Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T16:07:33.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Opinion and the Formation of Civic Character in Madison's Republican Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Colleen A. Sheehan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Adams's complaints notwithstanding, no one of the American Founding generation has been so consistently misunderstood as James Madison. In recent decades a small handful of scholars have made significant strides toward correcting the Madisonian record. In addition to the justly acclaimed study of Madison by Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty, the thoughtful work of Alan Gibson stands out in this regard. In particular, Professor Gibson's efforts to parse the contemporary debate over the character of Madison's political thought constitute a distinctive and valuable contribution to the literature on Madison and the Founding.

In his most recent essay, “Veneration and Vigilance: James Madison and Public Opinion, 1785–1800,” Professor Gibson makes three central claims, namely, that Madison never wavered in his commitment to popular sovereignty and deserves to be considered a leading and prescient democratic theorist of the Founding, that Madison's conception of the nature and role of public opinion in the 1790s signifies a substantial revision of the earlier Humean understanding of public opinion he embraced in the 1780s, and that Madison did not seek to foster civic education in the American republic. I agree with the first of these claims, though I would make the case for Madison's democratic credentials even more emphatically than Gibson does. In general, however, Gibson and I share common ground in the recognition of the critical importance of the concept of public opinion in Madisonian theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , Winter 2005 , pp. 37 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This author is grateful to the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Earhart Foundation, whose generous support of her work on the republicanism of Madison during the 2004–2005 has made the preparation of this review article possible.

1. Banning, Lance, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

2. Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John, The Federalist Papers, ed. Rossiter, Clinton, introduction by Kesler, Charles R. (New York: New American Library, 1999), 51:290, 49:285,57:321Google Scholar. (All further references to The Federalist Papers are to this edition, hereafter cited Federalist.)

3. Madison, James, The Papers of James Madison, eds. Hutchison, William T., Rachal, William M. E., Rutland, Robert A. et al. (chicago: University of Chicago Press [vols. 1–10] Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1962–1991 [vols. 11–17]),14:201–202,161–63Google Scholar; cf. 11:298. (Hereafter cited PJM.)

4. PJM, 14:202Google Scholar; cf. 161–62.

5. Hume, David, Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Miller, Eugene F. (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1985), pp. 32–36, 42–46, 47–53Google Scholar.

6. Hume, , “Of the First Principles of Government,” p. 32Google Scholar.

7. Federalist, 49:282Google Scholar.

8. See the conclusion to volume 2 of the History of England, which Hume added after writing the main body of the text and did not include in the table of contents. (The Online Library of Liberty produced by The Liberty Fund has entitled this conclusion to the second volume, “The Progress of English Liberty” (http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Hume0129/History/0011-2_Bk.html). Cf. Inuzuka, Hajime, “David Hume's Politics: Inheritance and Renewal of the Traditional Political Thought,” Institute of Social Science, Tokyo, Discussion Series No. F-113, pp. 15–18Google Scholar (http://jww.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/discussion/).

9. Hume, , “Of the Independency of Parliament,” pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

10. Ibid., pp. 44–45.

11. Hume, , “Of the First Principles of Government,” p. 35Google Scholar.

12. Hume, , “Whether the British Government Inclines More to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic,” p. 51Google Scholar.

13. Hume, , “Whether the British Government Inclines More to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic,” p. 51Google Scholar. Cf. “Of the First Principles of Government,” p. 33Google Scholar.

14. Hume, , “Of the Liberty of the Press,” p. 12Google Scholar.

15. See Sheehan, , “Madison and the French Enlightenment: The Authority of Public Opinion,” William and Mary Quarterly 59, no. 4 (2002): 925–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a more extensive treatment of the development of Madison's thought throughout the late 1780s and early 1790s than can be offered here. Madison's attention to French texts on public opinion—a number of which he carried with him in 1790 to his lodgings in Philadelphia—is helpful in explaining the continued concern he had with developing more fully his understanding of the force and authority of public opinion in republican government.

16. See Sheehan, , “Madison's Party Press Essays,” Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 17, no. 3 (1990): 355–77Google Scholar; Sheehan, , “Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion,” American Political Science Review 98, no. 3 (2004): 405–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially p. 415.

17. “Notes on Government,” PJM, 14:159Google Scholar. See also letter to Jefferson, of 24 10 1787, PJM, 10:212Google Scholar; Federalist, 51:288–89Google Scholar

18. Gibson claims that in the 1790s Madison regarded public opinion as a channel of communication between the people and their representatives, but that in the 1780s he was simply not concerned with this issue. At the same time, however, Gibson argues that “in the 1780s and the 1790s [Madison] conceived of the relationship of the people to their government as a process of mutual influence, censorship, and judgment.”

19. In an earlier essay, Gibson claims that there is “no evidence that [Madison] expected a substantial number of public policies to result from the transfer of popular majorities into legislative majorities” or that he expected public policy to form as a result of collective action by a nonfactious national majority. Rather, Madison “seemed to have believed that most public policies would be formed by representatives who consulted the views and interests of their constituents and then compared and related these to the public good” (“Impartial Representation and the Extended Republic: Towards a Comprehensive and Balanced Reading of the Tenth Federalist Paper,” History of Political Thought 12, no. 2 [1991]: 290Google Scholar. See also Gibson, , “America's Better Self: Diamond, Madison, and the Foundations of the American Regime,” Political Science Reviewer [1999], p. 109.)Google Scholar. According to this analysis, the extended republic, and not impartial representatives, is central to Publius's scheme to achieve an impartial umpire in republican government. But although Gibson demonstrates how a large territory helps to prevent the formation of a factious or impartial majority, he does not show how it promotes impartiality except by establishing the conditions that allow for the achievement of an impartial legislative majority. Thus impartiality depends ultimately on a few worthy public officials, with the extended republic serving only as a negative means to this positive end. In this analysis, Madison's call for a practicable sphere (Federalist, 14:68Google Scholar; Federalist, 51:293Google Scholar; cf. PJM, 10:214Google Scholar), his concern that legislators meet under one roof and are subject to the contagion of opinion and passion (PJM, 9:354Google Scholar; Federalist, 58:328–29Google Scholar; PJM, 14:165–66, 13:93–94Google Scholar), and his appeal in Federalist, No. 51, to a “coalition of a majority of the whole society” to achieve public decisions based on “justice and the general good” (Federalist, 51:291Google Scholar, emphasis added) are neglected.

20. Federalist, 49:285Google Scholar. Whereas a too extensive territory precludes the communication of ideas and the formation of public opinion, a practicable extent of territory allows for the communication of opinion and the maintenance of the rulers' responsibility to the people. (See Federalist, 14:68Google Scholar; Federalist, 51:293Google Scholar; cf. PJM, 10:214Google Scholar; Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty, pp. 195–233Google Scholar, especially 212 n. 61.) Indeed, Madison's argument for limiting territorial size to a practicable sphere—in both the 1780s and the 1790s—makes sense only if he envisioned a process of communication between the people and their representatives and the formation of a national public opinion. It is important to emphasize, however, that the proper extent of the territory is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the attainment of a modified and reasonable public opinion (see, for example, Federalist, 63:353–55Google Scholar). In Federalist, No. 49 and in his Convention speech of 12 June 1787, Madison did not argue against direct appeals to the people per se, but against direct appeals in certain cases, i.e., in those involving drafting or changing the Constitution. In his congressional speech of 15 August 1789, he argued against the practice of “instruction” of representatives. These are instances in which a direct appeal to the people would short circuit the layered constitutional processes, which provide the conditions for a complex network of political communication, public deliberation, and the refinement of popular opinion.

21. Federalist, 51:293Google Scholar.

22. See “Vices of the Political System of the United States,” PJM, 9:355Google Scholar; cf. 10:213.

23. Meyers, Marvin, The Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of James Madison (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1981), p. 270Google Scholar.

24. PJM, 12:340Google Scholar.

25. PJM, 9:357, 384Google Scholar; 10:214.

26. PJM, 14:168,170Google Scholar.

27. Meyers, , Mind of the Founder, p. 341Google Scholar.

28. See Sheehan, , “The Politics of Public Opinion: James Madison's 'Notes on Government,” William and Mary Quarterly 49, no. 4 (1992): 621–22, 626–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Madison and the French Enlightenment: The Authority of Public Opinion,” pp. 950, 952, 956Google Scholar; “Madison v. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism and the Role of Public Opinion,” pp. 416, 420–22Google Scholar. In an essay published in 2000 (“Ancients, Moderns and Americans: The Republicanism-Liberalism Debate Revisited,” History of Political Thought, 21, no. 2 [2000]Google Scholar), Gibson claims that Madison, “conceived of public opinion in a remarkably modern manner as a product of the society independent of the government” (p. 282, emphasis added)Google Scholar; in this essay Gibson seems to moderate this claim by declaring that “the influence by government” on public opinion is not Madison's chief emphasis.

29. “Public Opinion” PJM, 14:170Google Scholar.

30. PJM, 14:234Google Scholar.

31. PJM, 11:298–99Google Scholar. See also PJM, 14:162–63, 170Google Scholar, Meyers, , Mind of the Founder, p. 169Google Scholar.

32. Diamond, Martin, “Ethics and Politics: The American Way,” in The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, ed. Horwitz, Robert H., 3rd ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1986), p. 107Google Scholar.

33. “Republican Distribution of Citizens,” PJM, 14:246Google Scholar.

34. “Notes on Government,” PJM, 14:168Google Scholar; “Republican Distribution of Citizens,” PJM, 14:245–46Google Scholar.

35. PJM, 14:168Google Scholar.

36. Finlay, Christopher J., “Hume's Theory of Civil Society,” European Journal of Political Theory, SAGE Publications Ltd., London, p. 384Google Scholar.

37. Hume, , “Of Essay Writing,” p. 535Google Scholar.

38. Barthélemy, Jean Jacques, Travels of Anacharsis the Younger in Greece during the middle of the fourth century before the Christian era, 8 vols. (Philadelphia, 1804), 5:277–78Google Scholar.

39. Federalist, 10:49Google Scholar; cf. PJM, 9:355–56Google Scholar,10:213–14.