In The Federalist number 10, one of America’s most revered political writings, James Madison (1751-1836) made the case that suppression of liberty in order to curb the influence of factions was at odds with American principles. Of course, today’s so-called “reformers” would disagree.
Historians and political thinkers since antiquity have noted the alarming readiness of democratic populations to sacrifice individual liberty for a (usually false) sense of security and stability. It’s an unfortunate reality of human nature that transcends political dogmas the world over and manifests in a number of instructive ways, including, of course, campaign finance issues, whereby large portions of the population are happy to give up certain liberties for the perceived security from “special interests” obtained through increasingly restrictive regulations on free speech.
The Federalist number 10, long regarded as one of the greatest of American political writings, was published in several New York newspapers in November 1787 as part of a series advocating the ratification of the constitution by the state of New York. Its author, constitutional architect and future president James Madison articulated for the ages the problems of faction (or what we would now usually term “interest groups”) and its solution in maintaining a large republic.
In brief, Madison indicated “there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. ” Removing its causes by either destroying liberty or creating a nation with completely homogeneous opinions were both bad options in his view, with the latter being basically impossible in any case; he therefore saw the best remedy for corralling the interest of factions in maintaining a large republic with a wide diversity of interests that forced compromise and cooperation.
While sounding a cautionary note about the problem of faction, Madison explains the preservation of liberty as a higher calling than the control of factions by oppressive means:
“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”
We can perhaps take it a step further. Since Madison identifies factions broadly as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” and further identifies majority factions as the most harmful, businesses who donate to campaigns to enable their perspective to be heard, in this context, can be identified as minority factions defending their interest against the majority, fighting to keep taxes low and regulations from becoming too expensive and obstructive against a majority who might otherwise vote themselves the lion’s share of the resources of the nation’s major producers in the name of “equality.”
Madison cautions: “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.”
Note that Madison here voices a concern for the “overburdened” minority, indicating his opposition not to business or private interests, but the ability of government and majority interests to impose costly taxes on minority interests. Today facing among the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, businesses in the United States have a compelling interest to curb further tax increases through the political process.
To both favor liberty and accept its attendant responsibilities and pitfalls, rather than seek the increased intervention of government regulation may fly in the face of prevailing political winds in our own time, but it is no less important now than it was in 1787 to maintaining as free and open a process as possible so that private individuals and private entities alike may petition their government for a redress of grievances as the constitution prescribes.
