Daily Archives: June 29, 2022

Source: The Federalist. Gideon Edition, eds. George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001), 4249.

. . . By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority 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.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: The one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said, than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment, without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a 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.

The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties, is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders, ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions, whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests, forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.

It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the right of another, or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought, is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views, by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights, against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add, that it is the great desideratum, by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority, at the same time, must be prevented; or the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know, that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together; that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure democracy, by which I mean, a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert, results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that, by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the union.

The two great points of difference, between a democracy and a republic, are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen, that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people.

The other point of difference is, the great number of citizens, and extent of territory, which may be brought within the compass of republican, than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former, than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states; a religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national councils against any danger from that source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.

Read the rest here:

Federalist 10 | Teaching American History

Virginia Ginni Thomas, a prominent conservative activist who is also married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is demanding that the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 elaborate on its basis for soliciting testimony over privately petitioning her own government.

Hours after the Jan. 6 Committee wrapped up its sixth hearing on Tuesday, Ginnis attorney, Mark Paoletta, sent a letter to the panels leadership requesting specifics on why the probe with an open animosity for the Thomas family seeks to publicly drag his client before lawmakers.

Mrs. Thomas is eager to clear her name and is willing to appear before the Committee to do so, Paoletta wrote to Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. However, based on my understanding of the communications that spurred the Committees request, I do not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas.

In March, Ginni became the center of a fabricated controversy related to the Jan. 6 Committees investigation when the panel leaked a series of private text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages, 29 in all, revealed a conservative activist pleading with a government official to continue investigating allegations of election fraud in the pandemic-era contest, which included record-level turnout in the form of mail-in voting that was ripe for misconduct.

Committee members escalated their efforts to compel Ginnis testimony earlier this month after more private communications were revealed with individuals involved in former President Donald Trumps efforts to halt certification of the 2020 election. Thompson told Axios his colleagues on the panel think its time that we, at some point, invite her [Thomas] to come talk to the committee.

Ginni said shortly after she looked forward to talking to them.

I cant wait to clear up misconceptions, she told the Daily Caller.

Further examination of the committees request, however, has given Ginni pause.

The panels request focuses on Ginnis communications with attorney and law professor John Eastman, who produced legal theories to justify delays in certification of the electoral college. The extent of the pairs contact, however, as outlined by Paoletta, stretches to generic emails forwarded by Ginni on a large distribution list and an invitation to speak to a group of conservative activists, a type of event Ginni organizes regularly.

Not a single document shows any coordination between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Eastman, Paoletta wrote.

Paoletta also outlined skepticism that the committee was operating in good faith in its desire to bring Ginni before lawmakers, considering her husband is among the most targeted members of the Supreme Court.

In 2014, Thompson stood by his comments calling Justice Thomas Uncle Tom in a speech with the New Nation of Islam, which believes intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.

Thomas doesnt like black people, [and] he doesnt like being black, the congressman said.

These statements by the Committees chairman certainly raise alarm bells when the committee says that it wants to speak with Mrs. Thomas, Paoletta wrote.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: Ginni Thomas Demands Context From J6 Panel Before She'll Cooperate With The Hostile Probe - The Federalist

Editors note: The following is an adapted excerpt from Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone, by Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry, available now on Amazon.

It made some sense that liberal Democrats would be bitter immediately after the 2016 election. The country had just denied Hillary Clintonyes, Empress Hillary Clintonas heir to her throne and instead chose to elevate a foul-mouthed barbarian named Donald Trump to the presidency.

A true outsider who represented all the things liberals hate masculinity, optimism, independenceruined the illusion that America was now exclusively their domain, a place they had hoped to use for their racial fixations, green energy projects, and weird gender-bender social experiments.

They lost. And losing hurts. But its not supposed to be permanent. The next critical election is always within arms reach and there are more productive ways to spend time than holding on to the pain of the last one.

As of 2016, though, liberals and Democrats no longer saw things that way, if they ever truly did at all. After that election, they believed there was no reason to pretend that they understood differences of political opinion, nor that they could tolerate them. They no longer viewed Republicans, conservatives, or even just open-minded independents as the opposition in an honest democracy. They saw them all as an existential enemy that needed to be extinguished.

And thus began our long journey through hell. Pussy hats. Public crying. Fake hate crimes perpetrated by nonexistent Trump supporters. Safe spaces. Angry, vulgar protests broadcast on network television under the guise of being Hollywood award ceremonies. The tragic rise of liberal civil rights attorney Ben Crump. On and on.

And if you thought the four years under Donald Trump were bad, those were a piece of cake compared with what would come. A presidential election was approaching in 2020 and the economy was booming. What were Democrats and their reliable friends in the news media left to do other than turn up the dial to a breaking point, generate mass race rioting and covid hysteria, then promise the public that it would only go away if they were put in charge?

It was fraudulent but enough voters found it persuasive. The bigger problem, however, was that by validating the tactic and voting for Joe Biden, Americans effectively encouraged the Lefts worst impulse, which is to spread its own bitter, joyless misery.

Even when Democrats emerged victorious from the suffocating bonfire of 2020, having control of the White House and all of Congress for two years, has their mood change? No. Its only gotten worse.

They may have traded their pussy hats for Fauci prayer candles, but the attitude has never been angrier or more spiteful. Vengeance has animated them each and every day.

There are scores of studies, surveys, reports and data to back up that truism. But like others, I also know it so well firsthand.

As just one (perfect) example, in November of last year I was sitting with two friends at the bar of All Purpose, a popular pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. One friend, a white woman in her early 30s, had exchanged niceties with the bar server, also a white woman who appeared to be in her 30s, and with dyed hair that made it look like a mix between silver and very light purple.

My friends and I at one point were discussing the not-guilty verdict that had just been rendered in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I mentioned that it was amazing how many people were under the impression that Rittenhouse was prosecuted for shooting blacks, when in fact all parties involved with his case were white. My friend said that nonetheless, she believed that racism colored the outcome of the trial.

What makes it racist? I asked.

Immediately, the bartender with the dye job looked up from the drink she was preparing to declare, WHAT MAKES IT RACIST IS

But just as quick as she was to insert herself, I held up the palm of my hand and said, We were just talking among ourselves.

Okay, no problem, she said. And then I watched her for the duration of our time sitting there as she walked around, alerting every other member of staff about the belligerent racist who wouldnt let her speak.

I mean, I dont know for certain thats what she was telling her coworkers, but is there any doubt? Thats precisely what an obnoxious liberal would do anywhere.

This isnt normal behavior. Normal people dont assume its their place to butt in on the discussions of strangers, let alone when those strangers will be deciding how much of a tip to leave. The level of discomfort that these monsters are willing to instill on well-meaning, unassuming people has no boundaries. It can be minor, say a cold shoulder at a social gathering, and it can be extreme to the point of obscenity.

Their thoughts and feelings about politics are no longer a piece of their lives, but all-consuming. Its not without consequence. When half the country chooses to exist in a perpetual state of irritability, vindictiveness, and intolerance, were all forced to share in the misery.

Read more:

How Democrats Made Themselves Miserable And Want You To Be Too - The Federalist

The lefts reaction to the Supreme Courts historic decision last week overturningRoe v. Wadehas been uniformly appalling but not at all surprising:violence,calls for more violence,calls to pack the court, ignore its decisions,dissolve it. In other words, about what youd expect from people who want to destroy every institution they dont control.

On the right, the reaction has been rather more mixed, mainly because of the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of the Never Trump faction, whose leading lights cant bring themselves to give credit to former President Donald Trump for accomplishing what the Republican establishment could not.

Make no mistake: without Trump,Roewould still be on the books. No other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, and no other GOP president would have yielded the results Trump did once in office.

Trump didnt just deliver three solid originalist justices to the Supreme Court, he did so despite enormous pressure from Democrats and the media pressure that any other politician almost certainly would have submitted to. Would any other Republican president have stood by Brett Kavanaugh amid the orchestrated smear campaign against him, or nominated someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than six weeks before the 2020 presidential election? Of course not, and everyone knows it.

Trump was able to do these things precisely because he possesses qualities his Never Trump critics most deplore: combativeness, a disdain for the media, political instincts that told him the Supreme Court was of paramount importance to his conservative base and that he needed to deliver on the promises he made.

Indeed, crediting Trump for his central role in the overturning ofRoeshould not be a heavy lift, even for those who are no fans of the former president. You can think of him as a kind of Balaams ass, if you like, and still recognize the essential part he played.

For Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, the easiest way to avoid this reckoning is simple hypocrisy. Just write the opposite of what you wrote in the past, and blame Trump for your intellectual dishonesty.

But for some Never Trumpers, the whole thing iscomplicated. Thats how Timothy Carney of the American Enterprise Institute put it last week ina Washington Examiner columnthat was mostly a bunch of throat-clearing about how bad Trump was for the GOP brand and how much he hurt the conservative movement.

Never mind that the conservative movement Trump supposedly hurt has been working for decades to overturnRoe v. Wade, and indeed largely defined itself through opposition to abortion in an era when every major institution in American life was arrayed against it.

Carney doesnt engage that argument, or any other, because he has no argument to make. He admits as much when he says, no issue in politics is more important than abortion because no cause is more righteous than protecting innocent babies from slaughter. No president did more good on abortion than Trump. So this makes things complicated.

No, it doesnt. It only makes things complicated if youre wedded to the idea that decorum is more important than actual victories for the conservative cause, or if you draw a paycheck from a Never Trump bastion like AEI. Maybe then its complicated. But out in the real world, where untold children will escape being butchered in the womb partly as a result of Trumps resolve, it isnt complicated at all.

Read in the best possible light, Carneys hand-wringing over Trumps role in all this is at least a tacit acknowledgement that he might have been wrong. Not so for the impossible-to-parody Kevin Williamson of National Review, who wasted no timechurning out a laughably dishonest columnabout how the end ofRoeisnt Trumps victory.

Why? Because, says Williamson, Trump did what any Republican president would have done and delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society. It does not seem to enter into Williamsons thinking that Trump perhaps turned to the Federalist Society in light of the past failures of Republican presidents to nominate justices sufficiently originalist to overturnRoe. Indeed, it was a plurality opinion from a trio of justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush that botched the chance to overturnRoe30 years ago inPlanned Parenthood v Casey, and instead maintained its central holding that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Never mind all that, says Williamson. No conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism or any other major conservative issue. But as Williamson surely knows, many conservatives (including some literate ones!) supported Trump in 2016precisely becausehe committed to nominating Supreme Court justices who were solid on judicial originalism, and evenreleased a list of possible nomineesin May 2016 something no other GOP primary candidate had ever done. Indeed, his explicit commitment to nominate originalist justices is one reason many Republicans who were on the fence about Trump decided to vote for him in the end.

None of this matters to Never Trumpers of Williamsons bent of mind. To them, reality even something as real and astounding as the end ofRoe will never overturn their smug conviction that they were right to oppose Trump. So satisfied are they in their own opinions and prejudices that nothing so mundane as actual events will ever persuade them they were wrong.

So be it. Its not like the Republican Party needs the dozens of voters whose views these pundits represent. Williamson can go on writing his snarky, nattering columns peppered with snide little insults to Trump and the people who supported him. One has to pay the bills, after all, so he might as well have fun with it. Carney can go on striving to sound measured and respectable, for all its worth.

But the rest of us on the right, including some (like me) who havecome to realize they were wrong about Trump, will remember that it took Trump, of all people, to bring about a result so glorious and long-sought that honest conservatives should be willing, even happy, to admit they were wrong.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Excerpt from:

After Roe, Never Trumpers Should Just Admit They Were Wrong - The Federalist