The Federalist #1 or Can Americans Still Read?

Great Debates
1

INTRODUCTION:
200 and some years ago, the United States found itself being torn apart as each state became more and more and independent nation, and having no way to coordinate itself as a nation, nor to respond to other nations as one. To solve this, a Constitution was written to replace the former document explaining the role of the federal government, i.e. the Articles of Confederation.

In order for the new federal government to be put into effect, first nine of the thirteen states would need to approve it. Of these, New York state was one of those which was against the Constitution–but it’s representative, Alexander Hamilton felt that the new government was all that was left for the young nation, and at least as good a compromise as could ever be hoped for. And so he, along with James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of 86 newspaper articles explaining the reasoning behind the new constitution and why the people of New York should accept it.

Through this (proposed) series of threads, we will debate some modern topic that is inspired by the reading. Most likely these topics will be chosen by me, rather than leaving the thread in limbo, but if anyone reads ahead and finds some paper that he wants to lead the discussion on, send me an email saying which chapter(s) you wish to be the lead on.

READING:
The Federalist #1

DISCUSSION:
The Federalist proposed to give not a watered-down explanation of the new government, but to thoroughly discuss everything that the framers had been considering while creating the document. Indeed, if anything the constitution itself is the watered down version, being only a few pages in length whereas the Federalist Papers fill several hundred. And this was posted, as was the norm of the day in the newspapers and addressed to the People.

Certainly at any time, people will base their opinions on partisan belief, emotion, and self-interest. That is part of being a person. But in our modern day, could one ever hope to actually present the people with an honest discussion of the merits and demerits of an issue, in text? The people much more prefer their politicians for obfusity when detailing their stand, and are only ever interested in whether they have the same positions as does oneself. Does anyone still hope that their politicians have actually put thought into their standing and could lay it out in clear terms? In modern day, can we even assume that anyone still has a reasoned standing for their politics and it isn’t just a matter of feelings, rebelliousness, or self-interest?

If our nation stood on a point of such importance at this time, could we ever hope for such a document as this to be written, and could we ever believe that any but the most bored SDMBer would ever read it?

2

Bear in mind, though, that “the People”—or at least “the Voters”, the only members of “the People” that played any direct role in political life—was a subset consisting of over-21 white males who owned at least a specified minimum of real property.

Would a high percentage of today’s voters be interested in reading such a debate? Probably not. How about if today’s voters were limited to, say, college-educated Asian-American women who owned their own homes? You’d probably get a much greater proportion of the electorate involved in the issue and willing (and able) to invest the effort to become informed about it.

The issue of comparable importance that I think is today’s best candidate for serious and lengthy public discussion in spite of daunting technical detail would probably be global environmental policy. Despite the complexity of the issue, we do see a number of serious books and articles about it for a general audience, some even by political figures. And I bet a fairly high percentage of those college-educated Asian-American female homeowners have read at least something about it.

3

I don’t doubt a large number of proto-Americans in 1787 simply didn’t bother reading the Federalist Papers, even if they did have a say of some sort in the outcome. Similarly, a great many modern Americans take scant interest in government, though they have to right to vote on it every (or every other) November.

For those who are interested, information is freely available through the press, the libraries and the internet. Hundreds of books are written a year about Washington politics, with many authors invited to discuss their works on, among other fora, The Daily Show. There is no shortage of modern equivalents to the publication of the Federalist Papers.

Discussing the FPs might make an interesting thread. I just object to the unnecessary swipe “Can Americans Still Read?” suggesting that they can’t, or that they do so at a lower rate than some idealized antebellum past.

4

I have a problem with a person who writes a sentence like this asking me if I can read.

5

The first paper is simply an introduction: There wasn’t much there to go off of for a debate. And as to the title being scandalous; there didn’t appear to be much interest in the thread series, so…if all else fails, go for flashing lights. I’m not necessarily trying to argue for what my OP implies. It’s just all that occurred to me as something someone could debate.

But so far we have Kimstu saying that we have a comparable situation only if we throw out the grand majority of all who in modern day can vote. Which seems a bit disconcerting.

Probably more people can read now than could back then, but those who did read were the Asian women of the time, and no one else could vote or had any influence. In modern day, everyone can read and everyone can vote. And that is entirely fair, but I don’t think you can say we could expect to get the same result in modern day as we would have then. GW Bush has a large base of support simply for being an anti-intellectual and speaking what he believes straight, and without any rationalisations.

A hit book sells about 1 million copies in the US. So about 1/300ths of the voting population buy the most popular book. Skewing for different interests (for instance that the Harry Potter crowd might be entirely divorced from the John Grisham one) we can guesstimate that about 2 million Americans actually buy books (interview math.) The number who buy political treatises is probably a bit lower.

But in modern day, regardless of what you believe, you can find the book that rationalises your beliefs. Do people go out to find the books that disagree; ones that do so with strong arguments and not simple name-calling? Newspapers maintained some amount of non-partisanship in their articles, but today newspapers are losing readers everywhere to TV and personal blogs.

6

I grew up reading 19th century literature and it comes out stronger when I’m trying to write more proper. It is a proper sentence but…yeah.

7

No, it isn’t. Not even close. :wink:

8

Sorry for the hijack, Sage Rat, but I found this section more applicable to modern times:

Reword this in less flowery prose and it could have been written yesterday with regard to any of a number of current “debates”.

The rest of the 2nd quoted paragraph is even more apropos given that it specifically outlines a conflict between the need for security provided by a strong government contrasted with a general desire for the maximum liberty possible. In particular:

Paraphrased as “you liberals are just ivory tower idealists who don’t understand the real world”, I’ve seen this exact argument used right here on the SDMB within the last few weeks re the wiretaps.

It seems that even in the early days of the country some thinkers were already concerned about the influence of political parties and rabid partisanship.

As for your OP, I posted a short-lived thread back during the '04 election about a study that showed that many “decided” voters had a misunderstanding of their candidate’s views on a range of topics. If I may be allowed the vanity of quoting myself:

The “he said” occured during the Presidential debates, possibly the most widely watched event during a campaign. Even with that advantage, the percentage of people who got Bush’s position correct only went from 24 to 38. It appears to me that not only do a majority of Americans not bother to read about politics, they don’t listen either.

9

I think Kimstu’s more important point is that there is an issue today that generates a significant amount of prose targeted at the common man. Do we have any data on how many people read that?

It is, but it’s also very 19th century. Thoreau would’ve loved it.

I really wish we had some data about how many people understood the positions laid forth in the Federalist papers. I’d like to compare that to this number. In a romantic past, it’d be much higher, but how romantic was the past?

10

Can Americans still read? YES!
The problem is that they are more interested in Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, TV, The Internet, Movies, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Fast Food, neither physical exercise nor mental exercise and we have a nation of uninformed voters who should not be allowed to vote. Every politician appeals the the What’s in for me mentality of the majority of voters till an issue is so band that the majority tend to demand change.
It’s BREAD & CIRCUSES, Business as Usual, and "He who has the most toys when he dies wins!

When push comes to shove most will do what is right but it will take a tremendous shock or awakening to imminent dander to get them off their collective fat butts1

11

No, I don’t think he would have. If it is grammatical, then it is nonsensical, or at least it doesn’t say what the OP intended. Who is the “oneself” represented by the last word of the sentence? I think the OP intends that it be “the people”, but “oneself” doesn’t agree with “the people” in number. Perhaps the OP should have gone with this: “. . . and each is only ever interested in whether they have the same positions as does oneself.”

(He also misspelled “obfuscity”.)

12

If they don’t, they’ll have lots in common with the pamphlet-readers of 1800. Compared to those blood-chilling tracts accusing enemies of treason, rape, miscegenation, etc. modern mudslinging is downright polite. I’m sure these were very popular among people who already had feelings of dislike for the pamphlet’s target.

13

Except, the same thing was true then, and even moreso, because they didn’t even pretend to have a neutral press. Have you ever read late 18th-early 19th century papers? They were extremely partisan and virulent in their attacks.

14

Impressive coding above. :wink:

15

What anality I possess applauds your thoroughness, Sage Rat. When you say we will have a thread on each and every portion of the Federalist, we have one, by gum!

Much has been made in the history classes of the Federalist, and while it is an eloquent praise of the new document, it’s interesting to place it in historical context.

Your link makes it clear that The Fed was published for, and addressed to, specifically the people of the state of New York. The New York legislature decided its ratification of the Constitution (July 26th, 1788) was contingent on the addition of a Bill of Rights. Even then, it barely scraped by, 30-27. (Link , see the third full paragraph from the bottom.)