary war there was no concept of party politics. Everyone who had participated in the drafting of the Constitution was considered a federalist. The first administration was a dream team of revolutionary figures: George Washington – President, John Adams – Vice-president, Thomas Jefferson – Secretary of State, Alexander Hamilton – Secretary of the Treasury, and Hennery Knox – Secretary of War. The first cracks in that unanimity arose with Hamilton’s first report to congress: The Report on Public Credit.

In his report Hamilton argued for the formation of a national bank to provide a safe depository for government funds, regulate banking practices around the country, provide a uniform currency, provide capital for investments and industry, and loan the government money in times of emergency. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the principle architect of the Constitution and now a member of the House) contested the proposal was unconstitutional on the grounds that the government had never been granted the power to create a bank or any other type of corporation.

The disagreement was essentially over the correct interpretation of what kind of government they had created.

The ideals of the Federalists, most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were autocratic in nature. They believed that the government of any large populace was inherently week and needed strong institutions to insure the ability to provide for the greatest good of the populace over the objections of the vociferous few.

In contrast the ideals of the architects of the major documents of the government, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were entirely republican in nature (the form of government not the political party). They were wary of a central government with strong powers, fearing that those powers would become tools of oppression. They believed that the local and state governments were to be preferred as they were more directly answerable to the people. The federal governments mandate, they reasoned, was to avoid interfering in peoples right to govern them selves, only getting involved when it was clearly in the common interest.

Hamilton’s national bank eventually passed into law and Jefferson soon resigned his commission as Secretary of State (in 1796) in protest, ushering in the era of political parties.

Historical resources and further reading:
Library of Congress
Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States
The Report on Public Credit: political summary
The Presidents of the United States

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Which of these visions of the United States government seems the most correct to you?

Well, being a Libertarian, I of course lean towards Republicanism, but I think Jefferson was naive in his vision of the US as a society of widely educated farmers. We did need a central bank, and we did need a federal government that looked out for the rights of the individuals when states stomped on them.

How relevant are these issues to your personal politics?

Fairly relevant with regards to economics, but less relevant with regards to civil rights; I don't care which form guarantees and recognizes civil rights - they both should really.

 

[LMT]

How relevant are these issues to your personal politics?

I had actually intended to ask how relevant people thought they were in current politics, but I guess it amounts to almost the same question.

 

[patient1]

Call me Madisonian.

He didn't believe in paper money or political parties. Somehow they seem to be tied to abuse of power today.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Nah, you're Adams, and I get to be "whiggy."

 

[patient1]

Samuel Adams is my favorite domestic beer.



Maybe Miles will show up & say "Frankly, ...

 

[bluntforcemama]

Maybe "Frankly..." would be followed by something uncharacteristically nice; like he DOES give a damn.