A federalist government is immune to self-interest

There is a lot of interest in Federalist #3, but I thought the following most interesting. Here, Jay is suggesting that a strong federal government would almost by definition be nearly immune to local interests and picayune temptations due to self-interest.

Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others...

Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants...

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested...

Along the lines of the previous papers, I think it is interesting that they respected and trusted their leaders, and felt that this Federal government would lead to righteous, equitable, reasonable government, whereas now, we consider most all of our elected officials to be lunatics - dumber than the dumbest (perceived) President in history.
.
How did we get here from there? How did we manage to select hundreds of irresponsible morons and lunatics and allow them to represent and govern us? I can see making the mistake with one president, and Jay mentions this case in the beginning of this letter.- he thought that the people were pretty good at self-correcting when they got off track - but now we have not just one village idiot, but hundreds within the legislative and judicial (and executive) branches!