Federalist 51: If We’re Going to Debate, Let’s Debate Over Things That Are Real


“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.”

I’ve been feeding y’all a lot of information recently, with long articles that require heightened mental engagement. So, today I’m going to give you (and myself) a slight mental break and simply discuss with you a topic that has been bothering me. It aligns perfectly with this last quote from Federalist 51.

So, a little context. Recently, while perusing Twitter (not a very encouraging thing to do), I was a little dismayed at a trending topic. People were all aghast and upset that Chris Pratt is a “Trump fan”. (Now, I have no earthly clue if Pratt is truly a Trump supporter, but that was the overwhelming rumored consensus on Twitter causing the uproar.)

I commented in response to one such politically wounded individual and said this:

  • “I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to find out someone has different political beliefs or supports different candidates than you. That’s how it’s always been! In America, it’s normal, expected and healthy. Called politics. You want political homogeneity?”


I do have some ideas about why people make it such a big deal, but it is truly perplexing why people don’t sit back and realize that we’ve always had differing political beliefs in America… now it seems as if one belief set is, point blank, wrong while another is, point blank, right.

Someone responded to me and said:

  • “It’s okay to have different beliefs. Nowhere was it said that you can’t have your own beliefs. However if one’s belief system imposes and oppresses others — that’s problematic.”

Now, this individual was diplomatic enough, but his statement underscored the damage that has been done to our citizenry —- by government officials and the media.

Americans now judge each other based off of their own understanding of right and wrong, justice, liberty and oppression, rather than the Constitution’s understanding or even any higher source’s understanding of these topics.

Which begs the question. Who are we to call out someone else for the crime of oppression if we have nothing but our own opinion on the matter to stand upon?

Madison knew and fully expected the American people to work to oppress each other. He said: “In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger.”


In other words, the stronger will work to oppress the weaker and the weaker will rise up to try and oppress the stronger. In Federalist 10, Madison delves even deeper into the consequences of faction and the expectation that the people cannot be trusted.

There’s an ever increasing trend of vilifying one’s political opposition by painting the opposition as morally degraded. This is an incredibly effective tactic because the disagreement is no longer about specific policies or political issues. No, it’s now about the character of the individual, justifying the belief that such individuals shouldn’t be allowed to even hold an opinion about specific policies and political issues. This is a great tactic because, now, those opposing the policies and political issues don’t have to deal with the specific policies and issues anymore, they’ve already invalidated the individual holding those beliefs.

It’s one thing to disagree with someone about politics, it’s another to claim that one’s political opposition is morally compromised and “supports a belief system that imposes and oppresses others”.

Today, if someone is smeared as an oppressor, their opinions, beliefs, and humanity are immediately forfeited. The individual no longer matters. Their liberty no longer matters. Their free speech no longer matters and their humanity no longer matters.

And how does someone accused of such a “crime” defend themselves? Arguing that they are not oppressors is like a criminal accused of a crime claiming they didn’t commit the crime: it just further solidifies for the accusers the guilt of the accused.


Very rarely do the accusers provide any real factual evidence for their accusation. The accusation is based on nothing more than a feeling or opinion. In other words, they don’t use the Constitution to explain how government or the opposition party’s officials are oppressing, they just make the blanket statement that they are and therefore their supporters are as well.

So, when people hear that someone supports Trump, it’s not the normal—”Ah, they support the party I don’t support”. No. It’s taken as a personal offense and the individual who is now associated with the opposition party is automatically thrown into a pile of “oppressors” based on nothing other than the fact that they support a party that is also being painted as the party of oppression.

People really better take a closer look before blaming someone for oppressing others, or else before you know it, they’ll be cheering the slow eradication of the supposed “oppressors”. Specific individual proof? Worth prosecuting? Worth silencing and oppressing in return?

In case we’ve forgotten history, Hitler did a swell job of painting the Jews as oppressors, with no evidence to support his claims.

It’s one thing to blame individual politicians for oppressing by pointing out specific policies and actions that violate the Constitution and therefore liberty. It’s another to blame politicians for oppression while having no real evidence to support the claim—and having no real evidence to support the claim that their followers are oppressors either.


Americans need to stop vilifying each other and start listening to each other. What if you meet someone who supports Biden? Will you immediately write them off as not worth your time or will you stop to listen to them? The same goes for Biden supporters who run into Trump supporters.

What if, instead of being known as Biden or Trump supporters, we’re simply known as Constitution and liberty supporters?

We need to run from using any character smears against our opponents, giving us an out when it comes to dealing with actual policies and issues and we need to reject the character smears those opposed to us use on us by demanding they deal with real issues and policies.

Hey, who knows… maybe one day you’ll find that the strength of the content of what you said changed someone’s mind.

And in today’s environment, with the election happening right now, that might just save America.

The Liberty Belle

2 thoughts on “Federalist 51: If We’re Going to Debate, Let’s Debate Over Things That Are Real”

  1. Bob Manderville

    I just happened to stumble upon your site and I have to say I enjoy it immensely. While not totally agreeing with all your views you write with a calm intelligence that lays out your argument in a manner that isn’t the usual divisiveness you find on the internet. I look forward to reading more on your thoughts and occasionally putting in my two sense. All the best……………….Bob

    1. C. McMasters Ph.D.

      Bob, thank you for the comment! My goal is to avoid the divisiveness that is so prevalent today, so I appreciate you mentioning that. Always encouraging to hear. I look forward to your comments!

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top