New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution (A Twentieth Century Fund Book) [Hardcover]

Alan Brinkley (Author), Nelson W. Polsby (Author), Kathleen M. Sullivan (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 17, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0393046192 | ISBN-13: 978-0393046199

Three prominent and highly visible writers confront the threats posed by current challenges to the American Constitution.

In the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, three of its most gifted participants--Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay--wrote a series of eighty-five essays, published in newspapers throughout the nation, defending the proposed new government against its opponents. Those essays, known today as the Federalist Papers, explain the philosophical basis of the Constitution and defend the idea of republican government against charges that it would lead to tyranny.

Today's political controversies call into question some of the principles that have shaped government through most of this century. New Federalist Papers, written by three constitutional experts, defends the representative democracy put in place by the framers of the Constitution. Like Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, the authors of New Federalist Papers see danger in the effort to diminish and relocate federal power. They recognize that it is the task of public discourse to bring about reasoned consideration of such issues as gun control, term limits, flag burning, the balanced budget amendment, and campaign finance reform.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

To hear many modern politicians tell it, the federal government is the worst thing that ever happened to the American people. Federal laws and mandates are portrayed as tyrannical, new amendments to the Constitution are proposed with frightening regularity, and "states' rights" has become the latest rallying cry for "patriots" everywhere. In response to this discontent, the 20th Century Fund commissioned New Federalist Papers, a collection of essays in defense of the Constitution. The three authors, Alan Brinkley, Kathleen M. Sullivan, and Nelson W. Polsby, are all academics--Brinkley teaches history at Columbia, Sullivan is a law professor at Stanford, and Polsby teaches political science at Berkeley--and each approaches the Consititution from his or her particular field of study. Brinkley examines the history of the federal government, which was formed precisely to guard against the tyranny smaller entities such as the states could impose, then points out how far the American people have strayed from the assumptions underlying the Constitution: a well-informed, civic-minded public that takes seriously its responsibility to vote. Polsby points out how well they've managed to govern such a large and disparate territory, while Sullivan explores current attempts to impose new policies through Constitutional amendment, using the miserable failure of the Prohibition amendment as a cautionary tale.

In an era when the majority of Americans receive their news in sound bites and the solution to every problem is a facile cry to dismantle the government, New Federalist Papers is a refreshing return to the principles on which the country was founded, most of which have been misinterpreted, misconstrued, or just plain misunderstood somewhere along the way; after all, citizens should understand what they've got before they decide to throw it away.

Review

The authors do not offer easy remedies, and I do not suppose there are any. But the more Americans read and understand this wise book, the healthier our political society will be. We might become less cynical about politics. We might be less susceptible to political quackery about the evil of the United States Government. -- The New York Times Book Review, Anthony Lewis

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company (April 17, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393046192
• ISBN-13: 978-0393046199
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.5 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,826,453 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars easy to read, very informative, October 5, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution (A Twentieth Century Fund Book) (Hardcover)

I was assigned this book for my Political Sci class here at the University of Houston. Not the best of students, I normally put off reading assigned books till the last moment. But this one was different. I found that I could pick up this book at any time, jump right in, and easily stay with an essay till the end.

The 3 authors did a great job of writing the book, making each essay easy to digest. The pages go by fast and are very informative.

Published in '97, it is still pretty up to date, with current politics-altering technology like the Internet being discussed. I agreed wholeheartedly with one essay describing the emotional, unrestrainted, uncompromising , and unorganized type of talk you can see on the Web and in chat rooms. The essay goes on to talk about the idea of "direct democracy" through citizen voting over the Internet on all the issues, which I found very interesting.

I'd say this was a "must read" if I didn't think you've seen a hundred other "must read" reviews online! And if the price wasn't so high..

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars If You Believe our Founding Fathers are Rolling in their Graves..., November 9, 2006

By 

Eva Gitzes - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution (Twentieth Century Fund Book) (Paperback)

....then I think you'll like this book. Specifically, there are numerous changes going on in America today-nothing new of course-but the difference today is how many people think current issues can be easily "solved" by new Admendments to our Constitution. Brinkley and the other authors take you through several hot buttons faced in our country in over the years, and what dangerous results can and have occured when we let our Constitution be altered. A good read for any American, this book actually enlightened me futher in the basis of my own idealogical views. I think this book would do the same for you, regardless of what your views are.

9 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars "Don't worry (cough), I'm (cough) fine" -United States, January 30, 2003

By 

Kevin Currie-Knight "Education Grad Student" (Newark, Delaware) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: New Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution (Twentieth Century Fund Book) (Paperback)

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.