1787: The Federalist, No. 1, by Alexander Hamilton, and No. 10, by James Madison

Lin-Manuel Miranda as "Alexander Hamilton" and Okieriete Onaodowan as "James Madison" in Hamilton: An American Musical (2015)

Ideology: America as Empire, Common Interest vs. Self-Interest
No. 1 of The Federalist Papers opens up with a discourse on the importance of the document and the reason for it. Hamilton writes in this section about the failure of the Articles of Confederation and “nothing less than the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.” He sets up the discussion by categorizing those who opposed the new Constitution, and he says that it is these men who “resist all changes” who prove to be “the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter.”
Consider this Enlightenment question:  "whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forevere destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force" (362)

Consider the appeal of self-interest (self-reliance): "Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constituion will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every state to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the state of establishments--and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies, than from its union under one government" (362-363)

Ideology:  American Representative Democracy vs. Factionalism
No. 10 is the first of Madison’s writings in The Federalist Papers, and its primary theme is the new Union’s ability to “break and control the violence of faction.” One of the problems with the Articles of Confederation is that they did not provide a strong enough national government; one of the advantages of the new Constitution would be that it would not favor any one group, but it would be a strong central government which looks for the common good for all. “Pure democracy,” as Madison puts it, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” Only a representative democracy allows for every voice to be heard instead of being drowned out by the masses.

I liked the way Hamilton described the intentions of those who hold beliefs that opposed one’s own beliefs. He said that people should “mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions” and believe that there is only good in their intentions. I think that if everyone had this point of view about the ideas of others, there would be a lot less conflict in politics especially, and more conversations about important issues would be had.

Consider cosmopolitanism:  "nothing could be more ill judged than that intolerant spritis, which has, at all times, characterized political parties" (363)

Consider the threat to cosmopolitanism:  "Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people" (368)

"The smaller the society . . . the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression" (369)

Ideology: Head and Heart, Restraint and Passion
What I found most interesting about The Federalist excerpts, particularly No. 1, was the humility and transparency the author implemented into their writing. Considering the passion behind those pushing for the ratification of the Constitution, the restraint seen in the writing is remarkable; for example, he describes endangering the rights of the people as “more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart,” a bold statement to make about government when trying to gain sympathy for your own government. When speaking about how government officials require honesty in their actions, he follows this by saying “my arguments will be open to all, and may be judged by all.” Clearly, this is an appeal to the hearts of the public, who are often distrustful of government officials. Especially looking at our own government today, the transparency and honesty in this argument is almost alien when reading this in modern America.

Consider the threat of passions:  ". . . as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. . . . they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations, and by the bitterness of their invectives" (363).