Federalist #64, one of only five written by John Jay, justifies the system for making and ratifying trade deals and other treaties with foreign nations. In simple terms, the president makes the treaties, and the Senate ratifies them. This is the system that still works today — though of course the president is only the head of a massive bureaucracy.

Jay provides several reasons for believing this system will be the best, and 240 years of experience affirms that it works reasonably well. Sensitive negotiations could be done by the president, who Jay imagines acting alone, so that the people on the other side would have no fear of their negotiating position being exposed. Only after the deal was settled would the terms of the bargain be shared with the more numerous Senate. Because the Senate has members from every state, Jany promises that the “national character” would be respected more than if treaties were ratified by the House, with its proportional representation. Jay promises there’s no chance for self-dealing:

It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; and, having no private interests distinct from that of the nation, they will be under no temptations to neglect the latter.

This doesn’t hold water. Of course, the president and Senate could have private interests distinct from the nation. And of course they could make treaties wherin their families and estates would not be equally affected, or would stand to gain more. Saying they don’t doesn’t make it true.

Jay insists that the design for making foreign policy will work well because ordinary voters will have had no part in choosing the people involved:

As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence. The Constitution manifests very particular attention to this object.

 In short, as the Constitution has taken the utmost care that they shall be men of talents and integrity, we have reason to be persuaded that the treaties they make will be as advantageous as, all circumstances considered, could be made.

America’s history of foreign affairs is a mixed and puzzling one. The nation has evolved from a tiny and remote backwater in the 18th century to the most powerful nation in the world during the 20th century. America has negotiated from weakness and from strength. The Marshall Plan — America’s generous financial aid package to Europe, included defeated Germany, at the end of World War II — was as noble a thing as any nation ever did.

America has also made mistakes. Here is a Foreign Affairs magazine article listing what some experts say are the five worse foreign treaties America every agreed to. One of them is the Kellogg-Briand Pact, signed in 1928, which outlawed war forever. That’s why today the world is rife with “police actions” and ““ethnic cleansing” and “overseas contingency operations” and “tribal uprisings” and “conflicts.”

Discuss:

• Was Jay right to place such faith in officers who were not chosen by the people?

• Can we still have the same faith in the virtues of the presidents and senators, now that they are elected differently than the founders intended?