Post two comments in response to the following question:
How did the factions that James Madison refer to in Federalist No. 1o apply to how both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists planned to deal with the problems of government we discussed in class today?
Comment 1 should be your answer...
Comment 2 should be a response to another person (if no one posted before you, wait to send your second comment)
Have fun!! Remember to check your reading from Monday night, 241-250. There will be questions about small items but also about all encompassing issues addressed in the pages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Um...I guess I'll post the first comment...
The “factions” that Madison refers to applies to the way that the Federalists and Anti-Federalist would handle the passionate feelings of the people. Madison asserts that each country would inevitably have groups of people with different opinions and interests that, unless properly attended to, would harm the country and the citizens. The Federalists wanted to control the faction rivalries by having a system of representation where the groups would elect representatives. The representatives would then participate in the government and try to move the laws in his/her faction’s interests. The Anti-Federalists believed that the problems could be ameliorated by having a smaller, local government where the people (and factions) would participate more directly in government.
The Federalists’ representation system would ensure that every citizen’s opinion is accounted for while making laws,thereby solving the necessity for the preservation of human nature. To further ensure that those elected do not become corrupt, the Federalists proposed a system of checks and balances. Lastly, to prevent the decay or decline of the country as a result of their government system, they wanted to make sure “enlightened” people were in charge of the country.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, preserved human nature by allowing the people to directly participate in their state’s politics. To protect against the ambitions of the ambitious, the Anti-Federalists had an elected legislative authority, rather than a single person or small group of people, make decisions. This government was relied on the integrity and character of the citizens to protect against the America's decline.
All these problems relate back to the fact that every country has a wide variety of opinions and views that want to have a say in government. However, the government must be able to address these groups of people to prevent violence and irrationality while they try not to alienate a certain portion of the population, allow corrupted people to take charge of the country, or let the country decline.
Many people assume that once the Revolutionary War was over, the country was solidified and unified. As we know, this is wrong. Therefore, it is helpful to review certain key issues such as states' rights, fear of a standing army, and fear of factions. Anti-Federalists argued again and again that a national government was merely a prelude to the establishment of an aristocratic class. Indeed, many Anti-Federalists drew upon the rhetoric of the Revolution to argue against a strong national government. The Federalist conception of human nature as essentially selfish and depraved is also important to note, since Federalists relied on such conceptions to justify their call for a mildly interventionist national government.
On the note of factions, I believe that Federalists (Madison) opposed factions more than Anti-federalists because in Federalist Paper No.10, Federalists were extremely against factions. They feared factions because they believed that factions would destroy the government. The Anti-Federalists on the other had wanted more public opinion and encouraged participation of the citizens. They did not believe in a big powerful, centralized national government, and thus, did not believe in a huge republic, and they did not believe that factions would destroy the republic.
Because Anti-Federalists believed that the people should participate in political activities, they should also encourage factions. Factions are groups of people with a common belief, and if Anti-Federalists believed that the citizen’s opinions should be spoken out, they would encourage factions. A “simple” government encouraged by the Anti-Federalists would include a strong state government. This would result in many little factions under the state government. Also, they supported the supremacy of the legislatures, which means that citizens would be able to influence government easily (easier than a strong national government). Because of supremacy of legislatures, factions would be able to have a say in state government (the more powerful government under Anti-Federalist beliefs).
Federalists, on the other hand, trusted “enlightened officials” and believed in a strong, centralized, national government. This Federalist belief suggests that Federalists thought that factions were a threat to the national government (proved in Federalist Paper No. 10). Because factions have the potential to be contrary to the “enlightened officials’” beliefs, and factions have the potential to create disturbances, Federalists feared them. They did not want the government to be ruled by the public opinion, and thus, they did not want factions to be associated with the government, but since the formation of factions was inevitable, Madison concluded that the only way to sustain the controversy that factions could cause, was to create a republic, with a strong national government, rather than a strong state government.
To comment to Alexa’s post: When you said, “The Federalists’ representation system would ensure that every citizen’s opinion is accounted for while making laws, thereby solving the necessity for the preservation of human nature.” I don’t agree with this fully. My interpretation of the Federalist view on factions is that they did NOT want to ensure that every citizen’s opinion was heard. They wanted to represent the most prominent views of the citizens. Also, I believe that Anti-Federalists were the ones that wanted to ensure that every citizen’s opinion was accounted for, therefore proposing a strong state government, and supremacy of legislatures, creating an opportunity for the public to express their own opinions. (For example, through factions). I do agree with “The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, preserved human nature by allowing the people to directly participate in their state’s politics,” because, as I just mentioned, they wanted the public to get involved with politics, the Anti-Federalist’s views on government allowed for more factions to exist with influential power, when the Federalist’s views on government meant for factions to be suppressed and controlled.
Now, I agree with Alexa’s statement: “…the government must be able to address these groups of people to prevent violence and irrationality while they try not to alienate a certain portion of the population, allow corrupted people to take charge of the country…”, the Federalist’s opposed factions because of fear of ambition, while the Anti-Federalists had faith in the “common good” of man. In my own opinion, Federalists were smarter, while the Anti-Federalists were naïve to realize the harmful effects of a simple government and of rising and ambitious factions (as well as individuals).
Factions definately played a very important role in relation to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists were adamant that a national government be created for multiple reasons. One being that the people could elect a leader and leaders whom they confided in and had a good sense of responsibility. By doing this, they would be preserving human nature. Federalists also believed that a complex government was needed to create an organized a fully functional America. Checks and Balances would ensure the preservation of the three proposed branches of government. Overall, the Federalists had a belief that government should be on a national level. Factions come into play now because factions create disagreement that can tear apart unity or a national government, and at the time of the creation of a nation, (especially after an unprecedented success at creating a democratic republic!) having anything threaten the success of a new nation was turned down by the Federalists. Madison clearly expressed how the average Federalist saw factions to be bad and/or harmful to the Federalist cause and/or belief.
For the Anti-Federalists, they believed that government should be applied on a local level, which would ensure supremacy of the legislature. In this form of localized government, people would play a much more active role in a simple, (non-complex) government. The legislature could preserve the government when needed. This idea of political involvement encouraged the creation of factions. Factions allow a given group of people to share their political, etc. beliefs and ideas with each other, therefore becoming more so politically involved than a Federalist-ly structured government.
Overall, factions related to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist ideas and beliefs because they contributed to each group's idea of how government should be applied: on the national level or the local authority level. Through this, the people would have different amounts of participation level in the government and each group ensured human nature, ambition of the ambitious, (Checks and Balances, Supremacy of the Legislature) and Prevention of decay and/or decline in government.
This era is one of the most important times in American history. What our founding fathers discussed at the time and the documents they created determined whether or not the government would continue to exist and function to provide the basis of a strong nation. Yet, there was turmoil as to how this government would be set up, and the debate was primarily between Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalists believed in a strong central and national government which would be run by enlightened leaders. The people would put their trust within these people and make sure that the checks and balances of the system would create a stable government. They believed in a complex government while anti-federalists believed in a simple form. In relation to factions, Madison (a federalist) believed that they were detrimental to a nation's future. To control these factions, executives would be elected to represent the people, but slightly limited the role society played in the government.
Anti-federalists gave the trust to the American people and put it on them to make sure that their motives were not corrupt. They believed in a government that was run by state power with minimal central government interference. The public had a major role in the government, allowing factions to be a danger to the success of the nation. Giving their trust to the american society was a very dangerous mood because of the greed and corruption of the people.
The two opposing sides allowed for the weaknesses and strengths of both ideas to be shown. Therefore, it was then possible for the plans to be altered to please the ideas of both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Americans came from a time of monarchial rule and heavy taxing and were afraid whether or not they would want to have a strong government ruling over them, while others predicted the downfall of the nation if power was give to the states.
To respond to Amy's comment, I agree with her statement about how Anti-federalists would encourage factions in the government. Because these factions develop once a group of people want to accomplish a common goal, their voices need to be heard in the government and the way of doing so is by following the Anti-federalists. Yet, the federalists opposed this idea entirely and were very afraid of trusting the common people.
In response to what Alexa had said, "The Federalists’ representation system would ensure that every citizen’s opinion is accounted for while making laws,thereby solving the necessity for the preservation of human nature," I believe that although laws did allow for equality amongst americans, they did not provide a voice for the people. The Americans did not have a significant role in the Federalist form of government and definetly did not have a large say in the establishment of laws.
Having not been in class today, I am simply infering the discussion topic based upon your posts, so please bear with me. Madison fully understood the potential factions could have to destroy the government, thus a way to manage the factions was devised.However, two groups emerged with differing opoinions (which actually demonstrates the concept of faction within itself but we won't get into that); the federalists and antifederalists. Federalists stressed the need for a strong centralized government. Thus, it could be controlled by a small "elite" group which protected the general interest. This, however, caused some fear of corruption. Antiferalists believed in a more localized government in which people had direct participation. This, however, was feared to cause too much arguement. This is how federalist and antifederalist viewpoints related to faction.
And on Wilson's quote, I'm sure your all sick and tired hearing me say this but, I'm going to realted it back to the government of today (mostly because I'm sick and tired of it) but I digress. Anyway. Wilson, you are completely correct about the power of factions to destroy a government as we see today. If the hate and strife we see now had existed back in our infancy, our nation would have never survived.
Madison's idea of factions refers to both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists not only because of their ideas, but because they actually WERE factions.
Madison's concept of factions doesn't only play a key role in both the Feds and Anti-Feds approach to solving political problems...when you think about it, his idea of factions directly applies both groups.
I mean, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were political groups who were each united by their own ideology. Isn't that basically what a faction is? By separating themselves into 2 distinct groups, they themselves were defining the purpose of a faction.
Although they disagreed when it came to a complex vs. simple government, checks and balances, and how to preserve human nature, simply by exercising their right to form groups and take sides on these issues shows progress and probably reassured the people of that era that something would eventually get done.
This might sound a little out of the box, but I couldn't help but let that cross my mind when reading the question we're supposed to discuss. And I didn't want to simply re-state what everyone before me said.
Also not being in class today I'm kind of shooting blind but I will write what I know. =) So I think it has been made clear that Federalists would be against factions and Anti-Federalists would be for them.
Madison was a strong Federalist so when he attacked factions in Federalist 10 it proved that it was against the whole Federalist's point of view. The Federalists wanted a strong national government. They wanted structure and a system of Checks and Balances to better balance the power. Obviously then they would be against groups of people with a shared belief, factions, that could disrupt the power of the government. Factions give too much opinion to the people and could be dangerous if those opinions are against those in charge in the national government, the "enlightened" ones. Madison knew factions were unavoidable and that is why he said that to control them was to create a republic.
On the other hand, Anti-Federalists wanted localized power for the states. So therefore, factions would be good for them so the states could listen to the ideas of the people. People could more actively participate in their localized government because there were less of them and because Anti-Federalists believed that they should politically participate.The Anti-Federalists encouraged a simpler government than the Federalists with the power in the state governments and supremacy of the legislatures. In legislatures, the citizens had more say and could make more of a difference than they could in a strong national government.
Clearly, factions related to problems of government for both Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
-STEFANIE SEQUEIRA!
To respond to Alicja's comment: "The two opposing sides allowed for the weaknesses and strengths of both ideas to be shown," I feel that this was a positive outcome of the rivalry between the two groups. By broadcasting their views and highlighting their opponent's weaknesses (much like what occurs during a presidential debate), they were able to give a full, clear picture to everyone who was listening. This allowed the common people to take a side and maybe even come up with a few ideas of their own.
Like what Stephanie recently brought up, an example of this is when Madison wrote The Federalist Papers. His purpose was to defend Federalist views against recent Anti-Federalist attacks. In providing a defense, he SPREAD INFORMATION. And that's what people were desperate for at the time. They had just won a war and started a country, which left them unsure of what the next step would be.
This competition between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists served as a tool to provide information and increase communication.
Wow good point Danielle I totally agree! If we can say Democrats and Republicans are factions, we can certainly say that Federalists and Anti-Federalists are too. But I also think there can be many factions within factions. One elective class may be a faction but inside that class there are cliques. And inside those cliques there are best friends. Follow? So yes I agree that they were. But the factions within them greatly relate to them too.
-STEFANIE =)
To respond to Danielle's comment: "Madison's idea of factions refers to both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists not only because of their ideas, but because they actually WERE factions."
I think that statement that Danielle made was very accurate and gives us an idea "behind-the-scenes," if you will. In a sense, Madison is talking about the Federalists, his own group, but saw what could happen inside of a faction, such as disagreement, turmoil, etc. So I interpreted this, (and Danielle's comment) to show that Madison wanted to warn the public that factions are dangerous, especially coming from someone who was in one, and that they contained the power to threaten the preservation of a new born republic.
The factions that Madison referred to applies to Federalists and Anti-Federalists because they fought about the practicality of factions. While Federalists wanted an elite group of people to govern the country, the anti-federalists wanted to give small local governments power.
The Federalists proposed to have different sections of government to impose the system of checks and balances. This in a way, refers back to Madison, who stated that factions make sure no one group has too much power. However, the Federalists wanted to give the central government more power over the state ones, which was in a way an improvement on the Articles. By not allowing the states too much power, they secured the majority's interest.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, wanted to empower the state governments or just not the central government. They likewise believed that the small governments would check each other, which displays that the two views were not too different. Madison didn't really oppose factions, he basically said that in order for them to work, there had to be others there to keep them in balance. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists were very enthusiastic about the smaller governing forces, even though that did not work with the Articles.
In response to Willson's comment, I agree about the fact that Madison was warning the public about factions. He does not directly say that factions are bad, but he states that there can be various issues that come along with it. The major one that he was probably afraid of was corruption, since it could, like Willson said, destroy the new republic. He is not completely against them, he merely believes that they are slightly impractical. And like Danielle said, he was simply trying to inform the people about the pros and cons of such notions.
As we stated in the last set of posts, a faction, by Madison's definition, is basically a group of citizens, be it a majority or minority, who are united by a common goal or impulse and are adverse to the interest of the rest of the community. Becasue of this definition, the answer to the question of to where factions applies most can be widely interpreted.
It seems to me that when applying the factions to the four problems of government discsussed in class,in a perfect world the Federalist party would not have factions, while the Anti-federalist party would.
In terms of preserving human nature, the federalists theoretically wouldn't need factions becasue they should just have confidence in the people they elected rather organizing their own distinct groups of beliefs. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand are all about personal participation and would therefore have to create factions of their own underneath the powerful state legislature in order for their voices to be heard. The Federalists, who preach a complex government, would have more difficulty getting their factions through both a state and national power, whereas the Anti-Feds need only to be heard by their state legislatures. Also proving that in a perfect world the Federalists would not have any factions is the system of checks and balances and the theory of enlightened self-interest. Checks and balances would theoretically maintain balance between factions, therefore never allowing any faction to be the sole majority and thus get out of hand. The theory of enlightened self-interest only allows those select few to speak on behalf of the whole nation, so numerous voices from varying factions may not always get adequate speaking time to feul their respective factions. And again, the Anti-Federalist government is all about the voice of the people, so factions should be more readily heard.
But once again, this is all only in a perfect world, if these forms of government were carried out flawlessly. In reality, however, I would actually say that the Federalist have a better chance at developing factions because that may be the only way people feel their voice can be heard.
In response to Amy's comment, I disagree that the Federalists did not want the government to be ruled by the public opinion. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists wanted America to survive as a republic, a government of and for the people. I do agree that the Federalists probably didn't want to or could not practically represent every single citizen's views. However, although the Anti-Federalists seemed to be more supportive of factions, I think that the Federalists did want to fairly represent the people, they were just wary of the chaos that would be generated between factions since the couldn't have all citizens directly participate in a national government.
Factions strongly affected both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. While each group can be considered a faction, pointed out by Danielle, I think Madison was pushing the idea that a federal government was necessary for a nation to succeed, but in order to keep people's opinion at the forefront each faction would need to be represented in the government in a controlled fashion. On the other hand Anti-Federalists just believed Factions should have a stronger and more connected influence on their government, which is made easier when your governing body is smaller. This difference in opinion between Federealists and Anti-Federalists is due to their fundamental difference on whether there should be a central government or not.
The factions that madison refers too are embraced in the anti-federalist system. The Anti-Federalists believe that the people need to have the power and that having a smaller government is the answer to making sure that personal rights of the people were protected rather then having people trust in the people that they elect to represent them. This would cause factions to thrive do to the fact that the people would have more say in the government.
Federalists ideal system would allow the people to have a voice in the government through elected officials that they would put their trust in to do the right thing for them. In order to prevent corruption and personal agendas getting in the way of the good of the public they would put checks and balances in place. They would have a much more complicated system. The factions would be controlled through laws that would be created and enforced through "enlightened officials"
I agree with John, that the main difference that drives all of the policies of these two groups is whether or not they support a strong central government. This is the main idea that they center all their other views on. The Anti-Feds seem to almost encourage factions through the idea that everybody should participate in government and putting trust into the people that they will make the right decisions not only for themselves but for the entire country as well. The Federalists would rather have few officials that would have the good of the country in mind while making decisions and to ensure this, they created the system of checks and balances. I also think its worth mentioning that Madison agreed with the Federalist ideas of government not only because he wrote about factions but also because he was one of the most influential people during this time.
I agree with alexa, in that the federalists did in fact want the government to be ruled by public opinion, they just didn't want mass chaos to erupt. And in addition to what Alexa all ready stated, the reason the Federalists can most likely be mistaken for a group that opposes public opinion is because they aim to look beyond one's own personal passions and self-interest, and instead find the ways in which the nation as a whole would be better off. The Federalists were obviously after a government meant to protect public opinion or it would not be based on the idea that the people vote for their delegates and it is through that vote in which their voice is heard.
After James Madison wrote Federalist 10 and submitted it to the Philadelphia Convention, there was much debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Both sides, however, agreed that some problems of government included preserving human nature, the passionate underpinning of human nature, the ambition of the ambitious, and the prevention of decay/decline.
For Federalists, their attempt at preserving human nature was having confidence in the people you elect. For Anti-Federalists, they believed that citizens should participate in the government and everyone be a representation of themselves. In relation to factions, a Federalist view would greater ensure that factions do not have an important role in the government because citizens are elected as representatives.
Dealing with the problem of passionate underpinning of human nature, Federalists wanted to form a complex government with different groups of people controlling different aspects. The Anti-Federalists believed that a simple government would be best because everyday citizens could be aware of what their government was doing, and did not have to understand a complex system that was there to confuse them. Again in relation to factions, the Federalist view does a better job safeguarding against powerful factions, however, an Anti-Federalist simple government would probably be most beneficial.
Concerning ambition of the ambitious, the Federalist system employs the use of a checks and balances system. That is that each branch of government is limited of the their powers by another branch, ensuring that no branch gets too strong. The Anti-Federalist view was that a supremacy of legislatures would be ensuring. With factions, a checks and balances system would prevent factions from interrupting government however, a supremacy of legislatures would be the most direct way, except if the leaders were memebers of factions.
The final problem addressed by both sides is the prevention of decay/decline. The Federalists believed that the Englightened or self-interest population would be best to prevent decline, however the Anti-Federalists felt that citizen character should be enough. Because of that and if the factions were "Enlightened," they would easily affect a Federalist government. Going on citizen character would prevent some factions because it would be against that principle to go against the government.
Both sides did not care for factions and did make attempts to prevent their inclusion in the government, however, the Federalist point of view does a stronger job at preventing the rise of factions.
The Federalists relied heavily on the factions mentioned in Madison's Federalist paper #10. The Federalists' idea of a smoothly run government which preserved human nature and had a passionate understanding of it was one that was complex. This means that there would be different branches, with people from different factions, working together, to check and balance each other out, making sure that one faction does not become too ambitious and undermine another. As for the prevention of decay and decline, the Federalists believed that the people who represented their faction and got elected into office should be enlightened, that way they would know what to do when it came down to a tough decision.
The Anti-Federalist, on the other hand, wanted a passionate understanding of human nature, by reaching out to the people more directly. The Anti-Federalists wanted the people to play a more active role in the government by voting on laws themselves. Instead of having someone else represent the people in a very broad sense, the Anti-Federalists figured that it was better for people to do so themselves, that way, US laws will be more fit to their liking. This eliminates a lot of the factions' power, since factions are there to make decisions collectively for the people. Hopefully, the citizens ratifying the laws of the state government aren't stupid and would make laws that are actually effective.
I agree with Danielle when she said that by separating into Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the people at the Constitutional Convention were actually forming factions. Since each group's ideology basically contradicted the other's, both groups knew that only one group's ideas would prevail. Think about it. Complex government is the opposite of a simple government as enlightened people are the opposite of common people. It is very unlikely that both groups' ideas would be able to coexist.
I like Danielle's viewpoint because it makes you wonder if the Federalists and Anti-Federalists thought the same. Both groups had very strong opinions, and wanted many people to agree with them. That way, their ideas would make it into the Constitution. By forming their own factions, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were essentially doing what they were against. This proves that factions are a necessary evil. Both the Feds and Anti-Feds wanted a way for government to limit its power, but factions, as Madison understood it, were a way for people to gain power. Power, was exactly what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists needed in order to get their ideas into the Constitution.
Madison claimed that factions were "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” which translates into groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their specific economic or political interests which may not be beneficial to the community as a whole. At the time, factions were threatening political stability , and so were a concern for all people, supporters and opponents of the Constitution thus Federalists and Anti-federalists.
The Federalists believed that faction rivalries could be controlled by having a system of representation where the groups would elect representatives. So essentially the common person had confidence in the person they elected would support their views and interests. The Anti-Federalists believed in the common person taking a more direct role in government. By having stronger provincial governments where the people would directly influence the government.
Factions as Madison claimed , were an inevitable result of human nature. As long as men had differing opinions, wealth, and property factions would continue to exist, as men sharing similar experiences tend to bind together. Thus both Federalists and Anti-Federalists had to have a way of dealing with factions. The government of our new nations was supposed to protect the rights of all its citizens, but what it is not possible to keep everyone happy! So the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had to seek ways to solve this dilemma.
I definitely agree that both Federalists and Anti-Federalists wanted to get their ideas to the Constitution. But I don’t think they “thought the same”. Federalists wanted the new nation to have strong national government, while Anti-Federalists wanted a strong a government that allotted greater power to the states. But the fact that Federalists and Anti-Federalists method of acquiring influence in the say of what was happening politically in the new nation was to form factions, the very thing that they were trying to quell is rather intriguing. I don’t think there is any other way to get ones’ ideas into action. Factions are an effective and almost natural method of change.
Before the revolution began, during the revolution, and afterward people disagreed on politics. This disagreement was inevitable and was shown in the idea of factions. However those building our government (in this case the federalists) had the foresight of knowing these factions should be controlled. One way of counteracting this was by building a strong, central, national government. This new type of government would allow people to be represented, and also for politicians to be held accountable. Beyond impeachment rights a system of checks and balances was created to control those in power (or so we think) all the time.
On the flipside you have the anti-federalists who opposed the idea of one central government. They wanted the states to remain in authority because they felt it would allow the people most representation. This more provincial government would also manage to quell the power of factions.
In response to Alan's post, I agree that the Federalist idea of having a national government was a major improvement to the Articles. While under the Articles, Congress was extremely limited in what they could accomplish. The increased power to the central government allowed for much more to be done in this regard. This goes along with factions in the government, because it was also somewhat of an answer to the problem they posed. A strong central government with many checks and balances could potentially prevent the destruction Madison feared.
There is always more than one way to look at any event. This statement was still just as true in the early days of our country as it is today. And, as always, both sides of the argument unified in order to better focus their efforts. This resulted in the creation of the first two political parties, something that Madison strongly opposed in Federalist #10.
In terms of the best way to control these parties both sides, suprisingly, had different ideas. The Federalists believed that an executive branch of government and a legislative branch would create checks and balnces. These would, in turn, stop any one group from having too much power. On the other hand the anti-federalists felt that because a state goverrnment was more directly run by the people corruption woul be far more rare.
I agree with Danielle's idea that both the federalists and anti-federalists can be seen as factions. I also agree with Stefanie that inside of these factions were even more speacialized factions devoted to a more specific cause. In reality since every single person thinks differently every single person can be seen as a unique faction. On a different note does anyone else find it ironic that in order for Madison's ideas to be passed he relied on the creation of something he so obviously opposed?
The governmental problems we discussed yesterday facing the newborn America were how we preserve human nature, factions being an irrefutable element of human nature, how do we control the inevitable passion stemming from human nature from getting out of hand (factions!!!), how do we stifle the less-than-beneficent motives of the "ambitious" (factions usually being seen as having ulterior motives), and the prevention of the outright decay of the nation itself, which Madison declared would be inevitable if factions were allowed to run amok. the federalists relied on having the utmost confidence in one's elected officials (perhaps electing those of a higher academic class than yourself), a complex and bureaucratic governmental system along with checks and balance to deal with the whole "passion" issue (passion being at the root of factions), and what we termed enlightened self-interest, resulting form the obvious conclusion that not all Americans are solely magnanimous beings, but rather looking out for themselves first and foremost. The anti-federalists figured that participation directly by the people would avoid the corruption and the bureaucratic red tape that a republic might require. Participation may get a more direct voice regarding the wants of the people, and if those wants were being met, perhaps factions would not form as readily. Simpler government, the anti-feds thought, was the way to go. The anti-feds also advocated “supremacy of legislatures” or one all powerful elected body rather than three separate entities that would balance each other. The one legislature would, in theory be in more of an agreement and progress could be more easily made. Citizens’ character was also a cornerstone of anti-federalist policy. If the citizens looked out for the general welfare, factions would not be necessary to call attention to individual needs.
i agree with evan when he says that the antifeds relied on citixen character to quell factions. to "complain" on one's own behalf would take away from the common welfare, and would be "unethical". However, enlightenment, i feel, was not enough to go by. I agree when evan says that while neither government promoted factions, the federalists present a stronger argument in regards to their prevention.
Like J Barnes i agree with Kwok on this one. Our nation was truly handcuffed by the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists clearly knew this and used the previous failures as a means of basis for our current government. Checks and balances were implemented as a way of limiting factions and have thus far been successful. Like danielle said federalists and anti-feds are both factions so Madison did a successful job at limiting his own power.
The factions that Madison referred to in Federalist 10, where those of dissention, violence, and in his view were overall detrimental to the new government. The Federalists wanted to give most of the power to a strong national government; by doing so, the government is able to control factions from rising up within the states. By encouraging confidence in the people elected, the government basically eliminates the need for factions to arise out of controversy on a particular issue. By having a complex government with more branches and checks and balances, Federalists are separating people in the government (to create branches). Although these were not spontaneously created factions, I think the Federalists felt “safer” with these factions because they were within the government and could be “controlled” to work for the greater good. Again, by only putting trust in “enlightened” individuals, the Federalists are basically telling the people to “keep out” of politics and therefore control factions by discouraging participation.
The Anti-Federalists have a different approach to controlling government. They encourage all citizens to participate in government. Even though this could lead to the creations of factions, so many would be created that the domination and overall effect of these multiple factions is little. The Anti-Federalists supported small state governments as opposed to a larger, stronger national government. I think that this supports factions on a state level and leads to separation and not unity of the country. The Anti-Federalists agree with the supremacy of legislatures instead of checks and balances, I think this would encourage the domination of one faction or one party. And again, the trust in the virtue of the citizens and citizen character would lead to so many factions that they would have little effect.
Formation of factions was a critical factor to consider how to prevent when the Federalists and Anti- Federalists were trying to form a government as stable, fair, and effective as possible.
The Federalists took several measures to prevent factions from forming. They argued that a centralization of power would, in turn, assure citizens of liberty since it would discourage factions. The government would always be busy and efficient leaving factions without time to conspire to do harmful things. A complex government would also prevent factions through a system of checks and balances. No single faction would be able to acquire enough power to aggregate a majority. Also, since diversity is always present, there would be too many ideas for any one faction to accumulate much power.
The Anti-Federalists incorporated certain ideas to their government system to ensure factions would be discouraged. They argued that the country would not be prone to factions with a small government since there would be little diversity. Each individual state would have more power and be able to suit the people’s needs. Additionally, in order to prevent ambition, legislatures would have supremacy. Also, since citizens would participate and be virtuous, factions would not be able to violate citizens’ natural rights.
In response to Rachel's comment; I agree with your statements about factions not being able to form in government both with a Federalist and nonFedearlist type government. But I think that factions are not only prone to appearing in government but also outisde of government. Both of these types of factions would be harmful or beneficial depending on their goals. But I think that there's greater oppurtunity of factions in the people (the citizens) than the government itself. (Although factions do come up in government; like the different parties: ex, Democrats and Republicans).
The factions Madison referred to applied to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in that the federalists and anti federalists were factions, therefore would have different views on some particular subject. In class we covered four major topics including preserving human nature, the passionate underpinning of human nature, ambition of the ambitious, and the prevention of decay.
The federalist approach of dealing with these problems was a more complex system of government unlike the antifederalists who wanted a simple government. The Federalists preffered to have confidence in people elected, whereas the antifederalists wanted everybody to participate in government. They also had different views on ambition and prevention of decay. This is what federalist 10 addresses - that you can't control what peoples' views on certain topics are.
I have to disagree with Rachel's comment. "The Anti-Federalists incorporated certain ideas to their government system to ensure factions would be discouraged." I don't that the Anti Federalists wanted to discourage factions in the sense that each of the states themselves could be considered faction since they won't always agree with each other.
In response to Ritu and Joanna’s comments, I think that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists did “think the same” to some degree. They were both passionate and persuasive in their opinions. They also had a common fear and ultimate goal. Factional majorities had to be discouraged in the government’s fundamental structure in order to prevent a corrupt society. Both sides recognized several issues that needed to be dealt with:
Natural rights had to be preserved. Human tendency to let passion and ambition override rational thought and the public’s best interest had to be curbed. The future, additionally, had to be considered.
It is in their methods of achieving these goals that their ideas differed rather than their thinking entirely.
Well i was absent but I'll give a brief summary of my understanding.
The factions, as identified by Madision, would be handeled differently by the federalist and anti-federalist governments.
The federalists aimed to control the effects of factions by using checks and balances.
The anti-federalists decided that factions could be useful in checking the central government and representing the rights of the people.
In response to Dharik's latest comment: I completely agree that the states themselves can be considered a form of faction.
After all, they represented and lobbied for the best interests of the people who lived in a common geographic localization and shared similar economic and social standards and interests.
Well, a faction is any group of people that are passionate about advocating some idea, though contrary to what the government has put in place already.
So, Federalists believe in strong national-central government. In Madison's Federalist paper No. 10, he talks about how the only way to diminish the affect of factions is to have many of them so that they all can counteract and minimize the affects of each other. The Federalists' government plan would do this because by having one centralized government, each state would chose representatives to serve in this government, and each state's different motives (creating factions) would be expressed in this government. So all the conversations of the individual factions in the nation would come up where the government can control it and keep and eye on its affects.
This though, is different than how the Anit-Federalists decided, under their government plan, to deal with factions. They believe in stronger state legislatures and a very weak national government, if any. So, if any factions appear that may harm the state, the most ambitious of the ambitious, it is controlled by having multiple legislatures run the state and put their foot down when necessary.
In response to Rachel's last comment, I agree with the idea that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists might have had the same ultimate fear: destruction and deterioration of their government. Though, in my opinion, the Federalists were also more concerned with the dissolution of the union that is still in its infancy stage. Anti-Federalists were more concerned with their own jobs as state legislatures and wanted to make sure that the state government would still exist, and with power. This contrast between an almost selfish, looking-more-towards-the-past thought could provide different goals than the Federalists' all-for-one, futuristic plan.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists did have varying goals that depended on their mind set, which would explain why how factions would be avoided would vary so much.
After reading Katie's blog, I feel that she is pointing out a clear example of why the anti-federalist system controls factions more than the federalist. As stated earlier, both types of governments rely on putting trust into people. On the Federalist side, you are electing representatives to present your ideas, while Anti-Federalists believe only citizens should participate in government. I do disagree with a point brought up by Katie earlier and that is having a federalist government would be safer in controlling factions. Just because you have safeguards in place, doesn't mean that powerful factions won't be controlling the government. Take a look at today!
Post a Comment