# The Federalist #1 or Can Americans Still Read? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975 "2006-01-28T12:44:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/1 "2006-01-28T12:44:12Z")
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](http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_01.html) 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. > [@Hammy](#): > > Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/2 "2006-01-28T21:51:04Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > And this was posted, as was the norm of the day in the newspapers and addressed to the People. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/3 "2006-01-28T22:18:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/4 "2006-01-29T00:29:25Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > 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. I have a problem with a person who writes a sentence like this asking me if I can read. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/5 "2006-01-29T02:51:25Z")
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. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > or that they do so at a lower rate than some idealized antebellum past. 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. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/6 "2006-01-29T02:54:37Z")
> [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > I have a problem with a person who writes a sentence like this asking me if I can read. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/7 "2006-01-29T17:27:59Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > It _is_ a proper sentence but…yeah. No, it isn’t. Not even close. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/8 "2006-01-29T18:41:12Z")
Sorry for the hijack, **Sage Rat** , but I found this section more applicable to modern times: > [@Federalist #1](#): > > Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. 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. > And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant 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. 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: > [@Federalist #1](#): > > An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282345) 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: > [@Zakalwe](#): > > But the number of Bush supporters knowledgable of his position [on the International Criminal Court] still did not increase to a majority, even after he said he didn’t support it. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/9 "2006-01-29T21:20:43Z")
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? > [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > No, it isn’t. Not even close. 😉 It is, but it’s also very 19th century. Thoreau would’ve loved it. > [@Zakalwe](#): > > Even with that advantage, the percentage of people who got Bush’s position correct only went from 24 to 38. 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? ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/10 "2006-01-29T23:01:50Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > The Federalist #1 or Can Americans Still Read? > 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? 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 ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/11 "2006-01-30T06:18:24Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > > [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > > > > [@Sage Rat](#): > > > > > > > [@Freddy the Pig](#): > > > > > > > > > [@Sage Rat](#): > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I have a problem with a person who writes a sentence like this asking me if I can read. > > > > > > It is a proper sentence but…yeah. > > > > No, it isn’t. Not even close. 🙂 > > It is, but it’s also very 19th century. Thoreau would’ve loved it. 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”.) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/12 "2006-01-30T21:31:09Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/13 "2006-01-30T21:55:10Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/14 "2006-02-04T15:10:50Z")
> [@Tyrrell McAllister](#): > > 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”.) Impressive coding above. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-federalist-1-or-can-americans-still-read/341975/15 "2006-02-04T16:24:55Z")
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](http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_073800_ratification.htm) , see the third full paragraph from the bottom.)