Via scary smart Anglachel, I’m inspired to quote Federalist #10, compare:

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. … From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.

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.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

And that is why we had a Constitution, a republican form of government, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, etc.

Contrast Madison to the shallow “philosophy” of “creative class” schwarmeri like OFB Stoller, when he proclaims the triumph of his faction:

I’m curious about Obama’s governing philosophy … We have a leader, and he’s not a partisan and he can now end fractious intraparty fights with a word and/or a nod. … He is also, and this is fundamental, someone that millions of people believe in as a moral force. …

Or this from OFB Bowers, where, again, it’s all about the Leader:

Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism***, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

Or even (sigh) DDay at Digby’s succumbs to the triumphalism, and, I would argue, with more than a little naivete:

Obama’s bet is to mass such a large group that nobody could possibly compete with him in a left-right matchup from either side, and so he offers the options of “unite or die,” to borrow the phrase from the John Adams miniseries.

But wresting away ALL the power and consolidating it is I think a misunderstanding …

Really? Why would you think that? People are who seizing and consolidating power tend to understand what they are doing very well; and tend not to be amendable to outside advice — just like that poor FaceBook volunteer Obama threw under the bus when all this started.

… of how inside and outside groups can be mutually reinforcing and part of a more vibrant cultural and political movement, and how the culture is moving toward more decentralized, more viral, looser networks to organize. Obama’s movement, based on unity and hope, is working because politics is of the moment, a fad, Paris Hilton. To sustain that, you must institutionalize engagement, civic participation, awareness and action, even in a non-horse race year, as a necessary facet of citizenship. And there’s no reason to shut down reinforcing progressive structures that can keep it fun and interesting and vital.

Really? It was a coincidence, then, that WVWV — an organization that registers women — was hit with a ginned up scandal just when Obama was about to roll out his own drive? This is not about “fun,” dday!

We are not yet here to stay.

Obviously not, since a lot of “us” are being written out of the party.

The progressive organizations, the advocacy groups, even the blogosphere may be ephemeral if it doesn’t sustain itself. If the flow of money keeps moving in only one direction…

And that flow would change direction why?

…. less people will be able to continue the work (I hate that Obama isn’t paying his organizing fellows, perpetuating that myth of “psychic income” and barring entire classes of people from the process).

And poor or working class people not being able to become Obama Fellows and trained to organize would be a coincidence why? Obama’s got more money than God!

Recapping DDay: Obama’s in “join or die” mode and at least threatening/considering to “wrest ALL power” — though DDay thinks that would be a bad thing; all the money is flowing one way — and DDay thinks that’s a bad thing; and nobody poor or working-class can be trained to organize — And DDay thinks that’s a bad thing.

Anything wrong with Stoller, Bowers, and (sigh) DDay’s picture? Anything at all “progressive” about the insitutional structures Obama is setting up, now that his faction is poised on the brink of triumph?

See any differences here?

Which political philosophy do you prefer? Obama’s? Or Madison’s?

NOTE *** Bowers carefully airbrushes out UCC (Wright’s Church) and replaces it with the harmless Unitarian. Teh funny!

UPDATE I should also note this paragraph from DDay:

There’s a bit of overlap, but our role is going to be radically different and to a degree unwanted at first; see the Barack Obama MySpace page incident. There’s a happy medium here, but it requires a great deal of consideration and study.

This reminds me irresistably of the money quote of the decade, if not the century:

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Of course, the “creative class” is, too, all about “creating reality”—although for their faction of choice. That’s what the WWSTBQ wankfests are all about! And DDay wants “a great deal of consideration and study”… Because the great irony, so far, is that the reality-based comunity, if indeed it ever existed, has been worsted at every turn. Cue OFB trolls chanting “rules” and “math”!