Principles or Ideas? The "Great Desideratum" of Madison's Political Thought

Over the past two decades, the life and political thought of James Madison have sparked a cottage industry. Specialized scholarly studies detailing Madison's ideas and political activity have rolled off the presses alongside popular biographies. This growth of Madison studies is not surprising given the many laurels Americans heap upon him. The "greatest lawgiver of the modern era," (Rakove, p. 184), the "Father of the Constitution," "Father of the Bill of Rights," and co-founder of the one first major political parties in U.S. history, are just the most familiar accolades. With the increasing focus on Madison's centrality to the nation's founding, scholars often wield his thought as a talisman that can help solve modern political and constitutional dilemmas. If scholars insist on using Madison in this way, it becomes incumbent upon them to get Madison right. In other words, if we want to get the Constitution and American constitutionalism right, we first need to get right with Madison.

And therein lies the problem. When Madison seemingly could not get right with himself, how are scholars supposed to manage? Ever since the appearance of Irving Brant's six-volume biography of Madison (1941–1961) scholars have perceived a "James Madison Problem," the crux of which concentrates on the consistency—or inconsistency—of Madison's political thought.¹ In attempting to answer the ostensible paradox of how Madison transformed from a nationalist in 1787 into a champion of state sovereignty and interposition a few years later, scholars have tended to see Madison one of three ways. First, perhaps Madison was a shrewd behind-the-scenes politician driven by a callous desire for power. A hypocrite, his political thought and political actions shifted with the political winds. Second, Madison could have been an ideologue who applied his beliefs rigidly no matter the situation. After all, being chained to his ideology fostered Madison's opposition to Hamilton's economic program as well as his life-long belief that the defeat of his national veto over state law left the Constitution flawed. The third view of Madison defines him as a principled contextualist. Dedicated to the preservation of republican ideals above all else, Madison sought to preserve liberty by applying his thoughts and actions to situations flexibly.

By considering the standard answers to the "Madison Problem," what becomes apparent is how nearly all of these studies conflate principles with ideas. Principles are fixed, foundational beliefs and assumptions, often deemed sacred and inviolable by the person holding them. Ideas, however, are something different. They may be profound, simple, consistent, or alter as the wind blows. Their purpose, however, is to provide the form and means to uphold, defend, or apply principles in the real world. By disentangling the terms from one another, it becomes clear that the "James Madison Problem" usually concerns the consistency of Madison's ideas rather than his principles. To move Madison studies beyond tired questions of his consistency and meaning, contemporary scholars must begin asking two different questions: 1) what were Madison's guiding principles? 2) what effect did those principles have on Madison's political career and political thought?

Two new works by Jack Rakove and Noah Feldman can help scholars begin the process of reconsidering Madison in light of these questions. Despite varied methodologies and conclusions, both share the belief that context provides the key to understanding the Virginian. In A Politician Thinking: The Creative Mind of James Madison, Rakove seeks to understand Madison's thought processes. Concentrating narrowly on the period of 1785–1788, he captures Madison working in the solitude of his study at Montpelier as he developed creative solutions to the perennial problems of republican government. Rakove asserts that Madison's concerns over feudalism, the nature of legislatures, and legislative...