The Federalist Papers #10 B: The Larger the Republic, the Easier It is to Find Thoughtful Legislators and the Harder It is to Put Together a Majority to do Unjust Things—James Madison
In the first half of the Federalist Papers #10, James Madison argues that “Conflicts Arising from Differences of Opinion Are an Inevitable Accompaniment of Liberty.” In the second half, James Madison is interested in how to avoid those differences of opinion leading to oppression of the minority by the majority. He argues that large republics have two advantages for avoiding such oppression: in a large republic,
there are more people to choose from as elected representatives, while the number of elected representative doesn’t need to go up proportionately, so the electorate can be choosier, and
the bad things people want to legislate are more diverse, so it is harder to get together a majority for something truly bad—and harder to get together a critical mass for succeeding in an unconstitutional conspiracy.
These two points are closely related to the two ways James Madison sees for avoiding oppression of a political minority by the majority. With my notes added in brackets, here is what he says on that:
Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented [diversity of bad things people want to do helps], or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression [representatives instead of direct democracy helps if some legislators are public-spirited, and it is harder to organize a successful unconstitutional action in a large nation].
Let me back up James Madison on these points.
First, I do think our national politicians are, on average, smarter and more competent than our state and local politicians, while the state and local politicians are more corrupt than our national politicians. It might not seem that way, because a greater share of the corruption of national politicians is revealed by the more numerous press covering them than the share of corruption revealed of state and local politicians. But actively recalling stories of corruption by state and local politicians can give a more balanced perspective. (I’d love to see some comparable statistics on corruption by national politicians as compared to corruption to state and local politicians.)
Second, although we have quite a bit of polarization of our national politics, and for substantial fractions of our national history, there were majorities for racial and gender and sexual injustice, there are types of injustice for which there are likely majorities at the state level but not at the national level. James Madison gives the example of the oppression of religious minorities with laws that suit the religious majority:
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.
And even in our polarized time, it is clear that the extreme left wing and the extreme right wing have an easier time putting together a majority in an individual state than in the United States as a whole. Just think of the states that are dominated by these two extremes.
It must be admitted that the problem of the majority enacting unjust laws remains with us. But I think James Madison is right that the problem would be worse if each state were a separate nation. Just look at the European Union: some of the nations within it have gone significantly away from respect for the rights of political minorities. If the European Union were a nation rather than a group of nations, fair treatment of political minorities might prevail somewhat more uniformly.
FEDERALIST NO. 10
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet
Friday, November 23, 1787.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
…
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 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 coexistent 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 result 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 question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater 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.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
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.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
Here are links to my other posts on The Federalist Papers so far:
The Federalist Papers #1: Alexander Hamilton's Plea for Reasoned Debate
The Federalist Papers #3: United, the 13 States are Less Likely to Stumble into War
The Federalist Papers #4 B: National Defense Will Be Stronger if the States are United
The Federalist Papers #5: Unless United, the States Will Be at Each Others' Throats
The Federalist Papers #6 A: Alexander Hamilton on the Many Human Motives for War
Econolimerick #4
“If you know that log times is add logs,
And log power is displayed on your togs,
Economics to sing,
You need one more thing:
Percent changes are changes in logs.”
For the substance behind this limerick, see:
For applications of logarithms and percent changes, see:
Logarithms and Cost-Benefit Analysis Applied to the Coronavirus Pandemic
The Shape of Production: Charles Cobb's and Paul Douglas's Boon to Economics
Don’t miss my other econolimericks:
On Human Potential
Today is the 8th anniversary of this blog, "Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal." My first post, "What is a Supply-Side Liberal?" appeared on May 28, 2012. I have written an anniversary post every year since then:
As I look back over the past year, other than the pandemic we are all in the midst of, the biggest shift for me in my life has been digging in ever more deeply into what I will call “human potential.” In addition to the well-known psychologists William James, Abraham Maslow, Viktor Frankl and Carl Rogers, the Wikipedia article “Human Potential Movement” lists Werner Erhard as a notable proponent. Werner Erhard was the originator of est, which is the institutional ancestor of Landmark Worldwide, which was one of my points of contact with the human potential movement. On that, see my posts:
Other points of contact for me with the human potential movement are my practice of transcendental meditation and my study of co-active coaching and co-active leadership, which I will focus on in this post. I also include in the human potential movement broadly-writ the Economics of Happiness and other well-being research (see https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/tagged/happiness) and principles such as a growth mindset and grit (see “There's One Key Difference Between Kids Who Excel at Math and Those Who Don't,” “How to Turn Every Child into a 'Math Person'“ and Visionary Grit”).
Thinking it is possible to dramatically improve human performance and human well-being, is, from another point of view, saying we are dramatically inside of a possibility frontier, doing something dramatically suboptimal. That is exactly what I believe. For example, on the purely cognitive side, we are almost all nowhere near the potential of our ability to learn things. (See “The Most Effective Memory Methods are Difficult—and That's Why They Work” and “Joshua Foer on Memory.”)
I don’t believe the old saw that “We use only 10% of our brains” But the fact that we don’t understand what a lot of our brains are doing certainly leaves open the possibility of a much greater potential than is commonly realized.
Turning to the Co-Active arm of the Human Potential Movement, I have spent an important chunk of the last 12 months becoming a Certified Professional Co-Active Coach:
I describe Co-Active coaching in “Co-Active Coaching as a Tool for Maximizing Utility—Getting Where You Want in Life” and I now have a related series of blog posts on “positive mental health” to which I have collected the links so far in the most recent in the series. (Some of these are guest posts by members of my cohort or “tribe” in the Co-Active Leadership Program.) Co-Active Coaching is a very powerful technique for discovering one’s objective function and bringing one’s actions in alignment with that objective function. I have spoken quite positively on this blog about my experience with the Landmark Worldwide courses. I view Co-Active coaching as equally powerful, but tailored to an individual, where the Landmark courses focus on a few common human struggles.
Let me give two examples of what I have gained from a Co-Active approach. (Down the road, when I’m further along in it, I’ll write more about what I have gained from the Co-Active Leadership Program.)
First, I have been able to dramatically reduce the amount of unhappiness in my (already mostly happy) life using the ideas in Shirzad Chamine’s book Positive Intelligence. book Positive Intelligence has been giving me tools to tame and subdue negative and limiting voices in my head. Coaches call them “saboteurs” or “gremlins.” Using factor analysis, Shirzad has put saboteurs into a typology of ten main types. Understanding this typology makes it a lot easier to notice and intercept saboteurs. Saboteurs are a reflection of the survival-oriented part of the brain. The curiosity-and-opportunity-oriented part of the brain he calls “the sage.” One powerful principle of Positive Intelligence is that even as little as ten seconds of some kind of mindfulness exercise—which can be as simple as watching one’s breath, rubbing two fingers together with enough attention to notice the ridges, or noticing each of one’s ten toes in turn—can help shift your brain away from activation of your saboteurs to activation of your sage.
A good way to get a little taste of Positive Intelligence in very little time is to take Shirzad’s free “Saboteur Assessment” to see what some of your top Saboteurs are. There are three tools for weakening the power one’s saboteurs. One is to deepen the emotional connection with your goals so that your saboteurs don’t stop you and are sidelined. This is the tool of resonance. The second tool is to unmask your saboteurs by naming them: “My saboteur thinks I am worthless” is a statement that leads to a lot less trouble and suffering than “I am worthless.” The third tool to weaken your saboteurs is using some mindfulness practice, even if only for ten seconds.
My second simple (perhaps even mundane, but useful) example of something I have gotten from Co-Active coaching is that my own coach encouraged me to lay out the key domains of my life that I care about, in a personalized way. I have 7, which I can symbolize by a 7-pointed star:
saving the world (what I hope is a lovably grandiose way of talking about the kind of thing I try to do on this blog)
my marriage
friends and family
teaching, coaching and mentoring
taking care of myself physically and mentally
learning
fun and self-expression. (This blog is an important part of self-expression for me! You can see that from “A Year in the Life of a Supply-Side Liberal.”
I find it has had a surprisingly important effect on how I conduct my life to periodically check in on how I am doing in each of these areas, so I can shore up any point of the seven-pointed star that is weak. My willingness to do that check-in depends a lot on the fact that I personalized the layout of these seven areas to be interesting for me.
In “Co-Active Coaching as a Tool for Maximizing Utility—Getting Where You Want in Life” I express the wish that everyone had a coach. When I say that, the image I have in my mind is, in particular, every teenager having a Co-Active coach. It would be a better world! The past was much, much, much worse than the present, especially if you go at least 100 years back. So the world can get better! (See for example “Things are Getting Better: 3 Videos.”) The human potential movement gained momentum in the 1960s. We should be in store for another Great Awakening beginning about 2040 if one believes the intuition-generating cyclical theory of history I discuss in “William Strauss and Neil Howe's American Prophecy in 'The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous with Destiny'.” The next level up of the human potential movement—which to me is represented by the kind of tools I have discussed or at least pointed to in this post—could be a big part of the next Great Awakening. Let’s hope so!
Don’t Miss These Other Posts Related to Positive Mental Health:
Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch on the Pandemic →
Marc Lipsitch is near the center of the action in trying to understand the pandemic and seems quite sensible to me.
Recognizing Opportunity: The Case of the Golden Raspberries—Taryn Laakso
Golden Raspberries
I am pleased to be able to share a guest post from my friend Taryn Laakso from my Co-Active Leadership Program Tribe. I like her story about golden raspberries. Here it is:
My partner's backyard has a great patch of raspberry plants. Last summer, I was excited to know we'd be getting some fresh berries during the summer because we'd be moving in together and I would get a chance to pick berries and make some jam! My bubble of excitement quickly burst when he laughed and mentioned he never gets any ripe berries off the bushes because either the birds or the bunnies take all the berries as soon as they ripen. I was bummed out but it didn't last long, I went right into scheming mode. I would outfox those birds and bunnies. I solve problems for a living!
So one summer afternoon I was out in the backyard taking a look at the berries bushes determining how to protect them. There were so many berries that I was confused about how the birds and bunnies could eat ALL THE BERRIES before they got ripe. My intuition was whispering to me saying "this isn't right. Something is off." I took a closer look. The berries were a light orange color, so to the untrained eye, it could seem as if the berries never got ripe. I recalled from my younger teenager days while working loooong days at my parent's garden shop that there are numerous varieties of raspberries in the world.
I wondered if these weren't actually red raspberries at all, but some other variety because these did look so darn plump and juicy, even though they were golden orange! I reached out and gently squeezed one between my fingers. It was plump and soft, but not too squishy. It slid off the stem with ease. Ha! This IS a ripe berry. I popped it into my mouth and holy berry batman! This was juicy and sweet! We had GOLDEN RASPBERRIES! I felt I struck gold with this discovery.
You can probably picture my now gloating face when I came into the kitchen with a handful of fresh berries for him to try. I wish I had had my camera ready for the expression on his face after he took a bite of the golden berry. Gobsmacked—as my kids would say in their fake British accents. He was totally gobsmacked! I was tickled orange to know we had a crop of fresh berries in our backyard. I outfoxed the bunnies and birds after all with very little effort and a shifted mindset of curiosity! Problem solved!
Sometimes we make assumptions and create stories that have us miss out on delicious opportunities. What is possible when we let our curiosity guide us? A shift in perspective may be all that is needed to show us something is ripe right in front of our eyes and ready to be picked. A much better outcome than being frustrated and blaming others for a situation!
Don't miss out on opportunities just because they don't fit into an old thought pattern. Learn to reach out and pluck the golden berry. It might be more delicious than you expected!
Taryn is a co-active coach and supports emerging leaders unlock their potential so they can navigate their life with more confidence, clarity and calm through the choppy waters of business and life.
Here is her coaching contact information:
email address: tarynlaakso@unlaakingyourpotential.com Web: www.unlaakingyourpotential.com
phone number: (206) 310-9409
Click here if you would like to schedule a complimentary 30 minute coaching sessions to unlock your potential!
(link: https://unlaakingyourpotential.coachesconsole.com/calendar/unlaaking-your-potential-sample-session)
Taryn Laakso
Don’t Miss These Other Posts Related to Positive Mental Health:
Econolimerick #3
“When the scales that you balance are general,
All of animal, vegetable and mineral,
If but one’s out of whack,
You’ll mess up the whole pack,
And your trust may become quite ephemeral.”
For the economics behind this limerick, see:
Don’t miss my other econolimericks:
Christian Kimball: Doubting Thomas
I am pleased to have another guest post on religion from my brother Chris. You can see other guest posts by Chris listed at the bottom of this post.
Doubting Thomas
The Octave Day of Easter or Sunday after Easter is variously called White Sunday, Renewal Sunday, Low Sunday (Anglican; 20th century Roman Catholic), Divine Mercy Sunday (21st century Roman Catholic), Antipascha (Orthodox), or Thomas Sunday (especially among Byzantine Rite Christians). By any name, the traditional gospel reading for this day is the story of Doubting Thomas.
In John 20 (but not the other Gospels) we read about Thomas who said
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. (John 20:25 KJV)
The phrase “doubting Thomas” has come to be a negative term. Just check out Wikipedia: “A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience.” It’s the “refuses” that signals moral judgment. They will say "if only you would choose to believe, all would be well. Just choose."
I am a self-confessed doubting Thomas. As I have written elsewhere:
I am a skeptic, an empiricist, a Bayesian. . . . A skeptic questions the possibility of certainty or knowledge about anything (even knowledge about knowing). An empiricist recognizes experience derived from the senses. A Bayesian views knowledge as constantly updating degrees of belief. In a functional sense, in the way it works in my life, I only know anything as a product of neurochemicals and hormones in the present.
Isn’t it possible that Thomas’ “I will not believe” is a simple statement of fact? As opposed to the childish playground taunt “prove it!”, maybe he was just saying “Guys, it won’t happen. Sorry about that but it’s how I’m built.”
What is important to me is that Jesus came. What modern criticism of doubters and skeptics would hint at is an alternate ending where Jesus went away, shunning Thomas the unbeliever. But what we’re taught is that Jesus came. Jesus came and said, “Peace be unto you. Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” And Thomas replied “My Lord and my God.”
Yes, maybe there is a message that skepticism is second best, second to believing without seeing. If that is so, I’ll accept second place. Because I have no choice, because I cannot do otherwise. For me, the important message is that Jesus came to Thomas. And Thomas saw and knew.
My “testimony” to fellow unbelievers is to be a doubting Thomas if that is how you are built. Jesus Himself proved it's OK. And maybe somewhere, someday, maybe on the road, maybe not in the middle of a church, Jesus will come to you. Too.
Chris circulated this essay among a small group of people before its appearance here. So it comes with an instant comment section:
>I think this is a perennial topic. I like the idea that there are people naturally constituted as skeptics who still need to be ministered to.
>I don't think Thomas was chastised for his skepticism. After all, it is difficult to believe that a dead person is no longer dead. I think he was chastised because he refused to believe the testimonies of many honorable men that he knew. To clearly understand what they are testifying of, to be able to question them thoroughly, and yet to doubt what they are saying, is to put yourself in the prideful position of being a superior potential witness: "I would not have been so easily fooled had I been there."
>I read D&C 46:11-14 as instructive:
For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
To my way of thinking, if it was not Thomas’ gift to believe on their words, then he is not “accountable” for rejecting the testimony of witnesses and desiring to see for himself.
>But for the skeptic, "believing on their words" is hard.
>Agreed but I wouldn't use "But." All have not every gift is to say some--i.e., skeptics--do not have the "gift" to believe on their words. Quoting scripture is a way to say it is not a fault or failing (for an audience that gives credence to scripture), but simply part of the human condition.
>The testimony that the Holy Ghost can deliver to people is not the same kind of truth that a court of law seeks to establish. The testimony that Thomas' fellow apostles offered to him was the former type.
>The various kinds of testimony—of the Holy Ghost, of a trusted friend, of an otherwise anonymous neighbor—does make sense to me. People do make distinctions and weight them differently and take multiple factors into account in assessing the strength and reliability. I place more weight on the words of a trusted friend. That’s almost tautological—that’s what “trusted” means to me. Many religious people argue that the testimony of the Holy Ghost is of a different class, a different kind of testimony or knowledge. Like a direct line to knowledge or the ultimate source. It doesn’t work that way for me. Certainly, some evidence and some testimony is better or more persuasive than others, but I remain a skeptic throughout. Others have told me they are like me, so I don’t feel alone or an isolated instance of a skeptic. Although I cannot know, in my imagination Thomas was like me.
>If someone claims that the Holy Ghost told them something, that is for their benefit only, unless the message is from a church leader. Then I will follow it because that's my duty as a member, not that I necessarily believe it. I still need evidence that appeals to my sense of reason.
>Is it the words of the church leader you have a duty to follow? Or is it the testimony of the Holy Ghost to you about those words that you have a duty to follow?
>Prophets, priests, and ministers, have a tendency to communicate that (a) they know, and (b) listeners have an obligation to believe on their words. A skeptic says it doesn't work that way for me, as a statement of fact. In effect, this discussion is about the conflict between the attempt to impose an obligation and the observed fact that it doesn't happen.
>I remember reading the account in the New Testament for the first time myself and thinking Thomas's response to the others' statement as most reasonable. I had heard negative comments about Thomas and his supposed unbelief as though it were denial. The sort of short-hand comments people throw around when describing others. But when I read the account for myself, it read naturally, that Thomas didn't doubt the others' belief in their belief or their reality of their experience. I'm glad Thomas was not there that first day Christ returned. That gives me hope there will come a time when I too will know.
>Is knowing better than having faith? Maybe “knowing” will never be my gift and maybe “having faith” is the greater gift, or the gift for me.
Don’t miss these other guest posts by Chris:
Christian Kimball: Anger [1], Marriage [2], and the Mormon Church [3]
Christian Kimball on the Fallibility of Mormon Leaders and on Gay Marriage
In addition, Chris is my coauthor for
Don't miss these posts on Mormonism:
The Message of Mormonism for Atheists Who Want to Stay Atheists
How Conservative Mormon America Avoided the Fate of Conservative White America
The Mormon Church Decides to Treat Gay Marriage as Rebellion on a Par with Polygamy
David Holland on the Mormon Church During the February 3, 2008–January 2, 2018 Monson Administration
Also see the links in "Hal Boyd: The Ignorance of Mocking Mormonism."
Don’t miss these Unitarian-Universalist sermons by Miles:
By self-identification, I left Mormonism for Unitarian Universalism in 2000, at the age of 40. I have had the good fortune to be a lay preacher in Unitarian Universalism. I have posted many of my Unitarian-Universalist sermons on this blog.
Econolimerick #2
“High inflation, high spending, or both,
Are the beaux to which many are troth,
But to stop the Great Stall,
For demand overall,
Rates in red are the way to get growth.”
4 Types of Heterogeneity that Offer a Bit of Extra Hope for Keeping the Pandemic Under Control without Blanket Lockdowns
Yesterday, in “On the Herd Immunity Strategy” I wrote:
Before we have a vaccine for COVID-19, there are three alternatives to lockdowns:
Massive testing (where tracing can substitute to some extent for number of tests)—see for example “Seconding Paul Romer's Proposal of Universal, Frequent Testing as a Way Out”
Treatment improvements—for example, it is possible the monoclonal antibodies might work really well
Herd immunity of key subgroups of the population—see for example “How Does This Pandemic End?”
That post and “How Does This Pandemic End?” emphasized how spread of COVID-19 among groups (especially the young) that have relatively low personal risk of death from infection and have high social interactivity as soon as a lockdown is loosened even a little might build up partial herd immunity. The correlation between 1st, low personal risk of bad outcome from infection and 2d, high social interactivity (given even a mild loosening of restrictions) is helpful here. Once we have partial herd immunity (which we are still quite far from), it may be that a 3d type of heterogeneity can help us get by with partial lockdowns: the fact that some types of social interaction are much worse for spreading the disease than others. As a result, simply shutting down “super-spreader events” might do a lot of good. There is a 4th type of heterogeneity that also helps: heterogeneity in the cost of social distancing. We should of course continue to have people do activities online if those activities can be done reasonably well online.
Let me focus on the 3d heterogeneity, the heterogeneity in events in this post. To see how powerful this is, note that spread has to do with the number of pairs of people who are near one another for a long time in which one member of the pair is infected and infectious and the other member of the pair is susceptible. If all members of a gathering are near one another for a long time, the total number of pairs in that gathering goes up roughly as the square of the number of people in the gathering. So a gathering of 100 people is roughly 100 times worse than a gathering of 10 people. Using a more precise calculation, one can also say that a gathering of 10 people has 45 pairs, while a gathering of 3 people has 3 pairs, so a gathering of 10 people has 15 times as many pairs as a gathering of 3 people. (One interesting implication of this reasoning is that very small restaurants may present less of an infection-transmission danger than large restaurants, as long as the restaurant staff gets tested with rapid-results tests at high frequency.)
Note that many people, including policy-makers, are talking as if it is just a matter of distance. But duration of being near one another is likely to matter every bit as much as distance. Being 12 feet away for hours and hours may allow effective transmission. (The details of air circulation are also likely to matter.)
Bojan Pancevski’s May 20, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “Superspreader Events Offer a Clue on Curbing Coronavirus” gets into some useful perspective on super-spreader events. Consider the following two passages from Bojan’s article:
The theory is that banning mass public events where hundreds of attendees can infect themselves in the space of a few hours, along with other measures such as wearing face masks, might slow the pace of the new coronavirus’s progression to a manageable level even as shops and factories reopen.
Researchers believe that the explosive growth of coronavirus infections that overwhelmed hospitals in some countries was primarily driven by such events earlier this year—horse races in Britain, carnival festivities in the U.S. and Germany or a soccer match in Italy.
… mass infections tend to be more serious than those contracted in other circumstances, perhaps because of sustained exposure to a larger amount of virus.
The experience of several European countries seems to confirm the special role played by superspreading events. Over the past four weeks, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway and other countries that have exited early from lockdowns have removed most restrictions on public life except those targeting mass gatherings. So far, new infections have remained low and constant. Sweden, which never had a mandatory lockdown, managed to control and then reduce the spread by relying on only one restrictive measure: prohibiting gatherings of over 50 people.
Unfortunately, banning superspreader events still prevents life from being all that close to normal. In particular, public transportation is likely to be a big infection danger. Bojan writes:
What about crowded subways and commuter trains? Prof. Small is confident that the use of subways during rush-hour is certain to turn into a super-spreading event.
And with the long duration of proximity, the only way I can see air travel becoming safe is if everyone—passengers and crew—has to have a certificate of a negative test result from a rapid-result test within 24 hours of when they show up at airport security. This should be feasible. The ordinary cost of a single flight makes the cost of a test necessary to be allowed to take that flight look quite reasonable.
Conclusion: There is a big methodological point here: given the number of important heterogeneities in play, modeling of the pandemic and of possible pandemic-control measures won’t get anything near the correct predictions unless many heterogeneities are included in the model.
Don’t miss these other posts on the coronavirus pandemic:
On the Herd Immunity Strategy
Before we have a vaccine for COVID-19, there are three alternatives to lockdowns:
Massive testing (where tracing can substitute to some extent for number of tests)—see for example “Seconding Paul Romer's Proposal of Universal, Frequent Testing as a Way Out”
Treatment improvements—for example, it is possible the monoclonal antibodies might work really well
Herd immunity of key subgroups of the population—see for example “How Does This Pandemic End?”
I have been frustrated by the relative dearth of forthright discussions of a strategy of going for herd immunity of key subgroups of the population. This relative dearth of forthright discussion is unfortunate, because I think that a herd immunity strategy is what most people who favor relative quick opening up of the economy have in mind, even if the focus of their rhetoric is simply on the high economic cost of lockdowns. One reason it is so important to think through various strategies is that, as I noted in “Two Dimensions of Pandemic-Control Externalities,” pandemic mitigation is not a concave problem: there is every reason to think that there are multiple local optima. If our metaphor is trying to keep damage low, we want a strategy that puts us in the lowest point; but even if we are at the bottom of one valley, over the neighboring mountains might be another valley with an even lower point.
If one is following a strategy that gets to herd immunity that allows the combination of declining COVID-19 prevalence and a return to some semblance of normality even before a vaccine, there is a very important strategic consideration: assuming one is keeping the timing and rate such that bad outcomes for each group given infection are about as low as they can reasonably be, however many infections there ultimately will be in the strategy, it is better to have those infections happen as early as possible, so that gradual improvements in herd immunity make it possible to begin opening up as soon as possible.
There are several things to unpack in what I just said. First, I think the lockdowns we have done so far can be justified by the need we had for greater scientific knowledge about the virus: both what affects its spread, who is at greatest danger, and how to treat it. I think we will have fewer deaths and other bad outcomes per infection as a result of that delay in some of the infections. Second, I am using “herd immunity” loosely to refer to what fraction of the population is immune. Using this loose definition, “herd immunity” is not an either/or thing. If more people in each subgroup are immune, COVID-19 can be kept in check with fewer restrictions on economic activity.
Along the lines of the scenario I discussed in “How Does This Pandemic End?” and in the strategy that Daron Acemoglu, Victor Chrnozhukov, Ivan Werning and Michael Winston study in their recent NBER Working Paper “A Multi-Risk SIR Model with Optimally Targeted Lockdown,” we might be muddling into a strategy of having those with high risk of a bad outcome given infection (especially the old) continuing to do strenuous social distancing, while those with a lower risk of a bad outcome given infection (especially the young) resuming social interactions that will let the disease spread fairly fast among them. If indeed, this is what we are going to do, it is better to do it now than later. It is only if we are going to try to avoid having the young avoid infection entirely and not get immune until the vaccine that we would want to force a strict lockdown on them. In other words, there is a discontinuity between the two strategies.
To get the benefit of strategy of trying to keep the number of infections low even for the young, one has to make it all the way to the finish line keeping those infections low. It is not enough even for that to be the right strategy. One would have to be quite confident one could politically pull it off. But trying to have few young people ever get infected might require such draconian and long-lasting lockdowns that they might not be politically feasible, even if they were, politically unconstrained, a good idea. Jesus made a good point about the low value of an unfinished tower (which can be a good metaphor for being stuck somewhere in the badlands between two distinct local optima):
Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? (Luke 14:28)
Here, it may not be literally “the cost” that needs to be estimated, but rather the political feasibility of a lockdown-heavy strategy. You might have to do a lockdown-heavy strategy all the way to have it be a good strategy. Are you really able to pull that off?
Some Wall Street Journal Perspectives on the Herd Immunity Strategy
I have seen some relatively forthright discussion of a herd immunity strategy in the news—and of course what is written about the pandemic is so vast that the absolute amount must be high, even if the percentage seems low.
In the May 14, 2020 op-ed “Scenes from the Class Struggle in Lockdown,” Peggy Noonan shows an awareness of the argument that, however many infections we are going to have in each subgroup, (once we get to more or less constant treatment effectiveness) better to have them come early and reopen the economy quickly than have them come late:
It’s not that those in red states don’t think there’s a pandemic. They’ve heard all about it! They realize it will continue, they know they may get sick themselves. But they also figure this way: Hundreds of thousands could die and the American economy taken down, which would mean millions of other casualties, economic ones. Or, hundreds of thousands could die and the American economy is damaged but still stands, in which case there will be fewer economic casualties—fewer bankruptcies and foreclosures, fewer unemployed and ruined.
They’ll take the latter. It’s a loss either way but one loss is worse than the other. They know the politicians and scientists can’t really weigh all this on a scale with any precision because life is a messy thing that doesn’t want to be quantified.
Aaron Ginn, who was interviewed by Allysia Finley for “The Lockdown Skeptic They Couldn’t Silence” (which appeared May 15, 2020), raises many issues relevant for a herd-immunity strategy. I’ll add bold italics to label different issues. Anything indented and set off from now on in this post is from this interview with Aaron Ginn.
One thing he says that I would counter is his suggestion that one meter (3.25 feet) might be enough social distancing. This makes it sounds as if distance is key. But duration is probably every bit as important as distance. Except in a retail context, indoor interactions tend to be of quite long duration and so are likely to pose quite a high risk of transmission. By contrast, most outdoor interactions by those who didn’t arrive together tend to be brief. (On indoor vs. outdoor, see this tweet.)
School Reopening:
One of his priorities is reopening schools. “When it comes to children, the data coming out of Europe is very, very strong,” he says. “You have, I would say, near-unanimous consensus among European scientists, public-health officials—including in Australia, South Korea and Japan—that children, for some reason, while they do get infected, they are not very infectious.”
A recent study from Australia identified only 18 cases (nine children and nine staff) across 15 schools, and only two of the infected children’s 863 close contacts at the schools became ill. Another review last month, published by the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health, couldn’t find an instance of a child passing on the virus to adults and noted that the evidence “consistently demonstrates reduced infection and infectivity of children in the transmission chain.”
Sweden Seems to Be Rapidly Moving Towards a Type of Herd Immunity that Allows “Segment and Shield” without a Disastrous Path There:
Mr. Ginn has been closely following Sweden, which has kept children under 16 in school and let most businesses stay open while restricting gatherings of more than 50 people. His daily briefings frequently cite Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, who has argued that government lockdowns lack a “scientific basis” and “people should be able to keep a reasonably normal life.” Dr. Tegnell recently estimated that 40% of Stockholm’s population would be immune to the virus by the end of May.
That could bring Sweden closer to “herd immunity” than countries that have sought to suppress spread altogether. “We need to ‘segment and shield,’ ” Mr. Ginn says, “and let the epidemic go through”: “The question is: How are you going to best protect those that are vulnerable in the larger population?”
…
A paper last week by Stockholm University mathematicians estimates herd immunity could be around 43% if young, socially active people mix more and gain immunity, protecting older, less socially active people. In other words, Stockholm may have already achieved herd immunity. Dr. Tegnell said this week that the declining number of cases in Stockholm supports this possibility.
Heterogeneity in Social Interactivity and Physical Reaction to the Virus Means We Might Only Need Herd Immunity for the Super-Spreader Subgroup to Be in a Much Better Position:
Some scientists say herd immunity would require 60% to 70% of the population to be infected, which would entail massive deaths. Mr. Ginn says those numbers are up for debate. A recent study from a large team of international researchers including some at Oxford and the National Institutes of Health (which hasn’t undergone peer review) estimates that “variation in susceptibility or exposure to infection can reduce these estimates” so that some populations may achieve herd immunity with an infection rate of only 10% to 20%.
All of these claims need to be questioned, but all claims anywhere in the ballpark of these claims need to be seriously considered. It could make a big difference to the optimal strategy.
Don’t miss these other posts on the coronavirus pandemic:
Jerome Powell on How Money is Created
Pelley: Fair to say you simply flooded the system with money?
Powell: Yes. We did. That’s another way to think about it. We did.
Pelley: Where does it come from? Do you just print it?
Powell: We print it digitally. So as a central bank, we have the ability to create money digitally. And we do that by buying Treasury Bills or bonds or other government guaranteed securities. And that actually increases the supply of money. We also print actual currency and we distribute that through the Federal Reserve Banks.
Dave Baillie: Calibrate Your Compass
Link to the Amazon page for “Man’s Search for Meaning,” by Viktor Frankl
One of the best things about the Co-Active Leadership Program I am now a student in is the tight bonds one forms with the other members of one’s “tribe.” I have seventeen new friends that I am very proud of. Dave Baillie is one of them. Dave is a combination of great personal power, great personal warmth and great desire for a deeper understanding of the human condition. Today, I am pleased to be able to add guest post from Dave to the guest posts from my other new friends you can see links for at the bottom. Here is Dave:
Sitting on my patio in southern California, it is now the golden hour, that last hour of daylight that has a special glow and brings a quiet reflectiveness—both about what is past and what is yet to come. I realize that, for me, it has been the golden hour of reflection and reorientation for the last decade and that I am at the dawn of a yet-undiscovered future. A new book in the series of my life has begun with the conscious quest for a beautiful life purpose as I author the rest of my life.
Defining “my life purpose”—my new aims—is something worth puzzling over. I have 56 lived years now under my belt. I open this decade by stepping away from a home city, a career, and a marriage each of nearly 3 decades.
Central to my efforts toward defining my forward life purpose is the work I am doing in courses given by the Co-Active Training Institute (CTI). (A past protégé who referred me to CTI’s coaching and leadership programs.) I began by thinking about ambitions and goals of a familiar sort. But during a mentoring walk with a career Naval Officer, my dive went deeper than expected as he shared with me his life pivot point while on a mission during the Iraq war in the 2000s. He spoke of virtue, love and a life well led. He urged me to read Viktor Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning. Reading Man’s Search for Meaning is helping me reframe my life purpose. I feel as if I am being opened up so that I can discover what life is asking of me—and how I will show up to answer that calling.
First published in 1946 as A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp and later called Say Yes to Life in Spite of Everything, today’s English edition of Man’s Search for Meaning, includes an Introduction to Logotherapy (1964) and a postscript written in 1984 entitled The Case for Tragic Optimism. Viktor Frankl’s 1946 work is less a documentary of concentration camps, and more an observation of the psychological effects of going through that harrowing experience, and the understanding he gained of what makes for a fulfilling life—a life with true meaning. Herein lies the core of Logotherapy: to be confronted with and reoriented toward the meaning of one’s life. (The definitions of all the possible meanings of the Greek word logos run on for pages, but one of those meanings is “meaning” itself.) His Experiences in a Concentration Camp opens with a statement that his writing is not intended to be an account of all the suffering—there are other books for that. Instead, Viktor conveys how the experience was reflected in the mind of the average prisoner and how those psychological effects can illuminate a broader understanding of the human quest for meaning.
Man’s Search for Meaning opens with the scene of Viktor disembarking a rail car upon arrival at Auschwitz with his young, and pregnant, wife. Immediately, they were commanded to leave their suitcases on the train and stand in two lines, one for men, the other for woman. There is no mention of a farewell. At the head of the line, a well-dressed SS officer who wielded, literally, a fickle finger of fate, as he wiggled his index finger left or right; right for work, while left led to the gas chambers and crematorium:
The significance of the finger game was explained to us in the evening. It was the first selection, the first verdict made on our existence or non-existence.
Having smuggled the manuscript of his life’s work into camp, he retained some hope, but even this was taken from him as they were stripped naked, showered, and then given prison rags to wear. Nothing of his former life retained. Later, Frankl realized that the one last vital possession which could not be taken was how he chose to show up in the world, no matter the situation!
Next to being dragged to a concentration camp, my situation is heaven on earth, but by more ordinary standards, leaving a marriage of 3 decades, moving to a new town, taking up a new career assignment—and, along with many other people, being put under a form of home arrest by this pandemic—are upending. It has rattled my conception that life is stable, the future predictable.
As a goad for thinking through one’s life purpose, Viktor Frankl offers this quotation from Friedrich Nietzsche:
He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how.
To that, Viktor adds:
It is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future - sub specie aeternitatis. And this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.
and
The prisoner who had lost faith in the future – his future – was doomed.
This underscores the value of connecting with a vision of one’s future as well as tuning into one’s purpose.
Whether you have recently experienced a pivot point in your life journey or been knocked off balance by the world’s pandemic shift, you too may be wondering, “what’s the point? What’s the meaning of life and where do I go from here?” Dr. Frankl’s work has helped me consider these questions for myself. Let me share the process I am using to become better attuned to my true self and to reframe my life purpose—a process that is allowing me to see opportunities and a vision of a resonant future even amid personal upheaval and the ever-changing mess of the world around me.
Searching for Meaning: Dave’s Process
A life pivot point is any event that can create a fundamental shift to one’s perspective and attitude towards life. Leverage the shift.
Through life’s challenges we alone can choose to play victim or take ownership of our lives. When things are really bad, as in Viktor Frankl’s situation when everything was taken from him, we may only truly own how we choose to show up. Attitude is everything – so, choose a good one.
Calibrate your internal compass. Create space and spend time to get to know your true, authentic self again. What virtues do you subscribe to? What are your boundaries? What feeds your soul?
We discover our life purpose only once we take full responsibility for showing up as our authentic selves and stand in our own truth. When we are impeccable with our word and our actions come from a heart of love.
There is no singular, abstract definition of the meaning of life. Our purpose is not defined by what we expect from life. Rather, what really matters is what life expects from us.
Life is comprised of tasks (actions) and experiences. Therefore, life is concrete, not abstract. By being in tune with our authentic self and remaining open to the challenge and possibility of each situation, we will discover and live our purpose.
The answers we seek may be found through action, and how we choose to show up. We can:
Drive to shape our fate through creative action, or;
Simply accept fate and bear its cross.
Either may be the “right answer”- the path that is at once authentic to ourselves and responsive to the situation at hand. There is a lot to be said about allowing fate to unfold and then remaining open about what to do next.
There is a third choice. We can contemplate the situation in order to realize the help and resources that are available, and with these to step into action as our fully authentic selves. This requires great humility: ask for help and be open to receiving unanticipated gifts.
The answers we seek are be found through authentic action. But the key is that word “authentic.” To be able to be authentic, you will need to calibrate your compass.
David Baillie is an experienced leadership coach and facilitator who helps managers in public service grow into their full leadership potential. He has over 30 years experience as a leader in the U.S. Navy and is currently engaged in his next leadership quest through co-active coaching and leadership programs. He lives in Ventura, CA and may be contacted through his LinkedIN account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-baillie-209954/
Don’t Miss These Other Posts Related to Positive Mental Health:
The Federalist Papers #10 A: Conflicts Arising from Differences of Opinion Are an Inevitable Accompaniment of Liberty—James Madison
Partisanship is an inevitable accompaniment to democracy. Partisanship can be more or less unpleasant, and more or less destructive of friendly relationships, but it will be there. In the Federalist Papers #10, James Madison argues that we can’t get rid of what he calls “faction (which we might define as energetic differences of opinion that affect politics) but that we can mitigate the baleful effects of faction.
The beginning of the Federalist Paper #10 details some of the baleful effects of faction:
violence
instability
injustice
confusion
disregard of the public good
violation of the rights of those in the minority
overbearing laws
distrust of government
To see how James Madison says this, take a look at the first paragraph of #10:
|| Federalist No. 10 ||
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet.
Friday, November 23, 1787.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
Above, I defined faction as “energetic differences of opinion that affect politics.” James Madison’s definition is next in #10:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
James Madison’s main theme in #10 is about controlling the effect of faction. But he must first argue that the causes of faction cannot be eliminated.
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.
For James Madison’s readers, arguing that we shouldn’t eliminate faction by eliminating liberty is easy:
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was 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 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.
Then he needs to argue that differences of opinion are inevitable. Here he argues based both on human nature and on differences of self-interest.
James Madison says this about human nature giving rise to differences of opinion:
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 everywhere 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.
With no paragraph break, James Madison goes on to discuss differences of self-interest giving rise to differences of opinion:
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 moneyed 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 the government.
Next, James Madison refers to a principle enunciated by John Locke: “People Must Not Be Judges in Their Own Cases.” His intended audience is familiar enough with John Locke’s principle that he doesn’t even mention the name “John Locke.” James Madison says that when broad groups of people have similar interests, it can be difficult for legislation not to involve a group of people effectively being judge in their own collective case. This opens up the way for injustice and the other evils mentioned above. Here is how James Madison argues this point:
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. 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.
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 rights of another or the good of the whole.
The bottom line is that partisanship or “faction” is going to be a problem for any democracy beyond a tiny number of people. So ways are needed to manage it. James Madison sums up this part of his argument thus:
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.
Here are links to my other posts on The Federalist Papers so far:
The Federalist Papers #1: Alexander Hamilton's Plea for Reasoned Debate
The Federalist Papers #3: United, the 13 States are Less Likely to Stumble into War
The Federalist Papers #4 B: National Defense Will Be Stronger if the States are United
The Federalist Papers #5: Unless United, the States Will Be at Each Others' Throats
The Federalist Papers #6 A: Alexander Hamilton on the Many Human Motives for War
Pressure on the Fed from the Market and Trump for Negative Rates
If, in its collective heart, the Fed, or more specifically the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is willing to do negative rates, it may be managing the politics of negative rates by having the market and the President of the United States call for negative rates before it goes there. But if there is a genuine reluctance to use negative rates, not just now, but after the economy broadly reopens, that is a mistake—a big one. As I wrote in “The Wisdom of Jerome Powell”:
History may judge Jerome Powell in important measure on whether he is willing to use negative interest rates to get us out of the hole our economy is in some months from now. The “how” of negative interest rates is now well-worked out, the President of the United States is supportive of negative rates, and there is a clear legal path to negative rates in the United States. So there is no excuse not to use them if they are needed, as they are likely to be.
See also “Narayana Kocherlakota Advocates Negative Interest Rates Now” and “Why We are Likely to Need Strong Aggregate Demand Stimulus after Tight Social Distancing Restrictions are Over.”
Among the arguments against negative rates in the articles shown above, the worry about stress on banks I answer in “Responding to Negative Coverage of Negative Rates in the Financial Times.” Simon Kennedy’s Bloomberg article “Why the U.S. Has Shunned Negative Interest Rates” does introduce an argument I haven’t seen as often:
The risk in money markets relates to concerns that investors could start boycotting them and seek yield elsewhere. The U.S. relies on these markets -- at a size of roughly $4.8 trillion -- more than economies elsewhere. In minutes of an October Fed meeting, officials saw the risk of “significant complexity or distortions to the financial system.”
Here the problem is that we didn’t complete the financial stability fix after the 2008 financial crisis. Money market mutual funds should never, ever, ever be allowed to pretend that their shares are worth exactly $1, because that is pretending that they face no risk. This invites a panic when investors are reminded by events that there is risk in money market mutual funds. The solution is called “net-asset-value” pricing. The Fed, using its regulatory authority, needs to immediately do its utmost to discourage money market mutual funds from pretending their shares are worth exactly $1. At a minimum, it can tell money market mutual funds to have ready a substitute fund with net-asset-value pricing that investors can shift their funds into if and when money market mutual funds begin breaking the buck. There still might be a “run” on money-market mutual funds that look like they might “break the buck,” but if it is a run taking money from those funds and putting it into net-asset-value money-market funds that can already be bought at a discount, then the money market mutual fund system will still continue functioning reasonably well. At any rate, the Fed needs to immediately work on preparing money market mutual funds for the possibility of negative rates!
Addendum: See the related Twitter discussion I have with Ivan Werning and with Jay Kahn and Steve Hou.
Update: An interesting comment in a tweet:
And below is the quotation from Gandalf:
For an organized bibliography of what I have written on negative interest rate policy, see:
Econolimerick #1
“Of all the things that are taught,
As if to know it you ought,
One of long pedigree,
Is the U-Shaped AC,
But the reasons behind it are rot.”