To: Sam who wrote (57965 ) 11/20/2002 4:30:53 PM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 A FIFTH desideratum, illustrating the utility of a senate, is the want of a due sense of national character. 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, proceeding from the causes already mentioned, 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. Well Sam, I have dutifully looked at the Federalist papers, and found their authors' chief concerns to be as I remembered them: establishing a stable representative government that would not fall victim to mob rule, faction or tyranny; and establishing this new experiment in representative government as an internationally-recognized legitimate government without becoming a pawn of Great Powers politics. Fed 63 concerns the necessity of establishing a Senate which would provide a small representative body that could speak for all the US to the rest of the world, and would check the instabilities of mob rule by being deliberately less responsive to the voter than the House of Representatives. The excesses of Athenian democracy, which lacked a Senate, are cited:What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next. But nowhere does the author suggest that the American government is to be responsible to anyone other than the American voter:The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them Nothing in the Federalist papers suggest that America has a duty to get the approval of other governments for its policies; the government may care about the opinions of "other nations" (though even here only the Great Powers of Europe were meant by this; America soon showed that it cared very little for the good opinion of the Barbary States), but it is responsible only to its own citizens. This is completely different from the arguments of today's multilateralists, who argue that only the UN SC can "legitimize" US foreign policy. Even this argument is not used consistently; we never went to the UNSC for Kosovo (Russia would have vetoed it), and the same multilateralists were silent about the oversight. So I ask again,How is our foreign policy made more legitimate by having Syria vote for it?