James Madison foresaw the big question worrying voters. What did he say?

|
Jeffrey Collins/AP/File
Part of a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution is shown at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, North Carolina, Sept. 5, 2024.

Some 236 years ago, it would seem that James Madison foresaw this moment. 

Election Day in the United States has arrived, and the great question that lies ahead is one he spent no small amount of time attempting to answer. How does a nation with democratic principles prevent the winners from walking all over the losers?

Madison’s answer was a masterstroke of realpolitik. In political factions, he saw the human tendency to be whipped into groups of passion and ill will toward others. And in the clash of faction on faction, he saw checks and counterbalances.

Why We Wrote This

A story focused on

Many American voters say they’re anxious about who wins. What happens to the losing side? James Madison thought deeply about that question, and we the nation has learned more since.

Yet as Americans go to the voting booth today, I wonder: Is there really no moral element? 

On one hand, both sides claim ample moral rectitude. But is morality, too, merely split among warring factions? Today’s politics would seem to be an example of fractured morality making factions burn hotter. Is there no practical morality that transcends and encompasses? 

In looking across the world several decades ago, political scientist Samuel Huntington noticed something he called the “two turnover test.” The idea is that democratic governments are only stable when they survive two turnovers of power without collapsing. In other words, losing is what tests a nation’s stability and strength.

The practical reason is obvious. If one side refuses to lose, then democratic government becomes impossible. But there is a moral element at play, too. Transitions of power can only come when there is trust, because without trust the loser will feel vulnerable. The diversity of faction upon faction can provide some protection, as Madison surmised. But this election, a great sense of uncertainty comes from the concern that these checks and balances – as well as those enshrined in the federal government – have been compromised.

At some point, does trust need to come from actual trust – not from faction on faction, but from care for one another?

This might seem like precisely the dewy-eyed idealism Madison rejected. But it is not without success. Again and again I look to the example offered by nonviolent movements from India to South Africa to the U.S. 

Historian Taylor Branch called the civil rights leaders America’s “second Founding Fathers.” Why? Because they pointed to a new mode of power beyond the calculations of faction on faction. They pointed to higher principles that created healthier democratic action. Love was proven to be effective political policy.

Madison’s wisdom remains. Today, the U.S. faces the challenge he knew presented a threat to the nation, then and now. As American citizens trust one another less, the question of how to protect the rights of the loser have proportionally grown. It has now reached a new pitch.

What is the way out?

To me, history shows that thought does not move without sacrifice – without transformative commitment to something larger than one’s own opinions and desires. We saw that in America’s first and second foundings. We see a need for it now.

The way of faction asks the sacrifices of time and comfort to fight for what we think is most important, pitted against those who do the same on the opposite side. But there is another sacrifice we can make – yielding our own wants and fears to a larger sense of love. And history also suggests that, in the end, this alone can build the trust that promises a better society for all.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to James Madison foresaw the big question worrying voters. What did he say?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editors/2024/1105/James-Madison-foresaw-the-big-question-worrying-voters.-What-did-he-say
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe