Dagger and Fed 10

I liked the ending to Dagger’s book, but, as I was reading the last few pages and thinking about our discussions in class over the last week or so, I’m wondering what the big take-away point is for Dagger. On the one hand, we know from the first chapter that his formal thesis is simply to recognize that republican liberalism is feasible, and it seems like he has done that. However, his book has a very “practical” bent to it; he seems intent on offering practical solutions that can improve the quality of life in America. So, I’m wondering what Dagger would say that we can take away from the book.
It seems to me that what Dagger has been overwhelmingly concerned with throughout the book has been battling nonparticipation. Through his discussions of education, instant direct democracy, and even local neighborhood organizations in the last chapter, Dagger has consistently argued that individuals need to be more involved in the community. This increased participation, he seems to argue, would lead to a greater sense of community, which, in turn, would lead to a stronger system of government.
Assuming the above to be at least partially correct, I’m left wondering by his last two main points. First, Dagger says that individuals should be empowered to join groups. Second, he says that the power of the groups must be managed so no group becomes overly powerful. With this in mind, I’m left thinking about Madison’s Federalist #10 which deals with exactly those same issues. Madison’s conclusion is that the only way to manage the power of faction is to create a society in which groups can prosper and control each other’s power. That idea is, allegedly, incorporated into our political system.
So, I’m left with a bit of a paradox. We live in a system of government founded on the idea that groups should be empowered and, 200 years later, we’re reading a book that says that groups should be empowered. What happened? It doesn’t seem that the main idea has changed, but it seems that our government has not lived up to that ideal. What are we doing wrong?