September 23, 2025 • 24 mins
Dr. Paul Carrese returns to Civics in a Year for a profound conversation about what modern Americans can learn from the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification. This eye-opening discussion reveals how America's core identity has always been defined not by ethnic or religious homogeneity, but by a commitment to principled debate among free people who disagree yet remain united in a shared national project.
The great paradox of American democracy, as Dr. Carrese explains, is that our unity emerges precisely from our diversity of thought. The Constitution itself was born from intense debate, with the Federalists growing intellectually stronger as they responded to Anti-Federalist critiques. This productive tension ultimately produced the Bill of Rights—a testament to how constitutional humility and the willingness to revise are fundamental American virtues.
What makes this historical example so relevant today is the "spirit of amity" that George Washington emphasized—a concept of civic friendship transcending partisan division without abandoning principles. In our polarized era, the warnings from Lincoln's 1838 Lyceum Address about national "suicide" through internal division feel eerily prophetic. As Dr. Carrese powerfully argues, when Americans engage in vicious partisanship rather than reasonable disagreement, we damage our civic culture and play into the hands of foreign adversaries seeking to exploit our divisions.
The civic virtues of civil disagreement don't come naturally—they require cultivation and practice. Drawing on founding documents, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and other historical touchstones, Dr. Carrese offers a compelling case that preserving our republic requires us to "up our game" and find what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." Join us for this timely reminder that democracy depends not on eliminating disagreement but transforming how we disagree.
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome back to Civics in a Year.
Today we are talking about thedebates between the Federalists
and Anti-Federalists and what wecan learn from it today, if you
have not listened to theprevious episode on why the
Federalist Papers still help usunderstand, I believe that the
previous episode and thisepisode are a really great
(00:21):
pairing.
We have Dr Kreis back with us.
Dr Kreis, what do these debatesbetween the Federalists and
Anti-Federalists teach us today?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Thank you, liz.
And this conversation, thisquestion, just reminds me, for
anybody who's been listening,the great service you're doing.
We're all trying to do in theCenter for American Civics to
dig a little more deeply intothese founding principles.
We're all trying to do in theCenter for American Civics to
dig a little more deeply intothese founding principles and
these sources of argument aboutinsight into our founding
(00:56):
principles.
And this is a big kind of metaprinciple in itself and I've
mentioned it in earlier episodes, as you just mentioned the
previous one that America is inits core.
It's an indispensable elementof our character a free people
who debate.
We disagree.
(01:17):
Now that can seem like a paradox.
Well, if you just disagreeabout everything, how are you
one people?
How do you hold together?
And there are moments wherewe've had that challenge and
we'll talk a little bit aboutthis in this episode.
But it may be a paradox, butthat doesn't mean it's a
contradiction or ridiculous.
It is the case that to beAmerican, we don't come from one
(01:38):
race or ethnic group or onereligion or one bloodline.
That's not what America hasever been.
You could go through yourfamily history, my family
history my Italian grandfathercame on a boat in 1912.
And my father's side and mymother's side, from Ireland and
Germany.
Everybody's an immigrant rightand we have the greatest number
(02:02):
of immigrants, the greatestpluralism of any country ever in
the history of the world.
All as free, equal peoples.
That's our aspiration.
So how do we hold that together?
It's that we believe in theprinciple of debate and
discussion, while that's on thebasis of some shared principles.
So the paradox is we have theshared principles mostly, I hope
(02:24):
, of the Declaration ofIndependence, of the
Constitution, of the amendments,but the Constitution itself is
amendable.
The Declaration arises at adebate.
The Constitution arises at adebate.
It's an amendable Constitution.
We immediately debateamendments.
It's not even ratified and thedeals are being struck in the
state ratification debate, someof them that okay, we, we, we
(02:47):
federalists, we pro-constitutionpeople.
We make a deal, we'llimmediately propose amendments,
you know, covering classiccommon law rights and bill of
rights.
So this is the Americancharacter Certain shared
principles, that we debate whatthey mean and then we debate,
you know, more particular policytopics.
It is American the greatexample of it, since we don't
(03:08):
know a lot about the debates in1775 and 1776, moving
immediately toward independence.
We know, you know a bit aboutthem.
But boy, we've got Madison'snotes and other people's notes
from the constitutionalconvention.
And then we've got theseextraordinary written arguments,
opinion essays, for and againstratification.
(03:30):
And so what do we learn?
What do we still have to learntoday, more particularly?
So there's this generalprinciple of debate.
What does that mean moreparticularly?
You can see it in the Federalsand Anti-Federals especially.
I'll say the Federalists aregetting smarter.
Okay, I mean, I'm of the viewthat the Federalists had the
better argument, but how didthey have the better argument?
(03:52):
Because they got their buttskicked by these Anti-Federalist
writers, brutus Federal FarmerSentinels, some of the best ones
who are smart.
And so the FederalistsHamilton's got to get them
organized and there are otherfriends of the Constitution
writing.
But to get organized, madison,this is like the A-team John Jay
(04:15):
and they are getting smarterabout what the Constitution
means, about what the deeperprinciples are and learning
about it.
And I think it's no accident bythe end that Madison in a way,
has set himself up to say, okay,you know this constitution has
not been ratified and what he'slearned during the process of
writing the Federalist?
(04:35):
That he's primed and ready tobe sponsoring the bill of rights
or amendments.
You know, 13 amendmentsoriginally in the house.
Because he's learned.
He's learned what, what waslearned, what was strong, what
was weak.
This is an obvious weakness.
It's not worth dying on thishill.
We'll propose amendments.
So to get smarter by learningto people you seem to disagree
(04:56):
with, you seem to be opponentsabout it.
Rational, reasonable, civildiscourse Good for you.
If the other side's really ingood spirit, it's good for the
other side and you mightactually not any longer be sides
.
You might come together andmake some compromises and forge
(05:17):
a new third way.
So the general point aboutdebate.
Secondly, that theanti-federalists forced the
pro-constitution side to getsmarter.
Third, the debate did producethe Bill of Rights.
That's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Yes, it's a very big deal.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
And that's a sort of larger lesson right, accepting
the need for revision, acceptingamendment, the amendment
process really going to meansomething.
Really there's a kind ofconstitutional humility in the
Constitution.
It's amendable and it reallyworked right away.
And then of course there's aspecific content of the Bill of
Rights, slightly significant Aculture of liberty in all kinds
(05:58):
of ways religious liberty, civilliberty.
It's part of our Americangreatness, Part of the reason,
as I mentioned, why do peoplewant to come here from all over
the world Constantly, still tothis day.
The Bill of Rights is no smallpart of that.
But I think a fourth point, youknow I'll flip that last point
upside down the anti-Federalistslearned some things too.
(06:18):
It maybe helps them thatMadison, well, the deals made in
some of the state conventions,and then Madison stepping
forward to sponsor, lead drafterof the Bill of Rights, the
anti-federalists say a lot ofthem can say you know what?
This is legit, we didn't win,but we certainly shaped the
(06:40):
final thing and we got a bigthing.
We were asking for Bill ofRights and in a way, implicitly,
they're accepting Hamilton'sargument in Federalist 84 about
the Bill of Rights right.
Hamilton says there's no needfor a Bill of Rights.
This Constitution itself is aBill of Rights.
It protects rights better thanany parchment list of rights.
(07:01):
You know, separation of powersand federalism.
Well, hamilton didn't win thatargument.
The Bill of Rights goes forward, but the Anti-Federalists in a
way accept it, that the wholething is legitimate.
They join in.
And then in the election of1800, which is in a way a kind
of Anti-Federalist spirit, wewant to make sure the federal
(07:22):
government doesn't get toostrong.
We want the spirit of democracy, not just elite Republicanism.
Well, that's not a revolution,that's within the four corners
of the constitution.
I have my disagreements withJefferson and Madison at that
stage, but it's not a revolution, right?
So there's the anti-federalistslearn, and really the
(07:46):
Jeffersonian spirit learns fromthe founding debate and they
accept.
You know, you could think, andhere we are in Arizona.
You could think later to.
You know how losers come toaccept and also contribute as
losers.
But you know, barry Goldwateras presidential candidate lost
big in 1964, you could say, well, richard Nixon won in 1968.
(08:09):
Wasn't accidental?
Richard Nixon wasn't the fullGoldwater conservative that
Ronald Reagan was.
But oh yeah, ronald Reagan,okay.
So Goldwater loses in 64, butshapes a political culture so
that Nixon wins in 68, again in72, reagan in 80.
That's changed Americanpolitical culture so that Nixon
(08:30):
and wins in 68, again in 72,reagan in 80.
That's changed Americanpolitical culture.
So the anti-federalists arethat kind of spirit, seeming to
lose but really shaping ourculture.
But again, why?
Because they debated and thefederalists responded and
everybody got smarter from it,so that there's some specific
lessons and then a larger lessonabout America and and getting
(08:52):
smarter.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
So we, you know we talked about this big takeaway
of the value of debate, thatreasonable, moderate
disagreement, right Carried outin civil, out in a civil way,
really matters.
And you mentioned like therewas some name-calling.
There was some kind of back andforth, but for the most part
these were very well-thought-outarguments.
(09:16):
This feels again like anotherlesson that we can pull out from
the Federalists andAnti-Federalists both in print
and in the state ratifyingconstitutions of 1787, 1788.
Is that another lesson we canlearn from this kind of back and
forth between the two groups?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, very specifically, and it's in the
text of the Federalist, as Imentioned.
It's in practice in the stateratification conventions.
Gentleman's agreement said OK,yes, you know, we all vote for
ratifying this and our statejoins.
We pledge, once the governor isestablished, to put forward
bill of rights.
You know traditional Englishbill of rights principles about
(09:55):
common law rights.
The Federalist invokes thisprinciple right in the text, as
I mentioned briefly in the lastepisode.
Federalist number one opens.
Federalist number 85 closes.
It's Hamilton who we don'tassociate with moderation,
broadway star fiery AlexanderHamilton.
But there he is, opening andclosing the Federalist on the
(10:16):
spirit.
He explicitly invokes the wordmoderation.
What does that mean?
My side, we think we're right,but you know, maybe we should
have some humility and avoid theextreme of thinking the other
side they're just idiots andpeople of bad faith.
On American, the phrase wouldbe, you know, early to use, but
there would could be no, no, no.
(10:36):
We, our side, we think we'reright, but we need to hear out
the other side and respond totheir arguments.
We still think we're right.
Quietly, we might learn a thingor two on the way.
So that's the opening andclosing argument of the
Federalists.
This is what Americans do.
We debate big questions, wecome to resolutions.
Maybe there are compromisesinvolved, but that's what
(10:59):
Republican self-government amonga free people means.
I'll go back one step.
I think it helped theFederalists especially.
It helped Hamilton, madison andJay to think back again to the
model of George Washington.
And here's a search in thefounding.
We tend to overlook thetransmittal letter, september
17th 1787, from Washington, onbehalf of the Convention of
(11:22):
Philadelphia, to theConfederation Congress.
Here's the work product, here'swhat we've been doing in
Philadelphia.
And there's a beautiful phrase,this magnanimous document
largely written by Washingtonhimself.
The beautiful phrase is thespirit of amity, a-m-i-t-y.
(11:43):
Amity, the spirit of friendship.
He's invoking an idea of civicfriendship which goes back to
the Greeks and the Romans.
What did we do over four months?
We I'm going to translate thisinto less gracious language man.
We argued, boy.
We hammered out, you know wehammered out some compromises.
(12:03):
It took four months, it was hot.
You know there hammered outsome compromises.
It took four months, it was hot.
You know there was no airconditioning.
That's the truth underneaththis gracious language from
Washington.
We worked out mutualconcessions is another phrase he
uses in that transmission, thetransmittal letter right, mutual
concessions and deference toeach other, making compromises
(12:26):
While you know, going at ithammer and tongs, so to speak,
really arguing.
And that phrase, spirit of amitythat's what Hamilton's trying
to invoke in number one andnumber 85.
Doesn't always live up to it.
Americans don't always live upto it.
Washington probably lives up toit better than anybody else,
but he has his moments whilehe's president for eight years.
(12:47):
So civic friendship, rightthere, spirit of amity.
So let's talk a little bit moreabout that Civic friendship.
There's scholarship on this andI've invoked it in a study I
was a co-author of about K-12civic education called Educating
for American Democracy.
My co-authors and I talkedabout civic virtues.
(13:07):
So this topic that we'retalking about debate right.
One of the civic virtues wetalked about is civil
disagreement.
Then we talked about civicfriendship, the civil
disagreement.
Whatever the policy topic is,or it's a big fundamental topic,
you disagree in a reasonablecivil way with words, and
(13:32):
reasonable civil words, not namecalling.
Liz, you're so stupid andyou're un-American and you're
demonic because you disagreewith me, liz, right.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
You know.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
No, that's not what you do.
You're making yourself stupidand you're also not.
You know you're sort of deficitspending a civic culture of
peaceful, secure self-government.
You're contributing to adownward spiral toward more
(14:02):
anger and toward more violence,which is more stupidity, yes,
and that's easy to do.
We don't need that.
So what Washington, with theFederalists and the
Anti-Federalists, are callingfor is rise up civic virtues of
civil disagreement and civicfriendship across different
political views, philosophicalviews, religious views.
(14:22):
These are civic virtues.
And why is the language usedamongst scholars to say civic
virtues?
I know some educators talkabout civic skills and civic
dispositions.
Well, the dispositions part isgetting close to virtues, but I
think it's better to use virtues, because this is hard.
You know, if I think, liz, youare really wrong about an
important policy topic, or youknow, a presidential election,
(14:46):
Senate election, and I think thestakes are big, it's hard for
me to be reasonable toward you.
You know you're on the otherside, quote, unquote, right For
me to hear you out.
And then expect you to hear meout and and you know, ok, you
voted for the other party or theother candidate, another policy
issue, you're not.
You're not stupid, evil,un-american, blah, blah, blah,
(15:07):
right?
No, we disagree.
But we're mature Republican,self-governing citizens.
We have these virtues.
It's hard work.
It'll rise.
Up to them of civildisagreement and civic
friendship.
Up to them of civildisagreement and civic
(15:28):
friendship.
So we, you know, we don't maybethink enough about the
Federalist and theAnti-Federalist debate in this
way.
We don't think about the textof the Federalist enough this
way.
You don't think about theAnti-Federalist writings enough
this way.
But we should.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So, dr Kreis, we are recording this in mid-september
2025.
Unfortunately, our country hasseen a lot of instances of
political violence in recentyears that are affecting
officials and public figuresfrom both major parties.
With that in mind, how canlessons from the founding debate
you know nearly 240 years agoabout civil debate, reasonable
(16:05):
disagreement, moderatingpolitical passions, how could
those still be relevant today,even amongst all of this vitriol
?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Well, thank you.
It's a difficult question to beaddressing.
As I just mentioned, these arecivic virtues and we do badly
need them today.
There are other episodes ofAmerican history where we have
needed them.
It's not like we're in thedarkest moment of American
history.
(16:38):
The Civil War was the singledarkest period.
War was the single darkestperiod when I was born, in 1967,
late 1960s, early 70s.
Yeah, I don't mean to scareanybody, right?
But you know John F Kennedy hadbeen assassinated in 1963 as
president.
If you think about it, thefourth president has been
assassinated, not all of them.
(16:58):
For ideological reasons clearlyLincoln and I think John F
Kennedy.
Ideological reasons clearlyLincoln and I think John F
Kennedy.
But then Martin Luther King wasassassinated in 1968.
Shortly thereafter, johnKennedy's younger brother,
robert Kennedy, was assassinated.
There are bombs going off, thereare domestic terrorist groups.
So we've had darker moments,but we need to think right now.
(17:20):
Do we want to go to darkermoments?
We've had darker moments, butwe need to think right now.
Do we want to go to darkermoments?
We've had darker moments andI'll close by mentioning a great
resource here from a commoncitizen, abraham Lincoln, in
1838.
Turns out to be among thegreatest of Americans, but
(17:42):
nobody knows who he is when hegives this address in 1838.
He's out on the Westernfrontier in Illinois, a small
town lawyer 1838 to the YoungMen's Lyceum in Springfield,
Illinois.
The topic is the perpetuationof our political institutions.
It's often called theperpetuation address, the Lyceum
address, just to get to thepoint right Incre increasing
(18:06):
episodes of political violenceLincoln is noticing about.
He explicitly mentions alcoholand gambling, but behind it is
slavery and abolition and thosetensions, I think also religious
pluralism.
It's not too long after that,the founder of the Mormon
religion is killed.
So Lincoln is saying in 1838,the perpetuation of our entire
(18:34):
political order is at stake.
Then violence, then distrust ofinstitutions and then, before
you know it, you've got strongmen stepping forward saying
trust me, I'll fix it.
You know Caesars and Napoleons,he says.
So the starkest moment of thisargument is he refers to suicide
(18:54):
, national suicide.
He says America will never bedefeated by a foreign foe.
You could have a Napoleon atthe head of armies.
Defeated by a foreign foe.
You could have a Napoleon atthe head of armies.
They would never beat us.
We would rally.
If we do not survive as aself-governing national republic
, it will be bought quote bysuicide.
(19:14):
This culture of argument,reasonable argument failing
going to violence, vitriol,distrust of institutions,
disorder, that's suicide.
Does that sound like hyperbole?
Well, two decades later, therewas a horrific, horrific Civil
War, and fortunately we hadLincoln at the helm.
(19:37):
But it happened.
So it turns out it wasn'thyperbole and overreaction in
1838.
It was an early warning,flashing red light.
So I think we ought to takethat flashing red light for
ourselves right now.
Federalist-antifederalist debateis a great model.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates,you know Senator Stephen Douglas
(20:01):
and candidate Abraham Lincolndisagreed, oh, just about a few
minor things.
Right, the very meaning ofAmerica and of the Declaration
of Independence.
Okay, they didn't trash talkeach other, they didn't demonize
Stephen Douglas.
The powerful man in there couldhave said no way I'm debating
this loser Lincoln guy.
(20:22):
He's a nobody, I'm not going togive him the time of day, I'm
not going to give him a space, aplatform.
Douglass says no, I'll debatehim.
Right, that's what we need.
And I'll close by saying thatLincoln's perpetuation address
has got this spirit.
The Federalists have got thisspirit, the final lines of the
Declaration of Independence.
This is a matter of sacredhonor To have these rights given
(20:47):
by God, whatever you think thatdivinity might mean.
To have liberty, to have equalliberty for all.
This is a precious thing and weneed to up our game.
We need to rise to that leveland defend these, but also
(21:14):
exercise them, practice them,protect them, perpetuate, secure
these rights in our everydaypolitical life.
That's a matter of sacred honor.
And the other great warning textabout all of this, of course,
is George Washington's farewelladdress, warning about
partisanship, warning about andhere I'll mention this the more
warning the warning Washingtongives in 1796, think about this
(21:36):
the more we disagree in thestupid way, factional, low
politics, low, stupidpartisanship, violent language
leading to violence, the more wedo that, the happier our
enemies are abroad, delighted byit, exploiting it.
(21:57):
Well, this is before theinternet and before social media
.
We know as a fact foreignenemies of our way of life, of
America, are exploiting thiskind of stupid, vicious, angry
partisanship.
So for all these reasons andthese great sources, I just
invoke Lincoln and GeorgeWashington, and you know Martin
(22:22):
Luther King, robert Kennedy, youknow we need to up our game and
find the better well, like it's, like his first inaugural
address the better angels of ournature, yes, Dr Kreese, thank
you so much and I reallyappreciate that you gave us more
primary sources to look atbecause I think, as teachers in
(22:45):
classrooms, those are incrediblyhelpful for having students
understand history,understanding our politics, and
thank you so much for yourexpertise.
Thank you, Liz.
Welcome back to Civics in a Year.
Today we are talking about thedebates between the Federalists
and Anti-Federalists and what wecan learn from it today, if you
have not listened to theprevious episode on why the
Federalist Papers still help usunderstand, I believe that the
previous episode and thisepisode are a really great
(00:21):
pairing.
We have Dr Kreis back with us.
Dr Kreis, what do these debatesbetween the Federalists and
Anti-Federalists teach us today?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Thank you, liz.
And this conversation, thisquestion, just reminds me, for
anybody who's been listening,the great service you're doing.
We're all trying to do in theCenter for American Civics to
dig a little more deeply intothese founding principles.
We're all trying to do in theCenter for American Civics to
dig a little more deeply intothese founding principles and
these sources of argument aboutinsight into our founding
(00:56):
principles.
And this is a big kind of metaprinciple in itself and I've
mentioned it in earlier episodes, as you just mentioned the
previous one that America is inits core.
It's an indispensable elementof our character a free people
who debate.
We disagree.
(01:17):
Now that can seem like a paradox.
Well, if you just disagreeabout everything, how are you
one people?
How do you hold together?
And there are moments wherewe've had that challenge and
we'll talk a little bit aboutthis in this episode.
But it may be a paradox, butthat doesn't mean it's a
contradiction or ridiculous.
It is the case that to beAmerican, we don't come from one
(01:38):
race or ethnic group or onereligion or one bloodline.
That's not what America hasever been.
You could go through yourfamily history, my family
history my Italian grandfathercame on a boat in 1912.
And my father's side and mymother's side, from Ireland and
Germany.
Everybody's an immigrant rightand we have the greatest number
(02:02):
of immigrants, the greatestpluralism of any country ever in
the history of the world.
All as free, equal peoples.
That's our aspiration.
So how do we hold that together?
It's that we believe in theprinciple of debate and
discussion, while that's on thebasis of some shared principles.
So the paradox is we have theshared principles mostly, I hope
(02:24):
, of the Declaration ofIndependence, of the
Constitution, of the amendments,but the Constitution itself is
amendable.
The Declaration arises at adebate.
The Constitution arises at adebate.
It's an amendable Constitution.
We immediately debateamendments.
It's not even ratified and thedeals are being struck in the
state ratification debate, someof them that okay, we, we, we
(02:47):
federalists, we pro-constitutionpeople.
We make a deal, we'llimmediately propose amendments,
you know, covering classiccommon law rights and bill of
rights.
So this is the Americancharacter Certain shared
principles, that we debate whatthey mean and then we debate,
you know, more particular policytopics.
It is American the greatexample of it, since we don't
(03:08):
know a lot about the debates in1775 and 1776, moving
immediately toward independence.
We know, you know a bit aboutthem.
But boy, we've got Madison'snotes and other people's notes
from the constitutionalconvention.
And then we've got theseextraordinary written arguments,
opinion essays, for and againstratification.
(03:30):
And so what do we learn?
What do we still have to learntoday, more particularly?
So there's this generalprinciple of debate.
What does that mean moreparticularly?
You can see it in the Federalsand Anti-Federals especially.
I'll say the Federalists aregetting smarter.
Okay, I mean, I'm of the viewthat the Federalists had the
better argument, but how didthey have the better argument?
(03:52):
Because they got their buttskicked by these Anti-Federalist
writers, brutus Federal FarmerSentinels, some of the best ones
who are smart.
And so the FederalistsHamilton's got to get them
organized and there are otherfriends of the Constitution
writing.
But to get organized, madison,this is like the A-team John Jay
(04:15):
and they are getting smarterabout what the Constitution
means, about what the deeperprinciples are and learning
about it.
And I think it's no accident bythe end that Madison in a way,
has set himself up to say, okay,you know this constitution has
not been ratified and what he'slearned during the process of
writing the Federalist?
(04:35):
That he's primed and ready tobe sponsoring the bill of rights
or amendments.
You know, 13 amendmentsoriginally in the house.
Because he's learned.
He's learned what, what waslearned, what was strong, what
was weak.
This is an obvious weakness.
It's not worth dying on thishill.
We'll propose amendments.
So to get smarter by learningto people you seem to disagree
(04:56):
with, you seem to be opponentsabout it.
Rational, reasonable, civildiscourse Good for you.
If the other side's really ingood spirit, it's good for the
other side and you mightactually not any longer be sides
.
You might come together andmake some compromises and forge
(05:17):
a new third way.
So the general point aboutdebate.
Secondly, that theanti-federalists forced the
pro-constitution side to getsmarter.
Third, the debate did producethe Bill of Rights.
That's a big deal.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Yes, it's a very big deal.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
And that's a sort of larger lesson right, accepting
the need for revision, acceptingamendment, the amendment
process really going to meansomething.
Really there's a kind ofconstitutional humility in the
Constitution.
It's amendable and it reallyworked right away.
And then of course there's aspecific content of the Bill of
Rights, slightly significant Aculture of liberty in all kinds
(05:58):
of ways religious liberty, civilliberty.
It's part of our Americangreatness, Part of the reason,
as I mentioned, why do peoplewant to come here from all over
the world Constantly, still tothis day.
The Bill of Rights is no smallpart of that.
But I think a fourth point, youknow I'll flip that last point
upside down the anti-Federalistslearned some things too.
(06:18):
It maybe helps them thatMadison, well, the deals made in
some of the state conventions,and then Madison stepping
forward to sponsor, lead drafterof the Bill of Rights, the
anti-federalists say a lot ofthem can say you know what?
This is legit, we didn't win,but we certainly shaped the
(06:40):
final thing and we got a bigthing.
We were asking for Bill ofRights and in a way, implicitly,
they're accepting Hamilton'sargument in Federalist 84 about
the Bill of Rights right.
Hamilton says there's no needfor a Bill of Rights.
This Constitution itself is aBill of Rights.
It protects rights better thanany parchment list of rights.
(07:01):
You know, separation of powersand federalism.
Well, hamilton didn't win thatargument.
The Bill of Rights goes forward, but the Anti-Federalists in a
way accept it, that the wholething is legitimate.
They join in.
And then in the election of1800, which is in a way a kind
of Anti-Federalist spirit, wewant to make sure the federal
(07:22):
government doesn't get toostrong.
We want the spirit of democracy, not just elite Republicanism.
Well, that's not a revolution,that's within the four corners
of the constitution.
I have my disagreements withJefferson and Madison at that
stage, but it's not a revolution, right?
So there's the anti-federalistslearn, and really the
(07:46):
Jeffersonian spirit learns fromthe founding debate and they
accept.
You know, you could think, andhere we are in Arizona.
You could think later to.
You know how losers come toaccept and also contribute as
losers.
But you know, barry Goldwateras presidential candidate lost
big in 1964, you could say, well, richard Nixon won in 1968.
(08:09):
Wasn't accidental?
Richard Nixon wasn't the fullGoldwater conservative that
Ronald Reagan was.
But oh yeah, ronald Reagan,okay.
So Goldwater loses in 64, butshapes a political culture so
that Nixon wins in 68, again in72, reagan in 80.
That's changed Americanpolitical culture so that Nixon
(08:30):
and wins in 68, again in 72,reagan in 80.
That's changed Americanpolitical culture.
So the anti-federalists arethat kind of spirit, seeming to
lose but really shaping ourculture.
But again, why?
Because they debated and thefederalists responded and
everybody got smarter from it,so that there's some specific
lessons and then a larger lessonabout America and and getting
(08:52):
smarter.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
So we, you know we talked about this big takeaway
of the value of debate, thatreasonable, moderate
disagreement, right Carried outin civil, out in a civil way,
really matters.
And you mentioned like therewas some name-calling.
There was some kind of back andforth, but for the most part
these were very well-thought-outarguments.
(09:16):
This feels again like anotherlesson that we can pull out from
the Federalists andAnti-Federalists both in print
and in the state ratifyingconstitutions of 1787, 1788.
Is that another lesson we canlearn from this kind of back and
forth between the two groups?
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, very specifically, and it's in the
text of the Federalist, as Imentioned.
It's in practice in the stateratification conventions.
Gentleman's agreement said OK,yes, you know, we all vote for
ratifying this and our statejoins.
We pledge, once the governor isestablished, to put forward
bill of rights.
You know traditional Englishbill of rights principles about
(09:55):
common law rights.
The Federalist invokes thisprinciple right in the text, as
I mentioned briefly in the lastepisode.
Federalist number one opens.
Federalist number 85 closes.
It's Hamilton who we don'tassociate with moderation,
broadway star fiery AlexanderHamilton.
But there he is, opening andclosing the Federalist on the
(10:16):
spirit.
He explicitly invokes the wordmoderation.
What does that mean?
My side, we think we're right,but you know, maybe we should
have some humility and avoid theextreme of thinking the other
side they're just idiots andpeople of bad faith.
On American, the phrase wouldbe, you know, early to use, but
there would could be no, no, no.
(10:36):
We, our side, we think we'reright, but we need to hear out
the other side and respond totheir arguments.
We still think we're right.
Quietly, we might learn a thingor two on the way.
So that's the opening andclosing argument of the
Federalists.
This is what Americans do.
We debate big questions, wecome to resolutions.
Maybe there are compromisesinvolved, but that's what
(10:59):
Republican self-government amonga free people means.
I'll go back one step.
I think it helped theFederalists especially.
It helped Hamilton, madison andJay to think back again to the
model of George Washington.
And here's a search in thefounding.
We tend to overlook thetransmittal letter, september
17th 1787, from Washington, onbehalf of the Convention of
(11:22):
Philadelphia, to theConfederation Congress.
Here's the work product, here'swhat we've been doing in
Philadelphia.
And there's a beautiful phrase,this magnanimous document
largely written by Washingtonhimself.
The beautiful phrase is thespirit of amity, a-m-i-t-y.
(11:43):
Amity, the spirit of friendship.
He's invoking an idea of civicfriendship which goes back to
the Greeks and the Romans.
What did we do over four months?
We I'm going to translate thisinto less gracious language man.
We argued, boy.
We hammered out, you know wehammered out some compromises.
(12:03):
It took four months, it was hot.
You know there hammered outsome compromises.
It took four months, it was hot.
You know there was no airconditioning.
That's the truth underneaththis gracious language from
Washington.
We worked out mutualconcessions is another phrase he
uses in that transmission, thetransmittal letter right, mutual
concessions and deference toeach other, making compromises
(12:26):
While you know, going at ithammer and tongs, so to speak,
really arguing.
And that phrase, spirit of amitythat's what Hamilton's trying
to invoke in number one andnumber 85.
Doesn't always live up to it.
Americans don't always live upto it.
Washington probably lives up toit better than anybody else,
but he has his moments whilehe's president for eight years.
(12:47):
So civic friendship, rightthere, spirit of amity.
So let's talk a little bit moreabout that Civic friendship.
There's scholarship on this andI've invoked it in a study I
was a co-author of about K-12civic education called Educating
for American Democracy.
My co-authors and I talkedabout civic virtues.
(13:07):
So this topic that we'retalking about debate right.
One of the civic virtues wetalked about is civil
disagreement.
Then we talked about civicfriendship, the civil
disagreement.
Whatever the policy topic is,or it's a big fundamental topic,
you disagree in a reasonablecivil way with words, and
(13:32):
reasonable civil words, not namecalling.
Liz, you're so stupid andyou're un-American and you're
demonic because you disagreewith me, liz, right.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
You know.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
No, that's not what you do.
You're making yourself stupidand you're also not.
You know you're sort of deficitspending a civic culture of
peaceful, secure self-government.
You're contributing to adownward spiral toward more
(14:02):
anger and toward more violence,which is more stupidity, yes,
and that's easy to do.
We don't need that.
So what Washington, with theFederalists and the
Anti-Federalists, are callingfor is rise up civic virtues of
civil disagreement and civicfriendship across different
political views, philosophicalviews, religious views.
(14:22):
These are civic virtues.
And why is the language usedamongst scholars to say civic
virtues?
I know some educators talkabout civic skills and civic
dispositions.
Well, the dispositions part isgetting close to virtues, but I
think it's better to use virtues, because this is hard.
You know, if I think, liz, youare really wrong about an
important policy topic, or youknow, a presidential election,
(14:46):
Senate election, and I think thestakes are big, it's hard for
me to be reasonable toward you.
You know you're on the otherside, quote, unquote, right For
me to hear you out.
And then expect you to hear meout and and you know, ok, you
voted for the other party or theother candidate, another policy
issue, you're not.
You're not stupid, evil,un-american, blah, blah, blah,
(15:07):
right?
No, we disagree.
But we're mature Republican,self-governing citizens.
We have these virtues.
It's hard work.
It'll rise.
Up to them of civildisagreement and civic
friendship.
Up to them of civildisagreement and civic
(15:28):
friendship.
So we, you know, we don't maybethink enough about the
Federalist and theAnti-Federalist debate in this
way.
We don't think about the textof the Federalist enough this
way.
You don't think about theAnti-Federalist writings enough
this way.
But we should.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So, dr Kreis, we are recording this in mid-september
2025.
Unfortunately, our country hasseen a lot of instances of
political violence in recentyears that are affecting
officials and public figuresfrom both major parties.
With that in mind, how canlessons from the founding debate
you know nearly 240 years agoabout civil debate, reasonable
(16:05):
disagreement, moderatingpolitical passions, how could
those still be relevant today,even amongst all of this vitriol
?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Well, thank you.
It's a difficult question to beaddressing.
As I just mentioned, these arecivic virtues and we do badly
need them today.
There are other episodes ofAmerican history where we have
needed them.
It's not like we're in thedarkest moment of American
history.
(16:38):
The Civil War was the singledarkest period.
War was the single darkestperiod when I was born, in 1967,
late 1960s, early 70s.
Yeah, I don't mean to scareanybody, right?
But you know John F Kennedy hadbeen assassinated in 1963 as
president.
If you think about it, thefourth president has been
assassinated, not all of them.
(16:58):
For ideological reasons clearlyLincoln and I think John F
Kennedy.
Ideological reasons clearlyLincoln and I think John F
Kennedy.
But then Martin Luther King wasassassinated in 1968.
Shortly thereafter, johnKennedy's younger brother,
robert Kennedy, was assassinated.
There are bombs going off, thereare domestic terrorist groups.
So we've had darker moments,but we need to think right now.
(17:20):
Do we want to go to darkermoments?
We've had darker moments, butwe need to think right now.
Do we want to go to darkermoments?
We've had darker moments andI'll close by mentioning a great
resource here from a commoncitizen, abraham Lincoln, in
1838.
Turns out to be among thegreatest of Americans, but
(17:42):
nobody knows who he is when hegives this address in 1838.
He's out on the Westernfrontier in Illinois, a small
town lawyer 1838 to the YoungMen's Lyceum in Springfield,
Illinois.
The topic is the perpetuationof our political institutions.
It's often called theperpetuation address, the Lyceum
address, just to get to thepoint right Incre increasing
(18:06):
episodes of political violenceLincoln is noticing about.
He explicitly mentions alcoholand gambling, but behind it is
slavery and abolition and thosetensions, I think also religious
pluralism.
It's not too long after that,the founder of the Mormon
religion is killed.
So Lincoln is saying in 1838,the perpetuation of our entire
(18:34):
political order is at stake.
Then violence, then distrust ofinstitutions and then, before
you know it, you've got strongmen stepping forward saying
trust me, I'll fix it.
You know Caesars and Napoleons,he says.
So the starkest moment of thisargument is he refers to suicide
(18:54):
, national suicide.
He says America will never bedefeated by a foreign foe.
You could have a Napoleon atthe head of armies.
Defeated by a foreign foe.
You could have a Napoleon atthe head of armies.
They would never beat us.
We would rally.
If we do not survive as aself-governing national republic
, it will be bought quote bysuicide.
(19:14):
This culture of argument,reasonable argument failing
going to violence, vitriol,distrust of institutions,
disorder, that's suicide.
Does that sound like hyperbole?
Well, two decades later, therewas a horrific, horrific Civil
War, and fortunately we hadLincoln at the helm.
(19:37):
But it happened.
So it turns out it wasn'thyperbole and overreaction in
1838.
It was an early warning,flashing red light.
So I think we ought to takethat flashing red light for
ourselves right now.
Federalist-antifederalist debateis a great model.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates,you know Senator Stephen Douglas
(20:01):
and candidate Abraham Lincolndisagreed, oh, just about a few
minor things.
Right, the very meaning ofAmerica and of the Declaration
of Independence.
Okay, they didn't trash talkeach other, they didn't demonize
Stephen Douglas.
The powerful man in there couldhave said no way I'm debating
this loser Lincoln guy.
(20:22):
He's a nobody, I'm not going togive him the time of day, I'm
not going to give him a space, aplatform.
Douglass says no, I'll debatehim.
Right, that's what we need.
And I'll close by saying thatLincoln's perpetuation address
has got this spirit.
The Federalists have got thisspirit, the final lines of the
Declaration of Independence.
This is a matter of sacredhonor To have these rights given
(20:47):
by God, whatever you think thatdivinity might mean.
To have liberty, to have equalliberty for all.
This is a precious thing and weneed to up our game.
We need to rise to that leveland defend these, but also
(21:14):
exercise them, practice them,protect them, perpetuate, secure
these rights in our everydaypolitical life.
That's a matter of sacred honor.
And the other great warning textabout all of this, of course,
is George Washington's farewelladdress, warning about
partisanship, warning about andhere I'll mention this the more
warning the warning Washingtongives in 1796, think about this
(21:36):
the more we disagree in thestupid way, factional, low
politics, low, stupidpartisanship, violent language
leading to violence, the more wedo that, the happier our
enemies are abroad, delighted byit, exploiting it.
(21:57):
Well, this is before theinternet and before social media
.
We know as a fact foreignenemies of our way of life, of
America, are exploiting thiskind of stupid, vicious, angry
partisanship.
So for all these reasons andthese great sources, I just
invoke Lincoln and GeorgeWashington, and you know Martin
(22:22):
Luther King, robert Kennedy, youknow we need to up our game and
find the better well, like it's, like his first inaugural
address the better angels of ournature, yes, Dr Kreese, thank
you so much and I reallyappreciate that you gave us more
primary sources to look atbecause I think, as teachers in
(22:45):
classrooms, those are incrediblyhelpful for having students
understand history,understanding our politics, and
thank you so much for yourexpertise.
Thank you, Liz.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.