I need help interpreting a paragraph in the federalist papers. It is Federalist No. 10 the paragraph is.
"It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole"
Madison is arguing for a strong federal government. He's afraid that factions, or in today's terms, special interest groups, could take actions that are not in everyone's best interests. In his view, only a strong federal government can control these factions. For more insight into this paper, check this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison addresses the issue of factionalism and its impact on the government. The paragraph you mentioned refers to the challenge of reconciling conflicting interests and argues against the notion that enlightened statesmen can always navigate and align those interests for the benefit of the public.
To interpret this paragraph, it's essential to break it down and understand its main points:
1. "It is in vain to say, that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good."
Here, Madison asserts that it is pointless to claim that politically knowledgeable individuals can consistently reconcile conflicting interests and align them with the greater good of society. In other words, it is unrealistic to expect that politicians will always put the public interest above competing factional interests.
2. "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations."
Madison emphasizes that even if enlightened statesmen are in power, they cannot be expected to remain in charge indefinitely. Additionally, he argues that reconciling conflicting interests often requires considering long-term and indirect factors that might not align with the immediate desires of certain factions.
3. "which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole."
Madison concludes that these long-term and indirect considerations often struggle to outweigh the immediate benefits that one faction may gain by disregarding the rights of another or neglecting the well-being of the entire society.
In summary, Madison's paragraph suggests that expecting enlightened statesmen to consistently align competing interests for the good of the public is unrealistic. This is primarily because such statesmen may not always be in power, and even if they are, it can be challenging to navigate conflicting interests while considering long-term consequences.