current affairs

This is revisionist history at it's worst/finest. Drivel that wastes the paper it's written on. Sad fact is that some will read it without knowing a single darned fact about the real history of the creation of our republic or having read the "Real" Federalist Papers and believe this propaganda. Sad, Sad, Sad.

OF COURSE the essayist sides with the federal government! That 's why it's called the New Federalist Papers!

While in todays political climate of extremes -wherein books celebrating America can actually cause contreversy- it is refreshing to read a collection of essays defending the constitution. Yes, I was excited when I read this collection, but the further I went, the more something just didn't feel right.

I came away convinced that the authors should have subtitled their collection "apologia for the constitution" as every essay (save for one on campaign finance), no matter if it was on the two party system, amending the constitution or state vs. federal pwer, always reached the same conclusion - "It's perfect the way it is. Don't change a thing, really!" Not only that, but it felt to me like the reasoning used was simply an instrument for arrival at this desired conclusion. In other words, the essays crossed the line from polemic to propoganda. A few examples:

In an essay written to convince us that a two-party system is the most democratic of all, the author gives one sole reason. Only in a two party system can a candidate be elected by over 50% - hence, a majority. The more parties, the more you divide the vote. Why does this seem like a strange argument? Because most people don't vote anyhow and there's much reason to believe that it is BECAUSE of the lack of choice casued by that system. (When we do the math, G.W. Bush garnered maybe 30% of all possible votes as many people didn't cast any vote) It seems plausable to me that by representing more viewponts by increasing third party viablility, we would increase voter turnout and we'd wind up with higher overall percentages in any given camp. Sound far-fetched? Too many political scientists have entertained this notion for the essayist to blindly ignore it.

Second example: In an article on state v. federal power, the essayist unqestionably (and I mean this literally, not figuratively) sides with federal power. She blithely tells us that the founders wanted the federal government to be larger than state governments but doesn't explain why, if that was the case, the ninth or tenth amendments needed to be written or why we settled on the name "the UNITED STATES" instead of just America. She didn't even ask why, if the federalists were really as federalistic as she draws them, acts on a national scale like voting was constitutionally assigned to be conducted by the seperate states.

I can't say unilaterally that these essays are wrong simply becasue I disagree with the conclusions (despite the fact that, for the most part, I do). I simply wish that the authors had went about proving their cases by arguing for the conclusions. Instead, each essay simply picks a conclusion and skates smoothly towards it. Not much substance.