Federalist No. 67: Can the Executive Sustain Both Republican and Energetic Government?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02467.x
• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011

Rogan Kersh is associate dean and a

professor of public policy in the Wagner

School of Public Service at New York Uni-

versity. He has written widely on American

political development, including the

book-length Dreams of a More Perfect

Union (2001), as well as on U.S. political

institutions and public policy.

E-mail: rogan.kersh@nyu.edu

S90 Public Administration Review • December 2011 • Special Issue

Rogan Kersh

New York University

Federalist No. 67 generally is read as a vigorous defense

of the chief executive and contains intense language to

alleviate fears of a dictatorial president. However, it

also can be read as a much deeper explication of the

blend of republican and energetic government.  e

author examines this defense within the larger stream

of Federalist Papers and compares the Anti-Federalist

attacks against a strong executive and Alexander

Hamilton’s aggressive justif‌i cations.

F ederalist No. 67 traditionally is read as Publius’s

vigorous defense of the chief executive envis-

aged under the new Constitution. Addressing a

specif‌i c Anti-Federalist opponent, the writer “Cato,”

Alexander Hamilton employs some of  e Federalist’s

most withering language in seeking to alleviate fears of

a dictatorial president.

Yet, as with many of the Federalist Papers, a close

reading of No. 67 reveals deeper layers of mean-

ing. Hamilton-as-Publius’s spirited defense of an

active but restrained executive af‌f‌i rms the framers’

unorthodox blend of republican and “energetic”

government, and also hints at the desirable extent

of executive authority in a separated powers system

(today debated in terms of the “unitary executive”).

Additionally—and arguably more than any other

Federalist entry—No. 67 exemplif‌i es the consti-

tutional framers’ distinctive approach to political

contest and debate. While disagreeing forthrightly

with Cato’s arguments, Hamilton takes pains to

reassert the Federalist Papers’ general spirit of comity

and consensus.

Ef‌f ective administration of the proposed U.S. na-

tional government relied in signif‌i cant ways on these

paradoxical combinations of divergent parts. Two

and a quarter centuries later, the attentive reader will

f‌i nd Hamilton’s arguments resonant even in a vastly

transformed American polity—especially when read-

ing No. 67 in the larger stream of Federalist Papers.

At the same time, evolving institutional arrangements

and altered political and social contexts lead us to

speculate about how the themes presented in No. 67

could be revisited prof‌i tably today.

 is study therefore looks both backward and for-

ward. We f‌i rst address Federalist No. 67’s immediate

context and purpose, reviewing both Cato’s provoca-

tions and Hamilton’s response. Much of the essay is

devoted to a seemingly minor matter, the process of

f‌i lling occasional Senate vacancies (as treated brief‌l y

in Article II, § 2). But Hamilton had an express

reason for dwelling on this topic, as we shall see.  e

second section here employs the Federalist No. 67 lens

through which to address two central—and paradoxi-

cal—themes: “energetic republicanism,” to coin a

phrase anticipated though not articulated as such by

Hamilton; and “agonistic civility,” a second seeming

paradox modeled in No. 67, and one that captures the

framers’ hard-nosed but generous approach to politi-

cal debate.

Building on intriguing parallels between Federalist/

Anti-Federalist skirmishes and scholarly (as well

as partisan) exchanges in the present, this essay’s

concluding section explores each of these themes in

contemporary context. Central arguments intricately

fashioned out of ostensible opposites can be mis-

understood and misused, especially by later genera-

tions. Federalist No. 67, we will suggest, might be

refashioned in subtle ways to speak more directly to

American politics and administration in the twenty-

f‌i rst century.

Immediate Context: Denouncing “Cato”

Opening Federalist No. 67, Publius comes out swing-

ing. “ e writers against the C onstitution,” Ham-

ilton charges, “have taken pains to signalize their

talent of misrepresentation.” Such an aggrieved tone

continues for f‌i ve full paragraphs, in stark distinc-

tion to any other Federalist entry. Why does Publius,

several months into the jointly authored project,

adopt the rhetorical equivalent of battle dress? A

primary reason has to do with the essay’s target. New

York governor George Clinton was a key f‌i gure in

Federalist No. 67: Can the Executive Sustain Both

Republican and Energetic Government?