Central Library
Conflict Between Public and Special Interests
RECEIVED Mon., Dec. 3, 2007
Dear Editor,
Louis Black says of the contending factions in local wars over growth and development: "If this battle is viewed as good guys vs. bad guys, the truth is that it is lost even before it is begun. When in any way the conflict is portrayed as pitting the malevolent against the noble, progressives against reactionaries, realists against wide-eyed dreamers, a conflict that is mostly not personal is personalized" [“Page Two,” Nov. 30].
James Madison had a different view of political conflict. He wrote in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points. … But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government."
Translated into today's vernacular, Madison is telling us that the principal activity taking place in government and politics is the conflict between the public interest and the special interests.
Louis Black says of the contending factions in local wars over growth and development: "If this battle is viewed as good guys vs. bad guys, the truth is that it is lost even before it is begun. When in any way the conflict is portrayed as pitting the malevolent against the noble, progressives against reactionaries, realists against wide-eyed dreamers, a conflict that is mostly not personal is personalized" [“Page Two,” Nov. 30].
James Madison had a different view of political conflict. He wrote in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points. … But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government."
Translated into today's vernacular, Madison is telling us that the principal activity taking place in government and politics is the conflict between the public interest and the special interests.
Dave Shapiro
[Louis Black responds: Madison's quote above contradicts what I wrote how? Unless it is preceded or followed by more strident rhetoric, the way I read it, Madison is laying out the conflict and saying that one of the primary jobs of government is to mediate and regulate that conflict. Perhaps, given your own beliefs, you feel that Madison is positioning a good guy vs. bad guy scenario. Just reading the above, however, I can't help but feel that he is basically saying much the same thing as I did, describing the ongoing conflict without ennobling or demonizing either side.]
