"Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies?"

While arguing for a unification of the states in Federalist No. 6, Hamilton raises some interesting and relevant points.

As Madison said in No. 10:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts.

Riffing off this theme, Hamilton (in No. 6) argues that if the states do not band together under the proposed constitution, they will be destined to battle one another for all time. If they are not united into a more consolidated nation, he says, they will be disposed to "waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other." His opponents suggest that commerce will be enough to prevent such "ruinous contentions" between the states, and that the unification called for under the constitution is not necessary. And hence comes Madison's retort:

Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? ... Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory?

Indeed, Mr. Hamilton. I don't think that I'd be misspeaking if I were to say that many people might disagree with Hamilton here. Democratic Republics, they might argue, are certainly less prone to war than monarchies or empires. What Hamilton is saying pretty much flies in the face of democratic peace theory, which posits that liberal democracies rarely--if ever--go to war with other liberal democracies. And while this theory has many adherents, it isn't 100% viable (but not much is in the social sciences).

And while I may be one of those adherents, I also agree with Hamilton. What amazes me is that many Americans seem to think that the U.S. is above all of that love of wealth and power stuff; that those desires could never taint our foreign policies. Sure, there were overreaching empires in the past that had an insatiable lust for wealth and power -- Rome, Great Britain, etc. -- but not us; we're different. Anything and everything that we do as a nation is for some incredibly farsighted and lofty "good," rather than some shortsighted, parochial and purely nationalistic interest.

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I swear. But when plans began to surface of giant, permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and the number of private contractors begin to eclipse the number of soldiers in that chaotic country, it really makes one wonder whether the U.S. government is really quite as altruistic as some make it out to be.

While we're on foreign matters...

In Federalist No. 63, where [probably] Madison discusses the features of the proposed senate, he says that one of the reasons for the lengthier terms for senators is to provide stability:

Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy...but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.

Unless there are folks who stick around longer than 4 (president) or 2 (House reps) years, other nations will think we're unstable, and there will be no one in the U.S. whom they can "count on," so to speak. Makes sense.

But fast forwarding to now, does this mean that France thinks we're stable because Robert Byrd has been in the Senate for nearly 50 years? Do other nations feel like they know us better because our upper chamber is full of octogenarians? I have my doubts.

I like the fact that [probably] Madison places some importance on world opinion. Of course, it was very important that other countries saw the U.S. as a legitimate state in these early years. But some would say that since we're "on top" now, the opinions of the international community no longer matter. That assumption is nothing short of foolhardy. And if this latest Pew poll illustrating our country's plummeting standing in the world doesn't even slightly irk all Americans, something is wrong. With us.

I know we already discussed No. 6, 10 and 63 in class, but I don't think any of the points I made above were raised.