PRIMARY SOURCES

Primary sources refers to written documents that originate within history that bring to light new ideas or perspectives that are then used in commentaries and analyses. Primary sources are the seeds of thought that then sprout extensions. The Constitution of the United States is one of these primary sources, as are the The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers was a series of publications written in 1787 and 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to support the ratification of the United States Constitution. Three of the Founding Fathers of America built a case for ratification but also, in the process, outlined in broad strokes the philosophy and structures upon which the new republic was based.

Primary sources are important for many reasons, not the least of which is to explore ideas that have proved generative over time. Every discipline one can name has its primary sources. Every scientific experiment, for instance, can be considered a primary source for what comes after it. It is important to trace back to the origins of ideas in order to understand how they have come into being and to then develop some perspective on our contemporary thinking. In this way we gain some deeper understanding of the original context for certain ideas and to see how they have evolved. I think asking the question about how true we are to the original is always a good one. What wisdom can we gain from examining the primary sources? Is it useful to know how our own ideas have been changed over time from the original forms? It is part of accepted wisdom in some cultures and traditions to think of the commentaries on primary sources as elevated and original in their own rights, even though their foundations can be traced back in time to a more durable document or narrative. It is also important to think of primary sources as beginnings and not ends. They serve us as points of departure in further explorations of thought extensions. They themselves may be extensions of previous seeds but they need to be organic and elastic sources for future ideas.

Politics is the ocean in which all of us swim and it has been so since time immemorial, since humans began to congregate and codify their beliefs. In its broadest meaning, politics constitutes the agreements factions of people have about how to manage their collective affairs. I suppose even primeval communities had their own methods of governance that allowed for the tribe to survive in a world hostile to their own interests. I think “factions” is a good way to look at politics, as most collective efforts at governance are composed of a set of minorities within a cohesive group. What was true for hunter/gatherers is true for us today. When the colonists decided to separate themselves from what they considered an oppressive monarchy, they were defining their set of beliefs against the backdrop of another set composed of its own factions. Factional prerogatives are not new to contemporary governments. Returning to primary sources challenges us to reexamine our own assumptions about what we think we know or what seems to us to be inherited wisdom. We are challenged to observe the contexts of our own lives as evolutionary steps in a changing landscape of human behavior.

What has grown more prominent in present times about factional governance are the great divides among the factions and the growing tendency to inhabit the factional preferences and not work toward integrating them into a larger fabric of cooperative cohesiveness. James Madison (1751-1836) wrote Federalist No. 10 in 1787 and it stands out from the rest as a statement of philosophy for the remainder. It is a primary source for understanding the perspective of one founding father and to see how it has contributed to our present day politics, if at all. He has written about how a “well constructed union” must deal with the “violence of faction.”

“The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.”

“To secure the public good, and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.”

In effect, Madison concluded that the common good is supported by having enough representatives to dilute the “cabals of a few; and that however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.” He acknowledged that any system designed to protect the rights of all would inevitably produce “inconveniences” for all factions. He is writing here about the elements of a system of governance that contribute to the maintenance of its parts and to the health of the whole. His summary takes into account the natural tendency for humans to have opinions that aggregate in factions. He is perspicacious about human behavior to include safeguards against the tyrannies of both majorities and minorities. To this end, he supports the structures established in the Constitution that both energize and limit equal and fair treatment of all citizens. It should be noted that Madison also swam in the ocean of the politics of his time and held slaves all his life. The slave trade was permitted under the constitution and he was the one who proposed that apportionment of the United States Senate be based on each state's free population and slave population that led to the Three-Fifths Compromise (1787-1868) that assigned to slaves a three-fifths fraction of a whole human being for determining representation and taxation in the states. Even in the times in which human equality and rights were being debated, the assumptions made about what constituted a human being were being drawn up along lines of race and a defined minority. Our assumptions today about the individuals we consider to be enlightened intellects were also human beings with clay feet and we can learn a great deal about the threads of history that persist today in our own society. Good ideas and bad ideas are part of the mix of politics. Madison recognized that and proposed mechanisms for limiting those ideas that allowed for factions to triumph over the common good.

In times in which the structures of stable government (for good or ill) are being questioned and, it could be asserted, marginalized or ignored altogether, it is important to be clear about the truth of the changes and their rationale. Where the changes seem to be random and at the whim of egoic passion, it is even more important to be awake to the extent to which they represent a danger to the pursuit of freedom and attempts at equality and justice. I think any time judgments are presented as simple and intuitive all of us must be alert to their validity and applicability. Returning to primary sources can be a method by which we can evaluate the validity of moves by one faction to favor their own causes, thus causing disruption to the fabric of governance that covers all citizens. We are left at the mercy of demagogues and tyrants if we do not excavate the legitimacy of history and what lessons it can teach us. Primary sources are a priceless reservoir of wisdom and balance that are accessible to us in our quest for understanding our 21^st century American character. They are equally important for those values of enduring worth and to see the values once considered true that no longer serve our ongoing struggles to attain the lofty ideals of the founding fathers, those inalienable rights encoded in our national psyche.

Concepts of governance and what we are now experiencing change all the time but depend on structures established centuries ago. We jettison those structures at our national peril, just as we entertain chaos and despotism when any structures of self-governance (families qualify here, as well) begin to break down. One of our hopes for stabilization is what Madison presented as a bulwark against such chaos and that is to dilute the power of factions by a sufficient number of agreeable representatives (families don't work under this proviso most of the time). Tensions and pressures of individual and group prejudices will always be present in how we govern ourselves. This contributes to the strength of the republic if kept in balance and also contributes to opportunities for change as we examine the fundamental properties of the system.

It is worthwhile to point out that politics might be the ocean in which we swim every day, but consulting and studying primary sources applies to any discipline or corner of our lives that we might otherwise take for granted. We must be ever alert to the tendency to freeze ideas and treat them as inflexible dogma. The power of curiosity and the practice of inquiry are instrumental in our attempts to dig as deeply as we can into the hierarchies of power and influence that affect our lives. In this sense, there is a reason to question what is presented as “common sense” or as common knowledge. Knowledge can become diluted and subject to the contexts of different oceans (like those of the sciences, the arts, economics, education, etc.) in which all of us swim from time to time. We need to remain wakeful and alert to what we hold as prejudices and acknowledge partial truths, our partial understandings, and how everything changes over time. If we cannot know the future (and we can't), then often the best we can do is to question what we do know and that often relies on history and its primary sources. We would be wise to consult them and wiser still if we can learn from them. When we can understand their teachings, then we are better able to make the changes that will benefit more of us citizens in our collective efforts to make better lives for all. Let us never assume we know all the answers to problems and so let us always keep a healthy practice of inquiry. What is it? Is it true? Do we believe what we do because we need to believe we are right? What assumptions are we making today about our lives that we might change by referring to primary sources? What seeds are we cultivating?

Since I crafted the ideas above, the House of Representatives has begun impeachment proceedings against President Trump. I reread my comments with this pivotal event in mind and I think what I have written stands the test of relevance. I didn't change any of it, knowing what I do about the present events. I believe that our democracy is strong enough in the institutions encoded in our constitution to withstand the insults of a demagogue and the processes by which he can be removed from the seat of power. We are returning to primary sources for the support and strength we need in these times.