I am reading historian Gordon Wood's recent book, Revolutionary Characters, a collection of essays about the usual suspects plus some bookend chapters on the era itself. Has some good stuff and is generally well written in approachable prose.
It is a bit too enamored with the era, at some times overidealizing the age of elites (the fact they thought of themselves as "disinterested" and so forth does not mean they were ... surely, e.g., Southern leaders were influenced by interests such as slavery and balance of trade issues). Repeatedly, we read about how it was an era that is never to come again, and such sentiments have a clear sadness to them. The limitations of even enlightened elitism are clear ... also obviously there were "characters" (in the sense of people of virtue) we can honor after that era. Lincoln, hello. One can go on.*
Anyway, each essay generally has a theme. For instance, Washington is a man of honor, leading by virtue, and being loved/honored by competing groups for just that reason. Adams had an old fashioned view of society, believing we need to balance "the many" (people) and "the few" (elite, natural or artificial) with "the one" (president/monarchial) serving as the check on both. Jefferson was an idealist, trusting in the people, and thus very concerned with societal niceties and character -- this appeals to me since I am always trying to formulate a theory on how liberal values are important overall, not just when we vote in elections. And, the true "treason" of Aaron Burr is his in effect modern politician motivations, refusing to follow the demands of an Enlightenment gentleman.
[An amusing tidbit, one reader might appreciate, cited a satirical comment in response to Jefferson's focus on rights. One Federalist replied that Jefferson must also think weeds have the right to flourish, for does not each have "an equal right to live.... And why should wheat and barley thrive/Despotic tyrants of the field?"]
I first looked at the book a month or two ago and checked out the Madison chapter. Madison appeals -- a sort of realist Jeffersonian with some support (Wood goes into this a bit) of "soft power" ideals -- questioning the use of military power, concerned with the fiscal-military state (contra Hamilton, the original neo-con), and favoring peaceful trade/international relations means to have a rational, more peaceful international state of affairs. We all know his general sentiments on rights, especially in respect to religion and concern that even states (sorry Jef) need to be restrained by the federal government when they threaten our liberties. All the same, he was a realist, knowing the imperfections of the system and the people at large.
The chapter also notes that Madison still honored the ideals of the era as to the idea that elites are the best people to govern. His Federalist No. 10 on factions should not, per Wood, be viewed through modern eyes too much respecting political parties and competing factions as if he thinks the hoi polloi should compete against each other or something. Fine enough -- we really cannot assume that the people of the era can be applied to our own part and parcel. This is the fallacy of strict original meaning/understanding jurisprudence. The realistic/practical approach, one I personally think they themselves intended (see Jack Rackove's Pulitzer Prize winning work), is to work with their general principles, using changing understandings of them to apply things to modern times.
I wrote something some time ago about "realistic optimism" -- idealism through a realist prism being my watchword. This seems a valuable way to look at things. Take the death penalty. Link TV yesterday had something on Gov. Ryan's efforts against the process in Illinois; I read Scott Turow's little book influenced by his role in the process. I am firmly against the death penalty. This is so even though I realize that it is not the most horrible thing in the world. Surely, executing a thousand people (surely overwhelmly guilty) in twenty or so years is not on par with many other things that result in the deaths of many more people. And, some (even I, perhaps) might think execution better than life in prison in various respects. You know in pony land.
[Overall, I think killing people shouldn't be our solution to the crime problem. But, if I was in prison for life, maybe I would want to be executed first. This is what I mean by "better." Still, why should vicious murderers "get out" of jail before any number of other people? The fact it is "harder" does not necessarily make it cruel and unusual. Anyway, applying things still would be a mess. So, as policy, no.]
But, we live in the real world. The death penalty is applied in an arbitrary way that is patently unjust, advancing a negative policy. We need not deny the problems with the alternative -- let's say the chance of a killing in prison or an escape -- to underline the point. Some fear doing this, since it helps the other side. But, the people overall are realistic sorts, they are aware of the positives and negatives in some general fashion at the very least. In effect lying to them will not help too much, and this sort of thing is not what "we" are supposed to be furthering, right? The answer is that arbitrarily executing a few people because a tiny number might escape or kill inside is not reasonable. Many more dangerous non-capital offenders might kill in prison or escape. People on death row can escape. And so on.
Thus, on balance, the death penalty is bad. We live in the real world -- people were imperfect in liberal utopia West Wing Land, they surely are here. So, we have to sometimes take the best of imperfect situations. No kidding, right? One, however, is hard-pressed at times to find people who actually understand the concept. Thus, conservatives sorts were recently on the talk show circuit asking people if they wanted America to win when some (at times hesitantly) questioned the latest conservative talking points. You might say such people are cynical idealists. They do have certain ideals, which they refuse to put to rational criticism and doubt, and believe you can promote them in crooked ways.
You know, the end justifies the means. Let it be noted that "ideals" are principles one follows, such as royal power in the executive, so it is not the same thing as something that is "ideal." So, I'm not really giving too much credit to these people, though yes, some of these people don't even have negative ideals. It's just whatever it takes to get ahead. Rove style.
Or, maybe, their ideal is simply the end justifies the means. There is an account that Hamilton feared that NY would be lost to the Democrats. So, he begged Gov. Jay (F), previously Chief Justice Jay, to reconvene the legislature to change the election rules in order that the Federalists would have a shot. Just like the Republicans threatened to do in Florida 2000. Jay refused ... that was not how things were done. Jefferson eventually tied with Burr; many Federalists (including incoming CJ Marshall, according to Wood) wanted the lame duck House to choose Burr, obviously not the public's choice. Burr was a safe choice, pliable. You know, sort of like Bush in '00 over McCain.
This time Hamilton begged off. Not exactly for democratic reasons, but because he feared the character of Aaron Burr. Or lack thereof. [Various Founders had their bad moments, but had their good ones too.] Perhaps, Hamilton was not quite a neo-con after all.
---
* The book is surely useful in informing us about the ideals of the era, but this is different from suggesting they truly were put in practice, or that the era was that much different from ours in all respects. Thus, the last chapter discusses the rise of modern public opinion. The overall argument is that pre-1800 "public opinion" in effect involved a relatively small group of people, the elites, thus the likes of The Federalist was not really meant for broad perusal. This was on the downturn by the 1790s, much to the despair of the Federalist Party. I'd add that even the book hints that the "classical" view was already in decline in some respects even earlier.
It bears noting that even today we often have similar media that is really targeted to select groups. Is the New Republic really meant for everyone? The blog The Note suggests to some that even the press really consists of media sorts having a select audience, the "best men" Atrios ridicules the likes of David Broder for supporting.