The Political Mind
The science and psychology of politics
Navigation
  • About
  • Mind&Politics
  • G Scott Blakley
  • I. A. Grea
You are here: Home › Commentary › Factions, Homogeneity, Christian Nation, and the Anti-Federalists
← Anti-Federalists and Modern Conservatism, con’t.
Wisdom and Strict Constructionism →

Factions, Homogeneity, Christian Nation, and the Anti-Federalists

March 24, 2012 | Filed under: Commentary and tagged with: anti-federalist, Debt of Honor, factionalism, federalist, Thomas Pangle, three ways to deal with factionalism, virtues of the yeoman

In Tom Clancy’s novel Debt of Honor, after a terrorist attack on the Capitol during a State of the Union address kills the President and most members of Congress, the United States of America gets a do-over. Newly sworn-in President Jack Ryan calls for new elections to Congress and says something to the effect of, “Don’t send lawyers, send teachers, small business owners, firefighters, construction workers.” Jack Ryan wants a Congress whose representatives resemble closely the people they represent. As a subtext, as regular people we are all the same; let’s pull together and do the right thing.

Continuing with Thomas Pangle’s course on the Constitution, Professor Pangle describes how republics can deal with factionalism. One, have a strong monarchy or dictatorship which enforces adherence to the government’s plans; two, have a homogeneous body of citizens; or three, structure the government to control, or channel, factions.

The Federalists chose option three, and devised a Constitution and government of checks and balances to channel the factionalism evident in a diverse population in ways which would keep political and individual factions in check, and allow government to function effectively.

The Anti-Federalists preferred option two. Even at the time, that was probably just a pretend option. The United States already covered an extensive territory and held a diverse population. Jefferson could wax rhapsodic on the virtues of the yeoman, but the nation was already more than just its farmers. The Anti-Federalists could insist on the virtues of power residing with the states, smaller entities where it might be easier to pretend there was a homogeneous population; but the reason for the Constitutional Convention was a general acceptance that the Articles of Confederation had not been working.

But President Jack Ryan, in the 20th century, newly sworn-in to administer a nation of 50 states and 300 million inhabitants, still believes the people are at their core homogeneous enough that they can elect representatives like themselves and create a Congress of unity. Populist conservatives seem to share this belief. Belief that we are a Christian nation, or should revert to being one, at its heart assumes a uniformity we can use to rally the citizens around. The Anti-Federalists, Jack Ryan, and populist conservatives today believe the answer to factionalism is to stress the homogeneity of the population. Today’s populist conservatives believe that a Christian nation majority, and its belief system, should be the core around which to build and run government and the nation.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by Jacob Jefferson Jakes

← Anti-Federalists and Modern Conservatism, con’t.
Wisdom and Strict Constructionism →

RSS Jonathan Haidt

  • Why The Righteous Mind may be the best common reading for incoming college students February 19, 2017 Jonathan Haidt

RSS George Lakoff

RSS Corey Robin

Jacob Jefferson Jakes

The Political Mind

  • View Jacob-Jefferson-Jakes-127488407357719’s profile on Facebook
  • View JacobJJakes’s profile on Twitter
  • View 118350928673473455810’s profile on Google+

Mind&Politics

  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Facebook
  • View mindandpolitics’s profile on Twitter
  • View 107647165319384338834’s profile on Google+

Recent Posts

  • The Truth Behind the Curtain: Ken Ham, Antonin Scalia, and Milton Friedman find it February 20, 2017
  • “I Support Trump” July 31, 2016
  • GOP Media Warfare, Hierarchy, and Agriculture November 28, 2015
  • To the Heart of an Idea, Conservative and Liberal October 25, 2015
  • State Sovereignty and Constitutionally-limited Government September 7, 2015
  • “…of the United States…”: Creating a Nation July 27, 2014
  • I Would Not Throw the Fat Man Off the Bridge and onto the Trolley Tracks July 13, 2014
  • Shit Happens and Big Data July 12, 2014
  • Wittgenstein, Identity-Protection Cognition, and Understanding Rather than Persuading June 1, 2014
  • What if Piketty is Right? April 27, 2014

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Categories

    Tags

    1% abortion Adam Smith anti-federalist Articles of Confederation Avi Tuschman climate change conservatism conservative conservative boredom constitution David Brooks democracy Edmund Burke Elvin Lim federalist federal taxes gay rights George Lakoff hobby lobby income inequality Jonathan Haidt karma liberal liberal mind libertarians Mitt Romney moral politics natural law neoconservatives Newt GIngrich nurturant parent Occupy Wall Street Patrick Allitt pro-life racism robert reich strict father strict father model tax policy tax quintiles Tea Party The Lovers Quarrel Thomas Pangle virtue of muddling through

    © 2025 The Political Mind

    Powered by Esplanade Theme by One Designs and WordPress