Human nature difference between Federalists and Anti-Federalists

论联邦与反联邦关于对人性的认同差异：The Federalists hold a human nature viewpoint of the realism theory, where they believed the human nature is not reliable and the people's understanding ability is also limited, one can learn something and make mistakes ；On the contrary, the anti-Federalists holds the view of optimistic human nature

 

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists hold almost different opinions on the human nature, which are the basic of their political arguments and polices. The Federalists hold a human nature viewpoint of the realism theory, where they believed the human nature is not reliable and the people's understanding ability is also limited, one can learn something and make mistakes (Nedelsky, 340-360). There are some shortcomings at some degree on human nature, and it requires some circumspection, so one should not hold complete trust in others. There are some other qualities in human nature, which proves that a certain respect and trust is correct. The Republic forms and exists relies more on those qualities than any other government regime. If the picture that some of political jealousy described likes the human characteristics, then the corollary is, they have not enough sufficient virtue for self-government, and only the chains of despotism can stop them from killing each other. For the Federalist principle, the evil of human nature assumption is the starting point reflecting on political issues, but they do not completely deny the good side of human nature. The good side of human nature is the public pursuit, which reflected in the Republic polity (the representative polity) space. Therefore, the Federalists extend their human philosophy to the system level. In the design of representative democracy constitutionalism and the senator, presidential electoral college and federal court judge which are not directly elected by the majority people, they do not make a direct response for the popular wishes in the system and procedures, and does not bear the mass political pressure; they represent the civic virtues and are the guardian of the public interest (Kenyon, 4-43). That is to say, they can avoid the gain from private and seek public welfare. On the institutional level, they are the collective intention and this is often the parties’ faction, which is a balance of the system counterparts such as the house and other agencies. This is a "Deliberative democracy"
On the contrary, the anti-Federalists, which are also called the liberals, holds the view of optimistic human nature (Dorf, 741). Although they are also skeptical of the authority nature, their demand a limit reduce of public participation by government and urged the legislative branch to have greater power than the administrative departments and judicial departments. They believe that most people are responsible. The bill of rights is a basic truth since everyone should have natural rights declaration. Even they are not got enough attention for another generation, their rights are always divine. Any the government established with the basis of people agreement should respect these rights in the constitution.
In contrast, I find the Anti-Federalist’s viewpoint on human nature is more persuasive and agree with their issues. It means that, the vast majority of people are good from their human nature and they can work for their common interests, but also are more optimistic in most cases. They have a welcome and friendly attitude towards other citizens to construct their state and common society.

Works Cited
Nedelsky, Jennifer. "Confining Democratic Politics: Anti-Federalists, Federalists, and the Constitution." (1982): 340-360.
Kenyon, Cecelia M. "Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government." The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History (1955): 4-43.
Dorf, Michael C. "No Federalists Here: Anti-Federalism and Nationalism on the Rehnquist Court." Rutgers LJ 31 (1999): 741.