On the Imperative of Civil Discourse: Lessons from Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 1
- Author(s):
- Donald J. Kochan
- Posted:
- 3-2022
- Law & Economics #:
- 22-09
- Availability:
- Full text (most recent) on SSRN
ABSTRACT:
There is great fragility in the maintenance of civil discourse. History tells us that it can, and will, fracture, counseling vigilance in its defense. And, that commitment requires revisiting from time to time valuable insights from great minds of the past who have pondered why civil discourse is so vital to productive political debate and healthy social growth. This Essay takes on that charge, exploring one source of such wisdom-the thoughts of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 1, published on October 27, 1787, as the first essay in what would become known as The Federalist Papers. It is an especially relevant source to revisit when so much of the polarized debate in today's society involves topics discussed in other parts of The Federalist Papers, leading to invocation of those very papers in many current debates. The collected essays are getting new readers as politicians and citizens more regularly invoke them as authoritative sources on the meanings of impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, emoluments, separation of powers, and other constitutional concepts of resurging importance.
Although less than 1600 words, Hamilton's Federalist No. 1 packs a powerful anti-polarization punch. In it, Hamilton offers profound lessons on civil discourse as an imperative to serious debate, the importance of respect for the opinions of others, the necessity of adopting a presumption of good faith on the part of others, and generally what I will call an "avoidance of demonization" principle that should guide our characterization of the views of others.
This Essay is not designed to rehash or resolve the questions regarding whether we are polarized or less civil in our discourse than in times past, nor is it intended to propose specific solutions. Instead, it is designed to add Alexander Hamilton to the discussion and to remind readers about the lessons he had when polarized politics surrounding the discussion on the necessity and framing of the U.S. Constitution risked uncivil discourse at the Founding.