Civics In A Year
What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen?
Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation.
Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship.
Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.
Civics In A Year
The Art of Disagreement: What America's Founding Debates Teach Us Today
Dr. Paul Carrese returns to Civics in a Year for a profound conversation about what modern Americans can learn from the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification. This eye-opening discussion reveals how America's core identity has always been defined not by ethnic or religious homogeneity, but by a commitment to principled debate among free people who disagree yet remain united in a shared national project.
The great paradox of American democracy, as Dr. Carrese explains, is that our unity emerges precisely from our diversity of thought. The Constitution itself was born from intense debate, with the Federalists growing intellectually stronger as they responded to Anti-Federalist critiques. This productive tension ultimately produced the Bill of Rights—a testament to how constitutional humility and the willingness to revise are fundamental American virtues.
What makes this historical example so relevant today is the "spirit of amity" that George Washington emphasized—a concept of civic friendship transcending partisan division without abandoning principles. In our polarized era, the warnings from Lincoln's 1838 Lyceum Address about national "suicide" through internal division feel eerily prophetic. As Dr. Carrese powerfully argues, when Americans engage in vicious partisanship rather than reasonable disagreement, we damage our civic culture and play into the hands of foreign adversaries seeking to exploit our divisions.
The civic virtues of civil disagreement don't come naturally—they require cultivation and practice. Drawing on founding documents, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and other historical touchstones, Dr. Carrese offers a compelling case that preserving our republic requires us to "up our game" and find what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." Join us for this timely reminder that democracy depends not on eliminating disagreement but transforming how we disagree.
Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!
School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership
Welcome back to Civics in a Year. Today we are talking about the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists and what we can learn from it today, if you have not listened to the previous episode on why the Federalist Papers still help us understand, I believe that the previous episode and this episode are a really great pairing. We have Dr Kreis back with us. Dr Kreis, what do these debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists teach us today?
Speaker 2:Thank you, liz. And this conversation, this question, just reminds me, for anybody who's been listening, the great service you're doing. We're all trying to do in the Center for American Civics to dig a little more deeply into these founding principles. We're all trying to do in the Center for American Civics to dig a little more deeply into these founding principles and these sources of argument about insight into our founding principles. And this is a big kind of meta principle in itself and I've mentioned it in earlier episodes, as you just mentioned the previous one that America is in its core. It's an indispensable element of our character a free people who debate. We disagree.
Speaker 2:Now that can seem like a paradox. Well, if you just disagree about everything, how are you one people? How do you hold together? And there are moments where we've had that challenge and we'll talk a little bit about this in this episode. But it may be a paradox, but that doesn't mean it's a contradiction or ridiculous.
Speaker 2:It is the case that to be American, we don't come from one race or ethnic group or one religion or one bloodline. That's not what America has ever been. You could go through your family history, my family history my Italian grandfather came on a boat in 1912. And my father's side and my mother's side, from Ireland and Germany. Everybody's an immigrant right and we have the greatest number of immigrants, the greatest pluralism of any country ever in the history of the world. All as free, equal peoples. That's our aspiration. So how do we hold that together? It's that we believe in the principle of debate and discussion, while that's on the basis of some shared principles. So the paradox is we have the shared principles mostly, I hope, of the Declaration of Independence, of the Constitution, of the amendments, but the Constitution itself is amendable. The Declaration arises at a debate. The Constitution arises at a debate. It's an amendable Constitution. We immediately debate amendments. It's not even ratified and the deals are being struck in the state ratification debate, some of them that okay, we, we, we federalists, we pro-constitution people. We make a deal, we'll immediately propose amendments, you know, covering classic common law rights and bill of rights. So this is the American character Certain shared principles, that we debate what they mean and then we debate, you know, more particular policy topics. It is American the great example of it, since we don't know a lot about the debates in 1775 and 1776, moving immediately toward independence. We know, you know a bit about them. But boy, we've got Madison's notes and other people's notes from the constitutional convention. And then we've got these extraordinary written arguments, opinion essays, for and against ratification. And so what do we learn? What do we still have to learn today, more particularly? So there's this general principle of debate. What does that mean more particularly? You can see it in the Federals and Anti-Federals especially.
Speaker 2:I'll say the Federalists are getting smarter. Okay, I mean, I'm of the view that the Federalists had the better argument, but how did they have the better argument? Because they got their butts kicked by these Anti-Federalist writers, brutus Federal Farmer Sentinels, some of the best ones who are smart. And so the Federalists Hamilton's got to get them organized and there are other friends of the Constitution writing. But to get organized, madison, this is like the A-team John Jay and they are getting smarter about what the Constitution means, about what the deeper principles are and learning about it.
Speaker 2:And I think it's no accident by the end that Madison in a way, has set himself up to say, okay, you know this constitution has not been ratified and what he's learned during the process of writing the Federalist? That he's primed and ready to be sponsoring the bill of rights or amendments. You know, 13 amendments originally in the house. Because he's learned. He's learned what, what was learned, what was strong, what was weak. This is an obvious weakness. It's not worth dying on this hill. We'll propose amendments. So to get smarter by learning to people you seem to disagree with, you seem to be opponents about it. Rational, reasonable, civil discourse Good for you. If the other side's really in good spirit, it's good for the other side and you might actually not any longer be sides. You might come together and make some compromises and forge a new third way. So the general point about debate. Secondly, that the anti-federalists forced the pro-constitution side to get smarter. Third, the debate did produce the Bill of Rights. That's a big deal.
Speaker 1:Yes, it's a very big deal.
Speaker 2:And that's a sort of larger lesson right, accepting the need for revision, accepting amendment, the amendment process really going to mean something. Really there's a kind of constitutional humility in the Constitution. It's amendable and it really worked right away. And then of course there's a specific content of the Bill of Rights, slightly significant A culture of liberty in all kinds of ways religious liberty, civil liberty. It's part of our American greatness, Part of the reason, as I mentioned, why do people want to come here from all over the world Constantly, still to this day. The Bill of Rights is no small part of that. But I think a fourth point, you know I'll flip that last point upside down the anti-Federalists learned some things too. It maybe helps them that Madison, well, the deals made in some of the state conventions, and then Madison stepping forward to sponsor, lead drafter of the Bill of Rights, the anti-federalists say a lot of them can say you know what? This is legit, we didn't win, but we certainly shaped the final thing and we got a big thing. We were asking for Bill of Rights and in a way, implicitly, they're accepting Hamilton's argument in Federalist 84 about the Bill of Rights right. Hamilton says there's no need for a Bill of Rights. This Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights. It protects rights better than any parchment list of rights. You know, separation of powers and federalism. Well, hamilton didn't win that argument. The Bill of Rights goes forward, but the Anti-Federalists in a way accept it, that the whole thing is legitimate. They join in. And then in the election of 1800, which is in a way a kind of Anti-Federalist spirit, we want to make sure the federal government doesn't get too strong. We want the spirit of democracy, not just elite Republicanism. Well, that's not a revolution, that's within the four corners of the constitution. I have my disagreements with Jefferson and Madison at that stage, but it's not a revolution, right? So there's the anti-federalists learn, and really the Jeffersonian spirit learns from the founding debate and they accept.
Speaker 2:You know, you could think, and here we are in Arizona. You could think later to. You know how losers come to accept and also contribute as losers. But you know, barry Goldwater as presidential candidate lost big in 1964, you could say, well, richard Nixon won in 1968. Wasn't accidental? Richard Nixon wasn't the full Goldwater conservative that Ronald Reagan was. But oh yeah, ronald Reagan, okay. So Goldwater loses in 64, but shapes a political culture so that Nixon wins in 68, again in 72, reagan in 80. That's changed American political culture so that Nixon and wins in 68, again in 72, reagan in 80. That's changed American political culture. So the anti-federalists are that kind of spirit, seeming to lose but really shaping our culture. But again, why? Because they debated and the federalists responded and everybody got smarter from it, so that there's some specific lessons and then a larger lesson about America and and getting smarter.
Speaker 1:So we, you know we talked about this big takeaway of the value of debate, that reasonable, moderate disagreement, right Carried out in civil, out in a civil way, really matters. And you mentioned like there was some name-calling. There was some kind of back and forth, but for the most part these were very well-thought-out arguments. This feels again like another lesson that we can pull out from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists both in print and in the state ratifying constitutions of 1787, 1788. Is that another lesson we can learn from this kind of back and forth between the two groups?
Speaker 2:Yes, very specifically, and it's in the text of the Federalist, as I mentioned. It's in practice in the state ratification conventions. Gentleman's agreement said OK, yes, you know, we all vote for ratifying this and our state joins. We pledge, once the governor is established, to put forward bill of rights. You know traditional English bill of rights principles about common law rights. The Federalist invokes this principle right in the text, as I mentioned briefly in the last episode. Federalist number one opens. Federalist number 85 closes.
Speaker 2:It's Hamilton who we don't associate with moderation, broadway star fiery Alexander Hamilton. But there he is, opening and closing the Federalist on the spirit. He explicitly invokes the word moderation. What does that mean? My side, we think we're right, but you know, maybe we should have some humility and avoid the extreme of thinking the other side they're just idiots and people of bad faith. On American, the phrase would be, you know, early to use, but there would could be no, no, no. We, our side, we think we're right, but we need to hear out the other side and respond to their arguments. We still think we're right. Quietly, we might learn a thing or two on the way. So that's the opening and closing argument of the Federalists. This is what Americans do. We debate big questions, we come to resolutions. Maybe there are compromises involved, but that's what Republican self-government among a free people means. I'll go back one step. I think it helped the Federalists especially. It helped Hamilton, madison and Jay to think back again to the model of George Washington. And here's a search in the founding.
Speaker 2:We tend to overlook the transmittal letter, september 17th 1787, from Washington, on behalf of the Convention of Philadelphia, to the Confederation Congress. Here's the work product, here's what we've been doing in Philadelphia. And there's a beautiful phrase, this magnanimous document largely written by Washington himself. The beautiful phrase is the spirit of amity, a-m-i-t-y. Amity, the spirit of friendship. He's invoking an idea of civic friendship which goes back to the Greeks and the Romans.
Speaker 2:What did we do over four months? We I'm going to translate this into less gracious language man. We argued, boy. We hammered out, you know we hammered out some compromises. It took four months, it was hot. You know there hammered out some compromises. It took four months, it was hot. You know there was no air conditioning. That's the truth underneath this gracious language from Washington. We worked out mutual concessions is another phrase he uses in that transmission, the transmittal letter right, mutual concessions and deference to each other, making compromises While you know, going at it hammer and tongs, so to speak, really arguing.
Speaker 2:And that phrase, spirit of amity that's what Hamilton's trying to invoke in number one and number 85. Doesn't always live up to it. Americans don't always live up to it. Washington probably lives up to it better than anybody else, but he has his moments while he's president for eight years. So civic friendship, right there, spirit of amity. So let's talk a little bit more about that Civic friendship. There's scholarship on this and I've invoked it in a study I was a co-author of about K-12 civic education called Educating for American Democracy. My co-authors and I talked about civic virtues. So this topic that we're talking about debate right. One of the civic virtues we talked about is civil disagreement. Then we talked about civic friendship, the civil disagreement. Whatever the policy topic is, or it's a big fundamental topic, you disagree in a reasonable civil way with words, and reasonable civil words, not name calling. Liz, you're so stupid and you're un-American and you're demonic because you disagree with me, liz, right.
Speaker 1:You know.
Speaker 2:No, that's not what you do. You're making yourself stupid and you're also not. You know you're sort of deficit spending a civic culture of peaceful, secure self-government. You're contributing to a downward spiral toward more anger and toward more violence, which is more stupidity, yes, and that's easy to do. We don't need that. So what Washington, with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, are calling for is rise up civic virtues of civil disagreement and civic friendship across different political views, philosophical views, religious views. These are civic virtues.
Speaker 2:And why is the language used amongst scholars to say civic virtues? I know some educators talk about civic skills and civic dispositions. Well, the dispositions part is getting close to virtues, but I think it's better to use virtues, because this is hard. You know, if I think, liz, you are really wrong about an important policy topic, or you know, a presidential election, Senate election, and I think the stakes are big, it's hard for me to be reasonable toward you. You know you're on the other side, quote, unquote, right For me to hear you out. And then expect you to hear me out and and you know, ok, you voted for the other party or the other candidate, another policy issue, you're not. You're not stupid, evil, un-american, blah, blah, blah, right?
Speaker 2:No, we disagree. But we're mature Republican, self-governing citizens. We have these virtues. It's hard work. It'll rise. Up to them of civil disagreement and civic friendship. Up to them of civil disagreement and civic friendship. So we, you know, we don't maybe think enough about the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist debate in this way. We don't think about the text of the Federalist enough this way. You don't think about the Anti-Federalist writings enough this way. But we should.
Speaker 1:So, dr Kreis, we are recording this in mid-september 2025. Unfortunately, our country has seen a lot of instances of political violence in recent years that are affecting officials and public figures from both major parties. With that in mind, how can lessons from the founding debate you know nearly 240 years ago about civil debate, reasonable disagreement, moderating political passions, how could those still be relevant today, even amongst all of this vitriol?
Speaker 2:Well, thank you. It's a difficult question to be addressing. As I just mentioned, these are civic virtues and we do badly need them today. There are other episodes of American history where we have needed them.
Speaker 2:It's not like we're in the darkest moment of American history. The Civil War was the single darkest period. War was the single darkest period when I was born, in 1967, late 1960s, early 70s. Yeah, I don't mean to scare anybody, right? But you know John F Kennedy had been assassinated in 1963 as president. If you think about it, the fourth president has been assassinated, not all of them. For ideological reasons clearly Lincoln and I think John F Kennedy. Ideological reasons clearly Lincoln and I think John F Kennedy. But then Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. Shortly thereafter, john Kennedy's younger brother, robert Kennedy, was assassinated.
Speaker 2:There are bombs going off, there are domestic terrorist groups. So we've had darker moments, but we need to think right now. Do we want to go to darker moments? We've had darker moments, but we need to think right now. Do we want to go to darker moments? We've had darker moments and I'll close by mentioning a great resource here from a common citizen, abraham Lincoln, in 1838.
Speaker 2:Turns out to be among the greatest of Americans, but nobody knows who he is when he gives this address in 1838. He's out on the Western frontier in Illinois, a small town lawyer 1838 to the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois. The topic is the perpetuation of our political institutions. It's often called the perpetuation address, the Lyceum address, just to get to the point right Incre increasing episodes of political violence Lincoln is noticing about. He explicitly mentions alcohol and gambling, but behind it is slavery and abolition and those tensions, I think also religious pluralism. It's not too long after that, the founder of the Mormon religion is killed. So Lincoln is saying in 1838, the perpetuation of our entire political order is at stake. Then violence, then distrust of institutions and then, before you know it, you've got strong men stepping forward saying trust me, I'll fix it. You know Caesars and Napoleons, he says. So the starkest moment of this argument is he refers to suicide, national suicide. He says America will never be defeated by a foreign foe. You could have a Napoleon at the head of armies. Defeated by a foreign foe. You could have a Napoleon at the head of armies. They would never beat us. We would rally. If we do not survive as a self-governing national republic, it will be bought quote by suicide. This culture of argument, reasonable argument failing going to violence, vitriol, distrust of institutions, disorder, that's suicide. Does that sound like hyperbole? Well, two decades later, there was a horrific, horrific Civil War, and fortunately we had Lincoln at the helm. But it happened. So it turns out it wasn't hyperbole and overreaction in 1838. It was an early warning, flashing red light. So I think we ought to take that flashing red light for ourselves right now.
Speaker 2:Federalist-antifederalist debate is a great model. The Lincoln-Douglas debates, you know Senator Stephen Douglas and candidate Abraham Lincoln disagreed, oh, just about a few minor things. Right, the very meaning of America and of the Declaration of Independence. Okay, they didn't trash talk each other, they didn't demonize Stephen Douglas. The powerful man in there could have said no way I'm debating this loser Lincoln guy. He's a nobody, I'm not going to give him the time of day, I'm not going to give him a space, a platform. Douglass says no, I'll debate him. Right, that's what we need.
Speaker 2:And I'll close by saying that Lincoln's perpetuation address has got this spirit. The Federalists have got this spirit, the final lines of the Declaration of Independence. This is a matter of sacred honor To have these rights given by God, whatever you think that divinity might mean. To have liberty, to have equal liberty for all. This is a precious thing and we need to up our game. We need to rise to that level and defend these, but also exercise them, practice them, protect them, perpetuate, secure these rights in our everyday political life. That's a matter of sacred honor.
Speaker 2:And the other great warning text about all of this, of course, is George Washington's farewell address, warning about partisanship, warning about and here I'll mention this the more warning the warning Washington gives in 1796, think about this the more we disagree in the stupid way, factional, low politics, low, stupid partisanship, violent language leading to violence, the more we do that, the happier our enemies are abroad, delighted by it, exploiting it.
Speaker 2:Well, this is before the internet and before social media. We know as a fact foreign enemies of our way of life, of America, are exploiting this kind of stupid, vicious, angry partisanship. So for all these reasons and these great sources, I just invoke Lincoln and George Washington, and you know Martin Luther King, robert Kennedy, you know we need to up our game and find the better well, like it's, like his first inaugural address the better angels of our nature, yes, Dr Kreese, thank you so much and I really appreciate that you gave us more primary sources to look at because I think, as teachers in classrooms, those are incredibly helpful for having students understand history, understanding our politics, and thank you so much for your expertise.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Liz.
