Federalist No. 10 Pros And Cons

The debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists before the ratification of the United States Constitution centered around a number of controversial issues such as equal representation of the people, defense from the majority, and the balance of power between the states and the national governments. Federalist and Anti-Federalist Number 10 discuss the concerns with factions, their role in government, and how much power they should wield. While both suggest that large, clashing factions are detrimental to the United States, Federalist No. 10 promises that the government can protect from and reduce the growth of factions, and Anti-Federalist No. 10 argues for balancing of many larger groups, claiming that total lack of conflict in opinions leads to tyranny. While both papers make excellent points, Federalist No. 10 is more applicable to modern issues, although society does not fully follow its ideas either.
Federalist No. 10, which was written by James Madison, explains the dangers of factions in the government and claims that the new government is able to properly guard against these dangers, even though it cannot prevent them completely. Madison defines faction as “a number of citizens, whether accounting to a majority or

minority of the whole, who are 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” (Federalist Paper No. 10, pg. 72). He clearly disapproves of factions; he calls them a “dangerous vice” that any “friend of popular governments” will value “any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it” (Federalist Paper No. 10, pg. 71). To Madison, anyone in favor of a truly representative government will fight against the creation and power of factions.
He goes on to explain that while it is possible to stop the creation of factions, it is not preferable. According to Madison, stopping the creation of factions would require either an absence of liberty, since liberty is “essential to its existence” (pg. 72), or for every person to have the exact same views, opinions, and ideals, which is “as impractical as the first in unwise” (Federalist Paper No. 10, pg. 73). Madison instead assures the reader that the new government is designed to control the effects of factions. Should the faction be the minority, the republican principles the Constitution is based on will allow the majority to block the negative policies of the faction. The problem arises when the faction makes up the majority, but Madison says the government defends against this situation as well. The size of the republic is the source of safety; since the constituency is so large, there will be more variety of opinion, making it harder for a majority faction to form. Also, he suggests that since the elected officials will be “fit characters” (Federalist Paper No. 10, pg. 77), they will be more likely to focus on the good of the country rather than be swayed by negative views held by a faction majority.
Anti-Federalist No. 10, meanwhile, suggests that a number of larger groups are necessary for government to function. “ A Farmer”, believed to be the penname for Richard Henry Lee, reflects on the makeup of the original Congress as a set of states gathered together. Lee rejects the combination of a confederation of states and a national government being combined into one effort. He claims that this combination forced the states to work too closely with people of differing beliefs, causing a worsening of the situation in the United States: “Those who thought any national government would be destructive to the liberties of America . . . assisted those who thought it our only safety-to put everything as wrong as possible” (Anti-Federalist Paper No. 10).
While Lee seems to agree with Madison that rule by the individuals, direct democracy, is not in the best interest of the people, he disagrees with Madison’s apparent dislike of larger groups to an extent. He still believes that the states should be the representative powers, as opposed to individuals elected by the people to represent their values. The goal is to balance the power of the larger groups so that wiser, and smaller, groups can moderate the weaknesses of the people. Lee even goes so far as to say “That on the preservation of parties, public liberty depends” (Anti-Federalist Paper No. 10). Unanimity of opinion only leads to tyranny, because the entire country is then led by the “blind passions of a few individuals” (Anti-Federalist Paper No. 10) rather than united wisdom.
While Federalist No.

10 appears to apply more to modern representation and politics, there are still some aspects of faction power that Madison did not appear to consider. The United States is not run by the passions of the people living in it. Minority factions are not running the government in that they are not pushing through legislation based entirely on their own views. Factions that have a majority do not always manage to force their own views on everybody either. For example, the use of the filibuster has slowed a number of pieces of legislation that had a simple majority, but not a two-thirds majority. In this way, Madison accurately pinpointed how the setup of government under the Constitution restricts the effects of

factions.
Madison did not, however, seem to predict how complicated and inefficient it would make the political process. Back to the idea of the filibuster; while it keeps a simple majority from trying to push through, it also completely freezes movement in the Senate. Furthermore, the growing number of factions and continued polarization of political parties makes it very difficult for the government to function efficiently. Even within the political parties, factions form based on ideology, whether liberal or conservative, whether socially focused or fiscally focused. These cause deep enough divisions that unification, even within the larger party, becomes uncommon. This severely limits forward progress in Congress.
With this in mind, perhaps Anti-Federalist No. 10 makes an interesting point. Perhaps larger, united groups, like full states would make a better representative option, rather than representatives elected by the people, who may hold radical opinions that influence their voting. While this idea is interesting to consider, grouping representation by state would still not solve problems with conflict and faction. First, not everyone within the same state has a similar view on what is best for the state as a whole. Debates within states over what most benefits them would have to balance both merchant interests and consumer interests, for example. Trying to represent the greater views of the state as one entire unit would likely not take into account a great many opinions. The people living in those states would then no longer be fully represented, which betrays the hopes for the new government.
This issue could be remedied with compromise at the state level, creating a statewide platform to follow when representing their people in Congress, but many of these issues would remain. How would the platform be decided upon? Would the people vote on each point directly? Then the state is in danger or tyrannical rule by a majority faction of the people. Maybe they would elect people to represent them in the meeting to decide on the state platform? Lee already showed a dislike for a single person representing the ideas of a constituency. Also, as Lee said, whenever there is but one party, freedom ceases and despotism commences” (Anti-Federalist Paper No. 10). Possibly reaching a unified opinion within a state would fall under the category of tyranny too.
Even if those complications are worked out, while there may be fewer opinions to consider overall, fifty instead of one hundred or four hundred thirty-five, the people holding those opinion will likely be just as unwilling to compromise as the five hundred thirty-five representatives currently in the United States Congress, especially since these groups would likely be even more self-focused than the individual representatives. Reaching compromises on a larger scale would become that much more difficult, resulting in even less progress than already seems to be happening.
Overall, Federalist No. 10 proves itself to be a more accurate prediction of modern day issues. Of course, this may be simply because the Constitution was ratified and remains to this day, making an unbiased look at these two documents nearly impossible. Despite this shortcoming, the views expressed in Anti-Federalist No. 10 do not translate well into the modern scope of government at all. There are too many issues with individual representation within the wider states’ platforms in Congress that make Lee’s ideas unrealistic and overly complicated. While Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10 is not perfect and fails to account for some major issues with efficiency, it is, overall, more functional and realistic.