Federalist Paper #10 is a continuation of Federalist Paper #9, entitled, The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, in which James Madison argues for the need of a successful Union to “break the control and violence of faction.”

According to Madison, these factions are “diseases” born of dangerous vices.

Madison contends that factions are simply the result of human nature; but he warns very explicitly about the dangers of any group of citizens who act against the best interests of the community by exploiting the disparities among the classes – such as they were at the time – or the unequal distribution of property and wealth.

He refers to this kind of agitation as ‘mischief’. Madison appears to include political parties in this group as well. He mentions the threat of cabals and people of ‘sinister designs’ and prejudice who will betray the interests of the people if left unchecked.

Madison argues for a strong, unified republic as the best defense against internal strife and discord. He regards diversity of opinion to be detrimental in political life and detrimental to the interests of the community at large.

He seems to be saying that in essence, a totally homogenous society works best and provides the greatest advantages for its citizens; although he recognizes that by promoting the common motives of everyone the union is strengthened.

As far as he’s concerned, the fewer opinions the better [i.e., non-whites].

By his definition, a political party could be considered a faction, in that they only recognize a portion of society opposed to another group or sub-group with a slightly different agenda. Constitutional scholars could argue that the founding fathers did not intend the government of the new republic to be partisan. I agree, but clearly this isn’t the case right now in the US, and it hasn’t been the case for a very long time.

The formation of political parties has only served to divide people and classify citizens and label them based on party affiliation, i.e., ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ Whether the establishment of political parties is somehow a natural progression of the political process, though…I’m not so sure the founding fathers would have considered the present two-party system (one, really…) to be in any way a representative form of government.

How the US political system devolved to this point is debatable, but there is no question that the general public’s interests could be better served than by two different versions of the same political party that we have today. In a truly diverse and representative republic, the interests of the majority of the people would be represented; not just the moneyed class.

If we are going to accept a government run by factions, then it should rightly consist of as many factions as possible. Unlike other countries, though, Americans have never had the stomach for coalition-type governments with several different parties and diverse interests sharing power and cooperating in the spirit of compromise for the benefit of the greater good.

That’s just not the American way..!