Federalist Principles

II. Federalist Leadership

The Founders could only have been successful—and America’s is the oldest written constitution in the world—if they had a valid theory of human nature. If man were a devil, no good form of government could be created because he would corrupt it. If he were an angel, no government would be necessary to control him because he would always act virtuously, as Madison put it in Federalist 51. Ambition would check ambition by placing leaders into different power institutions that counteract each other’s dangerous ambitions. So power is limited at the top where it is most dangerous and most things are done outside national government, by the people freely, or locally, as the Federalist said and the 10th Amendment guaranteed.

No one in his right mind would divide power into so many parts if the idea were for the government to be the major decision-maker and for it to act efficiently on a wide range of issues. Consequently, most experts—believing that power must rest in one central place for anything to be accomplished—thought that government must of necessity be the essential actor to direct social life. All of the rationalists of Europe predicted certain doom for this new government that could not even concentrate power sufficiently to achieve the grand goals necessary for it to become a great nation.

The critics were proved wrong. The new political science was based upon a successful philosophy of human nature, based on both moral values and civic prudence. Citizen leadership would require not only technical education but also more philosophical understanding. For, if the people did not act with civic virtue, as the Federalist noted, the new system would not work. Leadership required not only practical education but what John Henry Newman called a cultivated intellect based upon broad philosophical understanding. “Education is a higher word; it implies an action upon our mental nature and the formation of a character.” It implies reflection leading to moral responsibility for active citizen leadership.

This view of active leadership education is based upon Aristotle and has been the central thrust of education throughout Western civilization. It was not challenged until recently with the rise of progressive education, which requires popular deference to expert leaders and a more passive citizenship role. Even today, it is perhaps not surprising that such conservatives and classical liberals as F.A. Hayek, Charles Murray, and Russell Kirk require an active citizen role. But prominent authors from the left do too—Christopher Lasch, E.J. Dionne and Michael Walzer, as well as centrists like Jane Jacobs and Robert Putnam. Of course, these authors have substantial differences among themselves concerning the degree of individual responsibility. While the later emphasize individual responsibility to civic society over market institutions and the former just the reverse, they both give some recognition to the need for individual initiative outside government planning for the survival of a free and functioning civil society. Our Center recognizes both as equally necessary, including the often neglected roles of proprietorship, entrepreneurship and the simple virtues of everyday social and family life.

Yet, as Putnam has documented so meticulously, these institutions--both formal and informal and the values that underlie them--are in decline in modern America. That is why they need individuals and institutions that promote and support them. That is why there must be a Center for Federalist Leadership.

NEXT====> III. The Challenge