Thanksgiving, Family, and the Federalist Paper No. 1

The first Federalist Paper warns, “A torrent of angry and malignment passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that 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 the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of power and hustle to the principes of liberty. An overscrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than the heart, will be more pretence and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of public good. (Some text omitted.) The noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.”

(Image from Wikimedia.)

            Hamilton warns that the rights of the people have more often led to despotism than zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. My understanding of the danger that Hamilton describes is someone using their popularity, or the popularity of the words, to gain power. I believe that a quote often attributed to Elie Wiesel is, “The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference.” So if saying things that are too popular can lead people using popular words to take power and then use power to bad ends, and the opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference, then how are people in a democracy to relate to elected officials? And how are elected officials to relate to people? Through indifference? Or maybe merely saying things that are popular is different from love?

            While Hamilton’s words clearly warn against the dangers of someone using popular words to rise to power in government, I wonder if this warning might also be relevant for someone rising to power in a private corporation. I also wonder the role that Hamilton would describe for the government, if harm occurs between people, whether two human people or a person and a corporation. If a person or group of people is harmed by another, for example by slavery or by gender discrimination, and a politician says that they will decrease slavery or gender discrimination, is Hamilton arguing against the decreasing harm, because decreasing the harm would be popular? Or maybe the popularity of decreasing the harm depends on who is harmed and who is doing the harm. If Hamilton is arguing against decreasing harm between individuals, if the harm can be prevented, because of the risk that someone would use the popularity of decreasing the harm to unscrupulously rise to power, then I would argue that decreasing slavery and decreasing gender discrimination are unpopular. The United States fought a Civil War over decreasing slavery, and people have attempted to decrease access to reproductive healthcare, particularly abortion, since abortion was legalized in certain cases.

            A quote from Federalist Paper No. 1 to end the post, “For… in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”