It is often said that a statesman is a politician who has been dead for fifty years. Though this expression has become a simple truism, its accuracy is dubious. There are plenty of politicians who have been dead for centuries that no one would seriously consider a statesman. Similarly, in the last decades, a number of prominent political figures have already ascended to the highest heights of statesmanship. So, if the length of time as a corpse is not the defining trait of a statesman, then what is?
The answer partially lies in number 71 of the Federalist Papers – a collection of essays defending the Constitution against its opponents at the time of ratification. Authored by Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 71 tries to outline the place of the presidency within the broader contours of our constitutional system. At the same time, Hamilton offers a clear picture not only of what it means to be a great politician, but also what separates such individuals from the deeply inferior mass of elected officials.
In the very first Federalist paper, Hamilton argues that republican government must be built on reflection and choice by the electorate to select competent, thoughtful, officials able to represent competing strands of society. In short, Hamilton wants a country that governs through reason and law.
The biggest threat to this throughout the history of self-government is demagogy. “Demagogue” is an ancient Greek term for one who enflames the passions of the people – especially anger, fear, resentment, and other negative emotions – to advance a political agenda. The successful demagogue exploits the emotional weaknesses of the people to undermine reasonable government and promote their own career. In short, demagogues expose and take advantage of self-government’s gaping weakness: the people. Yet, self-government without the people is a contradiction in term. So the advocates of democracy who worry about demagogy have a tough problem to solve.
While James Madison relies on separation of powers to deal with this tension, Hamilton falls back upon an older solution: statesmanship. Hamilton argues that the hallmark of statesmanship is withstanding the passions of public opinion to advocate for what is in the best interest of the republic. This may often mean taking unpopular stances or, in extreme cases, trying to temporarily obfuscate the will of the voters to give them time for “more cool and sedate reflection.”
Such an approach to politics requires true greatness because only those with a truly iron resolution can have the strength to advocate for the right thing when it goes against public opinion. For one thing, there are many who view the duty of an elected official to do whatever the people want. These populists believe that there is little point to elections if officials display any independent thinking. Yet in reality, the point of politicians is the exact reverse – why have elected officials if they just follow the whims of the latest polling data? Edmund Burke, a Member of the British Parliament, famously defended the independent judgement of legislators, arguing to the electors of Bristol: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” But if Burke is wrong and politicians should never disagree with their constituents, we might as well choose policy based on the caprice of constantly changing opinion polls.
There are two different ways for a statesman to influence change. The first is simply making the best of a bad situation by pushing to improve the genuinely bad policies that have become electorally inevitable. The other, better alternative is to shift public opinion towards the right sort of change. The best example of this in American history is Abraham Lincoln, who gradually shifted the nation on slavery until he at last convinced them to abolish the odious institution. While the demagogue manipulates the electorate for his own selfish ends, the statesman appeals rhetorically to the people by considering their values, good and bad, in his entreatments for the nation to live up to its highest moral and spiritual aspirations.
There can be little doubt that our current age is consumed by a startling lack of statesmen. This moment is a time dominated by weather vane politicians and dangerous demagogues. The creation of more statesmen is not an easy task, there is no one educational plan guaranteed to create the proper blend of grit, vision, and prudence that define such individuals. Yet, such an education, which would teach Americans to inhabit the great debates that have defined our nation is something we should probably dwell more on if we wish to preserve the American republic for centuries to come.
