this discussion, citations are by number and page, not author's name.)
Clearly the Federalist Papers are an able presentation of their case, or they would not have retained such high esteem. But are they consistant and coherent in their arguments? They were intended to make the case that the Constitution would establish, and support the preservation, of a free government. But modern writers have identified a philosophical tension in them, between two conceptions of what a "free government" means. Broadly, the tension is suggested to lie between essentially private and public conceptions of freedom, or in the terms of often used, between liberalism v. republicanism. The former looks back to Montesquieu and particularly to Locke; the latter has older roots going back to classical antiquity.
As characterized by one modern writer, "liberal thought treats government as a device by which individual men can protect their own life, liberty, and property." In contrast, the republican "tradition emphasizes man's political nature and his capacity for attaining a 'civic virtue' in which his own personality is fulfilled in his patriotic contribution to the common good."
Of these, the liberal interpretation has had more currency in 20th century writing on the Federalist Papers. For defenders of the Constitution, it accords with the prevailing liberal tenor of modern Western thought; for critics, it lends itself to the view that the Constitution was an instrument for securing the interests of an economic elite. The Federalist Papers are for example quite critical of democracy.
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.
By "democracy," however, the authors of the Federalist Papers meant only a direct democracy, nec...