• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

PREVIEW-Episode 65: The Federalist Papers

October 27, 2012 by Mark Linsenmayer 29 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PREVIEW-PEL_ep_065_10-7-12.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:24 — 28.8MB)

This is a short preview of the full episode.

Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally.

On Alexander Hamilton/James Madison's Federalist Papers (1, 10-12, 14-17, 39, 47-51), published as newspaper editorials 1787-8, plus Letters III and IV from Brutus, an Anti-Federalist.

What constitutes good government? These founding fathers argued that the proposed Constitution, with its newly centralized--yet also separated-by-branch--powers would be a significant improvement on the Articles of Confederation, which had left states as the ultimate sovereigns.

Hear Dylan, Mark, and Seth here rap about factions: Does our current system prevent the abuse of power by interest groups in the way Madison predicted it would? (Hint: no.) If we want to argue for change, we have to diagnose what went wrong in this and other instances: is it that Madison's/Hamilton's predictions were simply wrong in some areas, or have the contextual facts (e.g. education and technology levels) changed the situation, and/or do we simply have different central concerns now than we did then? For instance, their fresh-from-the-revolution audience was worried about kingly tyranny, and European powers were skeptical of any democracy, while we face new challenges like the rise of corporations that apparently have personhood according to our Supreme Court. Learn more about the topic and get the readings.

End song: "Feeling Time" by Mark Lint (2002).

Looking for the full Citizen version?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Alexander Hamilton, American Founding, Constitution, election, Federalist Papers, James Madison, political philosophy

Comments

  1. Ry Jones says

    October 31, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    With regard to your comment on Texans and their pig-headed allegiance to Texas, here’s a short bit from 99% Invisible on the police and firefighters of Chicago choosing to have the flag of Chicago on caskets instead of other alternatives: http://www.prx.org/pieces/54224-99-invisible-06-99-symbolic

    It’s refreshing to hear such unabashed blue state hating on red states coming from you guys; people usually choose language to obscure how they feel, but not so PEL.

    Reply
  2. dmf says

    November 1, 2012 at 10:30 am

    http://newbooksinphilosophy.com/2012/10/31/jamie-kelly-framing-democracy-a-behavioral-approach-to-democratic-theory-princeton-up-2012/

    Reply
  3. Mike F says

    November 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    It’s funny that there is a link to the Mitt Romney official site on this page. Mitt Romney… the philosopher’s choice.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      November 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Let’s just look at it as us and Google suckering Romney out of some cash without delivering him any votes in return. Ha!

      Reply
      • Bill Burgess says

        November 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm

        Just wanted to let everyone know that those Romney ads are pay per click. This means that Mark is making money every time someone clicks through and sends the Romney campaign money.

        Lets see…how much shall I send….?

        (just kidding!! calm down guys)

        Reply
  4. Smitherman says

    November 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    You guys are the shit. I just read this, hopped on the site and boom!

    Also I probably would not have passed my course in Modern American Politics last year if it weren’t for the stuff on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (to help along the way). It also drew me to a change in Major. Thanks and keep going!

    Reply
  5. Mike F says

    November 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Given what has happened in Europe over the last 100 years, and what continues there despite their best efforts, I think the Federal Constitution has held up pretty well as a model to bring diverse interests into a single common nation. Obviously, the US had the giant Civil War hump to get over before it was really done, but factions in the US did not cause WW I or WW II. That required a bunch of closely grouped sovereigns without a federal system. Sure, we have issues with factions and special interests, but they have been much more manageable in a federal national system than they would have been if the Confederacy had won the Civil War.

    Reply
  6. Frank Callo says

    November 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Federalism..well… it gives you things like the civil rights act but it also gives you things like the defense of marriage act, it means you can’t sell raw milk or marijuana even if the people in your state think they should be able too.

    I’m not sure the argument that you need a strong military presence around the world in order to protect trade routes or that you need an educated polity to increase buying power have much meaning in the age of wal-mart (China can protect its own trade routes to bring us all their crap and you can be stupid as a rock and still afford to buy it.

    Then there is the problem of cultural diversity. In some parts of the country people will hate the idea of same sex marriage so much that they will hate any federal government that woln’t make a stand AGAINST it while in other places people will hate any federal government that stands in the way of it (side note: what fucking business of the government who marries who anyway?). What works in Alabama doesn’t necessarily work in San Francisco.

    It seems to me that the federalist agenda was too narrow since their major concern seemed to be with commerce. There is a lot more to being “a people” than commerce. Federalism doesn’t allow enough flexibility to embrace the level of cultural diversity we find here.

    It seems that there is more to say here but I’d be interested in other people’s thoughts here.

    Reply
    • Mike F says

      November 7, 2012 at 9:27 am

      I don’t think Federalism imposes cultural rigidity. Federalism allows states to have their own criminal codes and diverse cultures. Gambling and prostitution have been legal in Las Vegas and illegal in most other places (until recently at least on the gambling.) It is the way that the national government has evolved to draw more and more revenue and power over time that drives whatever good and bad comes with delegating the financing of vices and virtues to 535 legislators and a very large executive branch and 9 Supreme Court justices. I’m sure they’re mostly very smart, but nobody is smart enough to direct 300 million+ people.

      Reply
  7. dmf says

    November 12, 2012 at 10:09 am

    The Invention of Air, on the “missing” founding father Joseph Priestly and the ecosystems of ideas, might make for a good reading group topic if not a whole podcast:
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/283175-1

    Reply
  8. Tim says

    November 16, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    I’ve mentioned this before, but all of Mark’s talk about political inertia, founding myths, and the potential of changing fundamental constitutional principles reminded me that I would love to hear you guys do an episode on political philosopher Carl Schmitt!

    Schmitt’s main concern might be described as finding the extra-legal or pre-legel grounding for legal orders. He’s super relevant for thinking about how political orders are constituted (every system of law is founded through extra-legal acts of violence) and maintained (through exceptions to the legal system made in the face of existential threats to it). There’s also a lot of contemporary relevance — he offers a way of thinking about, for instance, the expansion of executive power in the US during the last two administrations; or the Arab Spring. Schmitt’s ideas presented a major challenge to my liberal conceptions when I read him, and made me think a lot harder about political ideas I took for granted or only thought about in a fuzzy way. I think he would also give Dylan some support for the pessimism he displayed in this episode.

    You could probably read both “On Dictatorship” and “Political Theology” for an episode. The essays themselves are quite short and the books are padded out with long introductions.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      November 16, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      You should propose a Not School group on this…

      Reply
      • Tim says

        November 19, 2012 at 11:55 am

        I might!

        Reply
  9. UseNoHooks says

    November 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Your comment on power is beside the point. ‘Power’ is meaningless without the concept of legitimacy. Foucault tries to define a kind of power which underpins legitimacy and abuse but he fails. Foucualt = great social critic, terrible philosopher.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      November 18, 2012 at 10:37 am

      Interesting take. So you don’t think, for example, a rapist is exerting power over his victim, or getting off on the victim’s powerlessness?

      Having others recognize the exertion of power as legitimate is necessary for the power to become political.

      Reply
      • Tim says

        November 19, 2012 at 11:55 am

        I think the distinction being made here is between “power” and “authority.” Authority is power plus legitimacy. Though “legitimacy” itself is a tricky concept.

        Reply
        • Adam Y says

          November 19, 2012 at 3:26 pm

          Surely, then, power isn’t meaningless without the concept of legitimacy, right? Authority, maybe, but not power. Or am I misunderstanding something again?

          Reply
      • Brian says

        February 3, 2014 at 10:55 am

        “Having others recognize the exertion of power as legitimate is necessary for the power to become political.”

        Are you saying tyranny isn’t a political phenomenon, or do you mean something else?

        Reply
  10. Gregory Baggett says

    March 12, 2013 at 2:22 am

    Your possessive pronouns are so ahistorical; try to stop doing that; none of you were around in late 1780s, so “we” and “our” did nothing.

    Reply
  11. Brett says

    October 20, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Do political donations buy votes?
    http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/papers/02_Powell_Influence.pdf

    Scholars largely say no.

    Also, Citizens United is more complex than the way you all make it out to be. It did not absolve all election laws concerning money. That is disingenuous. Secondly, the empirical research on campaign spending after the SC decision have shown little to no influence on who wins. Both parties are recipients of large sums of campaign money via corporations, labor unions, PACs, and Super PACS. Liberals largely act like the GOP only benefited from the decision, but most major fortune 500 corporations donate to both parties.

    You all made some sweeping generalizations and partially incorrect ones as well throughout this podcast. It would have been beneficial if you would have invited a legal, history, or political science scholar to this podcast as well. Just my two cents.

    Reply
  12. Evan says

    March 24, 2015 at 1:06 am

    Was there any discussion during the formation of the US as to whether there should be a president or not?

    Currently in Australia, where I live we are a semi-ruled by the UK. The republican movement here want a president and I’d prefer that we were ruled by parliament not an elected monarch (president). So if there was any discussion about this I’d love to know.

    Reply
    • Alan Cook says

      March 24, 2015 at 9:45 am

      The presidency is discussed in Federalist Papers 67 thru 79, with the most important theoretical discussions in 67 and 70. And yes, it was one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed new constitution. The Federalist authors spent a lot of ink spelling out why, in their view, the president wasn’t a monarch, which was one of the big fears people had.

      Reply
      • Evan says

        March 24, 2015 at 5:09 pm

        Many thanks Alan.

        Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Mary Webster on Paul Revere Radio | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    […] part of the run-up to our Federalist Papers episode, I listened to this interview on the Paul Revere Radio podcast interviewing Mary E. Wilson, […]

    Reply
  2. It’s OK to Vote Solely Against (Political Parties Are Coalitions, not Factions) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    […] of the latter ridicule the former for their naïveté and/or their stubbornness. Certainly in our episode about the American founding I was in despair about a system that seems to have failed to live up to Madison’s hope to […]

    Reply
  3. What Would You Change? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    November 7, 2012 at 11:23 am

    […] the systemic problems, many of which were recognized by the authors of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, remain. Wouldn’t it be nice if instead of focusing solely on trying to stimulate the economy […]

    Reply
  4. Topic for #79: Heraclitus’s Metaphysics of Tension with Eva Brann | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    July 24, 2013 at 9:24 am

    […] on philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, and how parallels can be seen even in James Madison’s account of political factions in Federalist Paper 10. He’s sometimes called the father of process philosophy. Fragment 125 states, “Even the […]

    Reply
  5. Polyarchy and Public Policy in the United States | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    December 28, 2015 at 8:16 am

    […] character of the United States, but most notably the episodes on Aristotle's forms of government, The Federalist Papers, and Robert Nozick's […]

    Reply
  6. The Logos of Heraclitus - The Imaginative Conservative says:
    May 19, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    […] on philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, and how parallels can be seen even in James Madison’s account of political factions in Federalist Paper 10. He’s sometimes called the father of process philosophy. Fragment 125 states, “Even the […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in