If you?ve ever wondered how a bunch of illiberal collectivists were able to shanghai the title ?liberal,? you?ll likely appreciate the following passage from Michael Meyerson?s enjoyable new book, Liberty?s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote The Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World:
The terms ?Federalist? and ?Anti-Federalist? had been in use since at least 1786, with the former used to describe those in favor of increased power for the federal government. Nonetheless, the labels greatly distressed those who were opposed to ratification. First, they claimed, with some validity, that those who supported the loose confederation of states under the Articles of Confederation should be considered the true federalists and that those who wanted a strong national government should be viewed as nationalists. Even more frustrating to those who were trying to prevent ratification was that they were saddled with ?the odious term anti-Federalists.? It was a textbook example of what today would be termed political branding.
Federal Farmer unsuccessfully lobbied for different terminology, writing that ?if any names are applicable to the parties, on account of their general politics, they are those of republicans and anti-republicans,? with, of course, the Anti-Federalists being the Republicans. Elbridge Gerry, one of the three delegates who had refused to sign the final document at the convention, was still complaining a year after the Constitution had been ratified. Arguing that the true division was between supporters and opponents of ratification, he bemoaned, ?Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.?
Meyerson?s book also explains why John Jay played such a limited role in the development of The Federalist. Here?s a tease: the answer involves a medical student waving an amputated arm at children.
