A Federalist/Anti-Federalist Dialogue

 

A Federalist/Anti-Federalist Dialogue

Peter Schultz

 

Anti-Federalist [AF]: I am opposed to this proposed constitution because it will undermine, replace our confederation, which is a voluntary association of sovereign states bound by friendship.

 

Federalist [F]: See, there’s your mistake.

 

AF: What’s that?

 

F: Well, states cannot be friends.

 

AF: They can’t? Why not?

 

F: Because some thing always gets in the way.

 

AF: What thing? Tell me.

 

F: The desire to penetrate and subdue, which controls all states. It’s their nature.

 

AF: It is? Why?

 

F: Because all states want, desire, crave sovereignty. And so they seek sovereignty over any other states they interact with. And the closer, the more intimate the interaction, the greater the vulnerability, the stronger is the desire for sovereignty. And that dooms the possibility of friendship, and of confederations.

 

 

[Question: In When Harry Met Sally, how does Harry understand “the sex thing” so it excludes the possibility of friendship?

Answer: Because he understands “the sex thing” as a way of demonstrating male superiority, male sovereignty. The quest for sovereignty seeks to make women “meow,” to make women “pet-like.” And women, by faking orgasms, seemingly play along, pretending to be “pet-like.” But listen or recall the lyrics of “It Had To Be You:” love of a woman who “tries to be boss” is possible. Such love even makes a man “be true,” and this even though she makes him “cross.” “The sex thing,” surrounded by love, is not about dominance – which women demonstrate they understand by faking orgasms.]