Hello there, for your reading you will write a one page response to the following questions:
1. What did Madison mean by 'factions'? In what ways are factions present today?
2. In Federalist 51, what did Madison present as the most efficient way of governing the nation? How did his way address his thesis in No. 10?
Additionally, you will be required to write at least three solid comments on the blog over the course of the next week, either stating some observations you made while writing your response, reading the documents, or responding to a classmate's comment. Of course appropriate grammar is expected and respect your fellow classmates! Have fun...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
75 comments:
Ok. Lets start the first conversation!
Madison argues in Federalist Paper number 10, that factions, if powerful enough, will break apart republics, and that destroying liberty and/or ensuring that every citizen will have the same opinions would be the only ways to cure the effects of a faction. He then disproves both of his ideas: a homogenous opinion pool is unpractical and the destruction of liberty is unwise. Do you believe that powerful factions today, have destroyed, or have the potential to destroy the republic that the Founding Fathers have created, or do you think that factions help the assist the formation of a more developed nation?
In my opinion, factions and different points of view have strengthened our country. Look at our 200-year (plus) history. We're a strong nation with equal rights for all (pretty much). We've survived many differences of opinion, including a nearly disastrous civil war. I believe that differences of opinion create new possibilities and keep a balance. Without different opinions, there would be no conflict, and sometimes, conflict will lead to a greater compromise (the Great compromise, or any political compromise for that matter). Madison was smart to realize that factions, if they got powerful enough, could rule the government. As we witness today, there are so many different factions today, too weak for them to become very powerful, all with different opinions on different issues, these opinions are good because it forces everyone to be more than just one-sided. Because there are so many different small factions, I believe that more issues are addressed, but if these small factions become large factions, I agree with Madison, and that the factions have the potential to harm or take over the government, as we know it.
Hey guys! Nice, thought-provoking question Amy, and my response...
I agree with Amy about how factions have actually strengthened our republic. For instance, if it weren't for the feminist, "rebellious" factions that have developed over the course of history, women wouldn't have had the right to own property, vote, have serious careers and equal pay (for the most part) or any other rights we have today. I think the idea that a faction can destroy a republic in current times is a bit far fetched though. It's not like this feminist movement will lead to an eventual overthrow of the republic and turn it into some kind of woman dictatorship. Seriously, if we can't even get a female's name on the ballot as presidential nominee, than I don't see some "Adolfa Hitler" in America's future.
Also, as Amy pointed out, the different factions force us to have differences of opinions, not to be narrow-minded, which ultimately brought us from the Puritan's strict non-diverse government and culture to today's more liberal and diverse society.
Marianne brings up a good point with the feminist groups. One can see, that feminist movements are only a fraction of the picture. My thesis is that if enough factions are present, the focus will be on balance, and if factions are suppressed, then the remaining become powerful, and the republic will become very oppressive. Some may be wondering what balance does the nation need? The balance I am referring to is the same balance that Madison thought was in jeopardy due to powerful factions. Balance is created from the factions that lobby issues that are opposite from lobbied issues of another faction. It is clear that factions are an agent of change, however, it is unclear whether one issue is strictly bad, or strictly good, it is all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, I believe that the strictly bad and the strictly good factions cancel each other out. I have come to believe that there is some merit to this argument, and it of course, is traced back to the Founding Fathers, especially Madison’s view of factions expressed in Federalist Paper Essay No. 10.
To add onto what Marianne said about the feminist groups, many people at that time thought it was an obscure ideal that females were able to function and think the same way as males. Because of the feminist faction’s avocation some people who originally thought females were uncapable, realized that they were wrong and that females deserve equality. This also achieved balance. What I mean by this is that now that the females have the same rights as males, there is a balance between the males and females. Because there are many different factions present, females (radical feminist groups) will not be able to completely take over, and tip the balance.
Some other examples of factions that tried to achieve or tip balance are: The Moral Majority, the Weathermen, the rise of a military-industrial complex, and the faction that has been promoting the War on Drugs.
One great example of this theory of balance I keep mentioning is the Moral Majority, a group of radical Christian conservatists created this faction to help conservative politicians get elected. This group opposes abortion, state recognition and acceptance of homosexual couples, they want to enforce of a traditional vision of family life, and believe in censorship of media outlets that encourage an 'anti-family' lifestyle. Some people might agree with their beliefs while others believe that this faction suppresses freedom.
This also brings up the present controversy many people are familiar with: Pro-choice vs. Pro-life. Just like the feminist faction, the idea of Pro-choice is a fairly new one, and dubbed as very liberal. Pro-life is proportional to the male dominance as Pro-choice is proportional to the female rise. Pro-choice and Pro-life is now very equal in opinion in the United States. This example is very useful because is illustrates that because these two opinions are so separated, one belief will not overcome another belief. The United States will not be either radically Pro-choice, or radically Pro-life, just as females are unable to dominate males and males are unable to dominate females. Is one opinion better than another? Who is one to judge? No one; that is why there is balance, and the republic is not at risk.
So while I was reading Federalist Paper No. 10, I got the vibe that factions in Madison's defination were groups of people who gather together and promote thier views on economics and politics. Also, factions are at odds with each other, frequently working AGAINST the public interests, violating the rights of others. Madison's sees factions in a negative light, clamiming that at the time everyone, both supporters and opponents of the plan, were concerned with the political instability produced by rival factions. Yet, today we know factions such as the feminist groups and those against racial discrimination to be a positive change brought to our country, changes that our country prides itself on. Do you think Madison overlooked the possiblity of factions that actually bring good to our country?
After reading the Federalist Papers #10, I thought that Madison acknowledged that factions could have both good and bad effects on the country. I think that the definition he gave of factions is what they are normally perceived to be but he pointed out that the formation of factions are not only inevitable but also necessary to ensure the security of citizens' rights. Violence between groups can be avoided by electing representatives who have the public good at heart and by having a variety of opinions being represented, there can be a compromise among parties. Additionally, by using a representative system, the rights of the citizens aren't infringed upon and it would not be as easy for a majority opinion to oppress a minority view. I believe Madison basically did not want different groups of citizens using violence to protect their own interests but to elect representatives so that both their interests and the interests of the country are protected.
In reading #10 I discovered many interesting things. Madison states that the best way to protect the rights and interests of the people is by representative government so no party stifles the other and the warring factions can both have their interests protected. This bipartisan representative government should in turn make all happy and work together for the common good. However, it is my belief that Madison would be very displeased with how this government ended up. Factions are only really conducive to growth when they eventually put aside their differences and compromise for the common good. Today, or government is at war and lost sight of that. There is too much hate on both sides for any kind of healthy growth at all. Madison would most likely be unhappy with how it all turned out.
Madison's condemnation of factions struck me as surprising. While a strong central government was obviously a priority for the fledgling nation, these "plagues" that needed to "be cured" seemed to me a lot like the very cause of our beloved patriots. Didn't the patriots have their own political and economic interests at heart when initiating the revolution? Surely breaking away from the mother country wasn't a purely altruistic act on the colonists part. How would that benefit England, the obvious majority? I was a little surprised to here such vehement aversion to a political minority coming from a founding father.
I'm reading Madison's federalist paper (No. 10) and I'm not done, but the first thing that jumped out at me kind of surprised me...Madison seemed very much in favor of a single party. In other words, no republicans or democrats, just a single, bipartisan party that would regulate the democratic America. In answer to Amy's question, I believe that factions are too powerful and have the power to destroy the republic created by our founding fathers. Think about it, the founding fathers' intention was to create a unified country, but I see society divided: the republicans and democrats. Being able to agree on something, especially in today's world, seems miraculous, right? If Americans are divided and the factions negatively influence society...where are we going to be further down the road? (Politically speaking, today's youth is primarily democratic. So twenty years from now when they are the main voters, will there be a republican party?)
In a sense, the factions are destroying themselves from the inside... or should I say the men inside the factions are destroying themselves. Madison noted that man was very egotistical and had lots of self-love/interest that would cancel out his opinions and that of other men. This quote exemplifies my thought: "As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other..."
Opposite of what Amy and Marianne believe, I think factions have somewhat been a weakening point to our country...to a certain degree. (They did help us as well). I believe they hindered us because self-interest was too dominant among many politicians in the past, and it sometimes got way out of hand. Greedy men have caused corruption and hate betweens party, and never even thought of the public-interest...Take Wall St. vs. Main St. (the current economic crisis) That shows how greedy men who all have a higher social level than others (meaning more power...) have been accused for corrupting Main St. On the other hand, the two different factions have also strengthened America over time. Having one giant party, in my opinion, would not work...clahing political, religious, cultural, economical, etc. ideas in one party just would simply fail. It is always good to have a "mix-up" of ideas in the WHite House. Also, the different factions provides Americans with a choice: something under freedom we all should be entitled to. In the long run, two different factions is necessary to keep different ideas flowing.
As well, Madison talks about how certain sentiments caused a division among society. Of course America is "built on diversity..." The only true 'Americans' were the Natives way back in the day...So the whole idea of diversity means culture-culture clash. In certain cultures, abortion is frowned upon, in others, its not. Same with same-sex marriage/rights. These ideas are the very ones that Madison noted that tear society into two different parties.
I think overall I was surprised, (just like most everyone else who posted this far) that one of our founding fathers has a differentiated opinion...however, this opinion is what America needed to get moving; the key to start the car. As well, I found it interesting that Madison seemed against town hall councils/meetings claiming that they ruined the ideal forms of government and were a source of injustice, instability, and confusion...I remember in class how we learned how important town meetings were...they were the one place people could gather, (in secrecy sometimes) to plan for the future of out country today.
So I have one question for everyone: Do you think that one giant political party today would destroy America based on Madison's ideology of factions?
Ryan
I think that single governing political party would fail miserably and bring America down both based on Madison's theories and my own opinions. Its impossible to protect every citizen's rights if only one group of people is in power. If that were the case, then that party would only look out for a certain portion of the population, presumably the portion that the party's members are a part of. However, the rest of the nation wouldn't be able to voice their indignation because there is only one political party whose power is not being challenged.
Madison even said "the increased variety of parties, comprised within the union, encrease this security." Although I don't think encrease is a word and I don't think Madison really liked the idea of warring factions, he acknowledges that a greater number of parties would be better for the country since the groups compete against each other to be the party that protects everyone's rights and be the best party for the nation. This way, it also "guards one part of society against the injustice of the other part," since a variety of view and interests are being represented. In the Federalist papers 51, he proposes to further secure the functionality of such a government by splitting it into branches (the executive, legislative and judicial.) In conclusion, I think that Madison's ideology definitely favors a multi-party government and fears a single party government.
In response to Ryan's question about one gigantic political party, Madison asserts in Federatlist Paper # 51 that it not only important to guard against the oppression of rulers, but also against the injustice that may be inflicted by certain groups of citizens, also known as factions. He reiterates what he said in Federalist Paper # 10, about the threat a majority presents a minority, claiming that there are only two ways of avoiding evil. The first “solution” Madison presents, is to form a powerful government based on “community will”. But, such a solution he invalidates would risk the government of putting their power behind a group that wills against the public good. Instead in the proposed form of government society is divided into many groups of people who hold different opinions. This makes it difficult for one large group, like Ryan said to dominate over the minority. Instead there is a balance in the government, a continuous system of checks and balances.
In response to Ryan (Raisin) Wilson's confusion about Madison's condemnation of town meetings:
We learned in class about how important they were in regards to unifying the colonists against England, the authority. Once the colonists were governing themselves town meetings became dangerous to the still developing and fragile government because they are, essentially, a way to maximize dissent and organize rebellious ideas.
A civil war was a definate possibility because of the numerous difficulties involved with setting up the first large-scale rebuplic, and all town meetings could serve to do was make civil war an even bigger threat.
On a new note...
Did anyone notice how much Madison drew from theories of social and political Darwinism in Articles 10 and 51? I thought it was (semi) interesting how his theories about stronger factions beating down the weaker ones and assuming power, as well as his theories on educated leaders vs. the common people, were almost a paraphrase of the packet on social Darwinism we read last year in MEH. (What Madison says about educated leaders vs. commoners I'm thinking was also influenced by Socrates, but I could be wrong and I don't know if it's relevant..?)
I just read back over the previous comments, and I am surprised at how many of you were surprised by Madison's opinion on factions. The phrase "America is built on conflict" does not mean that we didn't argue about anything until the founding of the Republican and Democratic parties, it goes back farther than that. It makes perfect sense that the existence of political parties would also be a subject for argument. (Also bear in mind that Madison's opinions change eventually, and from the Hamilton/Madison alliance morphs the Jefferson/Madison vs. Hamilton thing. So Madison ends up being a nice, idealist, founding father after all.)
OH. I forgot to ask this at the end of my comment and there's no edit button.
Do we write our essays right here, mixed in with the comments?
Also, why is this blog in a different time zone...
Federalist Paper #51 definately answered some of my questions I've always had about government. I think that the purpose of it was to explain why checks and balances and independence are necessary to regulate a successful government. As well, Madison believed that each "department" (today - branch) of government should not involve itself in the appointment of members...meaning, the public should have a fair say of who will represent them/vote for the right person. However, this is what I found really interesting: Madison believed that the people should elect a member based on their beliefs, and through NO COMMUNICATION. Today, isn't communication a major part of who we vote for? It just shows how technology can influence society. Basically, Madison wanted people to vote based on THEIR thoughts, no what others believed...but peer pressure takes a toll. Paris Hilton convinced all of her young (voting age) followers to not vote for McCain because he is a "white wrinkly old man." Overall, I believe it is ironic that Madison had that belief because today it seems society does the opposite...I guess we'll know on Novemeber 4/5th.
As I was reading, I found a statement I was unclear about; maybe someone can clarify for me - "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Madison explains it somewhat afterwards, but I think I'm missing the point.
More irony...Madison stated, "But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary." I interpreted this as Madison acknowledging the fact that not all politicians are "angels"...and we all know that. Also, if politicians were the greatest reflection of human nature, than human nature must be pretty dumb. In my personal opinion, the politicians aren't reflecting the greatest human nature...even though they should.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on Madison's idea of independence. In my opinion, this was Madison's strongest point because independence is the key to success. (I guess I REALLY like current events but...) Sarah Palin acknowledges that energy independence will benefit our economy...but this isn't a Gov't and Politics blog so...
Ultimately, Federalist Paper #51 was a like a blue-print on setting up a successful governmental structure, which would include: checks and balances, independence, the right to vote (based on one's own beliefs), and certain rights society is entitled to under liberty.
One question: Do you think that much of Madison's ideas are still present in our government structure today?
I think that an interesting aspect of Madison's ideas is that, unlike previous governments which have tried to silence and put an end to all groups that had dissenting opinions or ideas, Madison proposes to allow a variety of factions and opinions to grow and balance each other. All prospering countries (at the time) were monarchies where the ruler(s) often killed or punished any persons or organization that voiced ideas contrary to the traditional ones. However, Madison realizes that forcibly disposing of such groups would only further divide the already fragile America and that a republic is supposed to be a government of the people. Since he realizes that its impossible to rid the country of differing opinions and interests, Madison states that the more factions and groups, the better which is in its own way, revolutionary.
Ryan, there are definitely some examples of Madisonian thought in today's society. His checks and balances system, while i'm not sure if he was the originator of the idea, plays a huge role in our government's foundation. The "insulation" of supreme court judges from outside influence and their failure to be elected by the people themselves, along with them being unaffiliated with a political party echoes plainly the views of Madison. Finally, he seems to condemn above all else the ablolishment of libery, which a majority of us today would undeniably agree with, meanwhile holding a homogenous society is an impractical ideal. However, it is still an ideal. The problem I had with Madison was that it is inevitable for man to disagree, therefore with this homogenous society of agreement and cookie cutter ideas of "right" and "wrong", views must be being stifled somewhere along the line. Just because it is a majority's opinion, does not make it the best solution to a problem, and certainly doesn't make it right. More often then we'd like to remember, the majority has been a view-supressing, overbearing, brain-washing monster. On the same note, just because a political minority speaks out to defend their own rights, it does not make them anarchists. Whle i am certainly not supporting terrorists or irrational hate groups, I believe that many different political ideas being represented does not split the nation apart, it simply allows more voices to be heard and helps us to each a have a more open mind. Madison may have held some similar views with me, however, when he concedes that allowing more factions is beter, he sees it only as a "second best" solution.
In response to Ryan's question, i looked back at Federalist paper 10 and at the idea of factions.
Madison talks about factions having the power to break apart the nation. He is concerned that the factions will not have the best interests of the people in mind, but fight for things that would benefit themselves personally, thus leading to corruption.
When the government was created, it was not intended to be a two party government with just Republicans and Democrats. Realizing that not everybody would be completely satisfied, it was supposed to encompass the ideas of all of the people into a compromise that the majority of the people would be happy with. It was as Madison says not supposed to be, " a division of the society into different interests and parties."
I think that is what we have mainly become. Rarely do you hear of a person who doesn't characterize themselves as either a Democrat or a Republican, and the art of compromising seems to have been lost. The parties do not see eye to eye on many issues and it seems as though, especially in this election year, whoever wins will do their best ensue the agenda of their political party without consideration of the other people's beliefs. Maybe this is because they are so radically different, but if the founding fathers were able to compromise on something as big of an issue as slavery, shouldn't we be able to compromise too?
Many people have already commented on this topic, but once again I’m bringing up the question of factions based on Federalist Paper #10. I must agree with Amy and Marianne over Ryan, because I see factions (or at least Madison's definition of them) as an absolute imperative component of our government. To be honest, I am utterly confused as to how factions could be seen as a negative in any way, shape, or form. Imagine a government without factions; would it not be essentially a perfect "utopia" where everyone believes the same thing and holds the same opinions? Difference of opinion and the ability to voice that difference within a community is what makes our country so strong and dynamic. Also, i find that having different outlets for different opinions allows a person to formulate their own ideas (hearing opposing sides allows one to contrast their own beliefs).
After reading Federalist Paper #10, I'm still left wondering what exact idea Madison was trying to get across. I'm confused as to whether he was truly condemning factions or simply stating the reasons that they could not be condemned....
I guess we can compromise to a certain extent...but factions are still going to exist. Factions, Madison claimed , were an inevitable result of human nature. As long as men had differing opinions, wealth, and property, factions are going to continue to exist, as men sharing similar experiences tend to bind together. This can be seen at the high school level, where members of a sport or club tend to stick together, because of the bonding they experienced via the sport or club. So while we are not going to have the football team overthrowing order in our school, we can see that people tend befriend and hang out with people they can relate to. Madison used this human tendency and the fact that there will always be some people who possess greater ability and talent who thus possess more property than those who do not have the same talent in business, to predict that the government can not run from the formation of factions, thus we can not have one compromising faction. (i definitey see the social darwinim julie was talking about!)
First of all, I realized that by tomorrow morning there will be about 75 comments on this blog...... (This will be a long night)
Secondly, I have a comment in reply to Mr. Wilson's assertion about checks and balances being the best safeguard against tyranny.
Let's take a look at the parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. This sort of democracy does not posses the checks and balances between executive and legislative branches that we do. Often, the head of government (prime minister) and the legislature are of the same party, resulting in more cooperation and tangible results. Parliamentary democracy systems are in many ways better than our system, because policies are almost always passed without the red tape of a check and balance system.
True enough, this allows for the possibility of irresponsible policies to be passed. However, next election if the people are unhappy, a new legislative and prime minister combination will be elected, thus preventing much damage.
The reason why this lack of check and balance is better is because things actually get done. And even if a certain policy takes the country a step back, ten other policies will carry the country forward. Our check and balance system simply induces gridlock and prevents things from getting done in our government.
Returning to Ryan's comment regarding a single branch of government. Ryan, we have governments like that and we commonly refer to them as dictatorships. Without other branches in place to keep the others in check, corruption would most certainly follow indefinitely. Therefore, it is important to delegate power so as to not give too much to a single group. Whenever a small group is given too much power, human nature takes over and all hell could potentially break loose.
Also, in 51, Madison's idea of checks and balances is brilliant. It insures that election by general will would actually work instead of just floundering under power mad men. This system allows everyone's voice to be heard and aids in more rational decision making on the whole. It was precisely what. America needed inn its fledgling years and still remains today.
Well i joined in a little late here and wanted to throw another question out for discussion. Throughout reading number ten I pondered which men from the Enlightenment played a part in the essay. One person who I believe clearly influenced the mind of Madison was Thomas Hobbes. I say that because he preached a strong central government and it seems as though Madison agrees.
Let me know if you agree/disagree and see any other influences.
Ritu, the way you related factions from "Number 10" to social groups in high school was genius. It definitely makes sense that people who can relate to each other will stick together. Another way of looking at factions is that when a group of people have a common enemy, say, students who band against an unfair teacher, will unite. I think he's saying that whenever people can agree to have a conflict with someone/something/some idea that is outside of the faction, the faction itself grows stronger.
on another note, i really like how Madison says "Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires." he's saying that what fuels a faction is something that cannot be removed. similar to air, liberty is absolutely necessary to live and survive.
In response to Ritu and K-Dubbs:
Ritu, you are absolutely correct that factions will always exist. The question is, how do we prevent the powerful ones from controlling government?
Madison asserted that factions are only dangerous when in a majority.
Sadly, he was mistaken.
Lobbyist groups do not represent the majority of the people at all, yet they posses an unimaginable amount of power and influence over the political process.
Madison said undermining the causes of factions will either be impractical or immoral, and that we can only control the effects of factions.
Unfortunately, that strategy has evidently not worked. We still have lobbyist groups, and we still have the two largest factions of all.... The Democratic and Republican Parties.
Kyle, this where my response to you comes in. As my previous post mentioned, the check and balance system tends to be bureaucraticly inefficent.
So again we ask ourselves what can the solution be? How do we prevent factions from taking control of the government? And how do we prevent the check and balance system from producing a lazy and inefficent government?
The answer lies at the root of the problem. We need to find a way that prevents factions (like the Democratic and Republican parties) from gaining too much power.
I see one solution:
We need to completely revise our inefficient, gridlocked, and faction infested government.
We need a single governmental force that works for the benefit of the people, uninfluenced by corruption and faction influence.
Naturally, I should be at the head of such a government.
like chris, i also joined the conversation late. it's a long story about forgetting my password and having to set up a new account...but i'm not gonna get into that.
chris i agree with your hobbes comment, yet i disagree too, if that makes any sense. i agree because thomas hobbes may have had the common belief that the government should be stong and stable, and Madison says that protection of the diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate is government's top priority. Hobbes also said that individuals should yield to the government for the sake of protection. I disagree with your statement because Hobbes stated that in times of rebellion, the sovereign power must take eliminate the separation of powers, and that goes against Madison's desire for a balance of power.
oh and Alex the Almighty, you would want to be the head of such a government.
Danielle your statement makes perfect sense to me. And actually intrigued me to do some research on this. It says that even though they disagree on this specfic essay Madison based lots of his work on Montesquiue. For this article specificially it says that David Hume was a large inspiration. Interesting how our forefathers just copied everyone.
Alex, I must praise you for your interesting and though-provoking take on the checks-and-balances system. Upon reading Federalist Paper #51, my immediate reaction was that the system is an obvious necessity to ensure the safety and security of a well-balanced an equal government. How could a government prevent corruption without each branch controlling one another and therefore in essence be controlling themselves? But, upon reading your thoughts and examples of how a checks-and-balances system may not be necessary, found myself second-guessing the fundamental system I had always thought necessary.
However, I in no way agree with your most recent comment, for I see no other way to build and maintain a solid, liberated government than to have differing beliefs from various factions.
I agree that factions are beneficial for today’s society. Diversity is necessary in order for the country to change and grow. However, it is important to think of the Federalist Papers in context with the time period. The late 1780s was a critical part of our country’s history because we were so prone to failure. Madison was afraid. He was afraid human nature would take over, and a republic would be lost. He was mainly worried about stability, whereas nowadays we are not.
interesting point, rachel. however i feel that a nation never ceases to crave stability. especially now, all we keep hearing about in the media is the "turmoil on wall street and on main street." there are even more things to be feeling unstable about these days, in my opinion. we have advanced astronomically, which has increased the number of factors that can threaten our stability. high taxes, a financially-draining war, and lack of faith in the government are just as apparent now as they were in 1780.
I agree with ally in that you need to include all different fractions and their points of view. I think that it is necessary to consider all of the views in order to create a solid and practical governmental system.
I know this was awhile ago but i just wanted to comment on what Chris had said as well. He referred to the fact that the founding fathers took most if not all of their ideas from a lot of the men in the enlightenment and all though that is true, what they did is also very different in a sense. The men of the enlightenment such as Hobbes wrote about these ideas that we read about, but the founding fathers were the first to actually implement them. So although the ideas were not originally theirs, they took a lot of what other people wrote about and believed in and put it all together to create an actual functioning government.
I agree with those who have said that factions are what help keep the government stable and balanced. It is human nature for people to fight for their own well being, and those of their certain group. Like Ritu said earlier, people will stick with others that have common interests. One faction would not be possible in America today or in the future, because everyone would find reasons to disagree with the majority. If their needs and concerns are not being represented, they will revolt, just like our founding fathers. I found the fact that Madison believed that factions would break apart republics a bit hypocritical because of the fact that he and many others were Patriots. Factions are needed to keep the government in check and not allow one sole dictator to rule and take over.
Well Ally, I never said the government had to be liberated.
What is liberation anyway? It's just some far fetched ideological throw-around word.
We need to go back to the basics. We need a government that will get things done. Like back in the time of caveman.
And Rachel and Katie, I must point out that factions are not helpful to our political system.
Factions are harmful.
Lobbyist groups are harmful. Just as the Democratic and Republican Parties are harmful. Those two parties block third party candidates, and corrupt our legal system.
So here's our solution:
We create a single ALMIGHTY power of government to do things for the people.
Coincidently, that government will be called Alex the Almighty's Thousand Year Empire.
And will be run by me...
From my understanding, factions in Madison's time, are equivalent to the political parties we have today. What amazes me the most after reading Federalist Paper 10, is how Madison was able to foresee what factions would eventually do to our country. On one hand, Madison liked the idea of factions and wanted them, because they allowed for people with similar ideas to come together and become strong; strength in numbers. However, Madison also knew that there was a chance that one or two factions would become stronger than the rest of the others, and the balance of power, essentially, would become a struggle between two groups. Unfortunately, Madison's worst fear has come true.
The past elections of the last 100 years, have been a one-on-one match between the Democrats and the Republicans. One party leans more toward the left, while the other party leans more toward the right. Both parties have done damage to our economy and have their equal share in scandals, making neither one of the parties very good. So which party should you vote for the the next election? As far as a third choice, I'm afraid there really is none, since there has not been a third party strong enough to even out the score.
I'm not saying that Madison was wrong about our country having factions. He probably knew that our country would end up having them anyway. It is inevitable for individuals to come together in order for their ideas be heard. A faction would allow a small group of people to gather together and have an audible voice in the government. SMALL, being the keyword. Unfortunately, some factions have gotten too large, have gained too much power, and are blocking the ideas of other factions from being heard. So if you don't agree with either the Democrats of the Republicans, you're out of luck. It's either left or right with no middle ground. That, unfortunately, is what has happened here in this country. As beautiful as democracy is, it is not perfect.
Alex, i agree with you that in our current political system there are problems due to the fact that it is a two party system so its an either or situation without a middle ground.
i disagree that all factions are bad. From what i understand, a faction is a group of people that get together with a common goal that they set out to achieve. So, these people much like our founding fathers did, challenge the political system and the laws that we have in place and i don't believe that it is a bad thing. It could actually help the government improve in many ways to become more fitting and helpful to larger groups of people.
“Alex the almighty” brings up several controversial issues. He says that no factions are helpful to the political system. He even goes as far to say that the Republican and Democratic factions are dangerous. Factions balance each other out. I agree that not all factions are helpful but they are needed in general. They bring diversity, which is a key tenet in our government. The more diversity, the more ideas there are to choose from and the better we can formulate educated decisions. To centralize all power under “Alex the almighty”, or some other power, is absurd. That is the exact situation our founding fathers wanted to avoid. It is ironic that lobbyists are criticized for corruption when basically a dictatorship, prone to far worse corruption, is being supported. Efficient and powerful dictatorships do NOT equal fair and just societies. How to best achieve justice is what we are debating. To consider a society centralized under one powerful ruler undermines the whole belief of justice.
Alex without factions the interests of the common people will have no representation in government, which will lead to anarchy because we don't live in the age of the caveman and you can't take away the rights of people who have had those rights all their lives and expect them to be happy with you.
Maybe, maybe, if what you say about factions being harmful is right, if the lobbyist groups had been denied a role in government then modern politics might not have become so corrupt. But you can't erase history and "purify" modern day and possibly have a good outcome.
Your citizens will rebel and Emperor Alex the Almighty will be assassinated. (I know you're kidding but still)
Okay guys this is Stefanie my thing isn't working so I'm posting on Alicja's name..
Ritu I think you put it perfectly and factions are always going to exist no matter what we do. Which leads me to you Alex, I don't think the realistic approach to factions is to destroy our government.
Frankly, I do not think we can ever get rid of them but I also agree with Amy that we shouldn't. According to Madison factions have the ability to break apart our country. Factions may be risky, but Amy's right, they have done some good. The multiple factions today help give our country diversity and have made us the strongest country in the world. Like we are doing in this blog, we are building off of one another and stating our differences of opinions. It's a good thing to have an open mind to others as long as you do not become too powerful, and that was Madison's fear. We could not evolve and progress as a human race without challenging each other and learning and developing from conflict.
Madison discusses the two methods of curing the mischiefs of factions; by removing its causes or controlling its effects. The methods of removing the causes would be to destroy the liberty essential to its existence or to give every citizen the same opinions. Both are obviously impracticable and unwise, even Madison saw that. The effects of factions can obviously not be stopped because as long as man has reason, different opinions will be formed. Okay, so stop there, enough said. We can't stop factions, I think that's pretty obvious to see. Madison didn't like them but he knew that they would be hard to get rid of. And today I think they have just strengthened with the Democrats and Republicans. But I don't think they're bad because there are so many with equal power so one can not rise highly above another. IF one does, then it could be bad news and the realities of Madison's nightmares. But I think that chance is slim and Madison was kind of dramatic.
Assassinate? Me? Please. haha.
But I think you guys forgot the text book definition of a faction.
"Faction: According to James Madison, a group of people who seek to influence public policy in ways CONTRARY to public good"
Hence, all factions are bad.
I have to agree with everyone above who stated that political factions have become a nusance in today's society. By narrowing the choices down to what has essentially become a two horse race the people are often forced into votin for someone whom they may not fully support. This being said the two party system has also forced members of both sides to orient themselves more to the center, thus giving a more accurate representaion of the feelings of America.
A single almighty government, Alex, is not going to work. Julie is right, its anarchy. We have a system of checks and balances as Madison discusses in "Number 51" that I think works. Our system of government may not always be effective, but it is fair and just and everyone has say. That's what we wanted, right? Say in our government. No taxation without representation. So we have to trade some bad for some good. Society is a huge part of a republic as Madison admits and the branches that he describes works. As Madison says "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place to oblige it to control itself." Yes the government controls us, but it balances itself out. He also says that "the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others." I agree with Madison there, that one part of the government can not have too much power. But I think we balance it well with our legislative, judicial and executive branches. We do not need one almighty government, that does nothing but upset society. The power of the government is balanced and I think that is safe. In addition, while all authority is derived from, and dependent on, society, society itself is broken down into classes and parts so the "rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority." I think we have a strong government despite the fears of Madison and the factions.
-STEFANIE
Awesome...so many posts! I haven't checked in a while, so in response to what Alex H's response on my comment that checks and balances "safeguarded the people from tyranny" (Alex H.'s quote) I wanted to add a thought.
I see what you mean Alex when you say that England has properly functioned under a Parliamentary system for many, many years. But checks and balances stand as a crucial support system. When you said that bills get passed without the "red tape" of checks and balances...I don't see how that can be considered better. Some bills should not be passed because they may not be safe, violate our rights, etc. If we can have the other two braches, (beside the legislative branch) check these bills, it provides us with a more accurate and safe resolution to any given bill. As well, what if a president does something horrible while in office..should we just let him/her slide? Ultimately, checks and balances do maintain equality in our current governmental structure. They can be seen as the "backbone" to the structure, keeping it together.
In response to K-dubbs, I don't know if you misunderstood my blog, but I am strongly against one single party...it would cause corruption like you said. Unfortunately I think that's the direction America might be going down...
In response to Stef's first post, I don’t think Madison was being dramatic. He had every right to worry about the country’s stability because that was an extremely fragile time period. People didn’t know what to think. The idea of actually implementing a republic was even radical for the time. If any one faction gained too much power, the government could easily turn into a monarchy. Today, people would never let that happen because of all the checks and balances that have been in place for many years. However, the system was brand new back then, and no one knew how it would work out. They needed to take every precaution to ensure its success. Worrying about factions was not out of the scope of the goal of achieving a completely balanced political system.
I found the fact that Madison had already seen the difference between a republic and a democracy quite intriguing, for those constitute the two major political parties that constitute our government today. Without factions, society would not be able to have their issues addressed as well as their needs. The republicans and democrats fight for support in the upcoming election by trying to cover everyone's issues and appealing to all minorities in America.
Okay that is one definition of faction and it does not mean there can be only one interpretation of it. The American Heritage Dictionary says a faction is "A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group." So according to Madison it may have been against the public good but that was his OPINION. And in paragraph two he states, "By a faction I understand a number of citizens...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." So the factions go against the majority of the community, that doesn't mean they're bad. Feminists went against the majority of the community who were men, and were they wrong in wanting rights and suffrage? There is not one definition for a word, everything is a matter of relation and opinion. =)
-STEFANIE
(you guys know I'm just rabble-rousing to make this blog semi-interesting)
But more corrections:
I don't know who taught you guys politics but we need to clarify some things.
Stephanie:
A single ALMIGHTY governmeny NOT anarchy.
Dictatorship and Anarachy are two polar opposites.
Ryan:
Evidently parliamentary democracy has functioned so well for so long (even better than our system I might say) without many checks and balances. Even if a "bad" bill does get passed, it will be corrected by the next legislative group. Plus with all the "good" bills getting passed we don't need to worry about much. The check and balance system simply prevents MOST bills from being passed.
I have to agree with Stefanie in that the exact definition of a faction doesn't really pertain to this. All of us have taken our own idea of a faction and used them to illustrate our own points. This is just as Madison did when he wrote the Federalist Papers. Hence his definition was used to support his own opinion that all factions were evil and were out to destroy the government.
In response to what Alex says I dont believe all factions are truly awful. Although your quotation does lend you to believe that. As proved in #51 he recognizes the importance that factions play in our governmental system. The prime example being the Democratic and Republican parties. At the very least they are a necessary evil.
In response to Rachels original point, I agree that while our country was just starting out, stability was a constant concern. In contrast I believe corruption has replaced instability as the greatest threat to our republic by factions. Today you constantly hear in the news that our future president will not support "special interest groups" which are exactly what factions have become. So while the benefits of factions are unquestionable, Madison's fears are still very real.
Back to Chris' point, about Madison's influences, Montesquiue was obviously a huge influence on the Constitution, but I agree that he was a major part of the Federalist Papers as well. Madison's main reasons for writing the Federalist Paper number 51 was to explain how the COnstitution would uphold the separate branches of the government. He understood the importance of maintaining the branches, because he believed that Montesqui's philosophy would lead to the greatest government for the American people.
alex:
although your Madison quote does help prove your point, you are forgetting the fact that Madison goes on to say that there are cures to "the mischiefs of faction." he means that although factions are bad, the process of curing them, righting the wrongs, is essential.
thanks for making this blog more interesting, but in proving your point and trying to teach us politics, you actually created a type of "anti-Alex the Almighty Faction" in our class. it's kind of ironic.
There are so many posts to respond to I don't even know where to begin...
First and foremost, I'm going to come back to our resident Emperor (sorry to keep disagreeing with you). I think that it is possible that you have failed to realize that what Madison stated in his Federalist Papers is simply his own ideas and opinions, and not necessarily the ONLY ideas and opinions. What he writes regarding factions is not he sole definition, and thereforer cannot be taken so literally. While Madison believed in 1780 that factions (or political parties, as they later came to be) were detrimental to the fate of America, that does not necessarily hold true today. That must be taken into account when determining whether a government would or would not benefit from factions.
On another note, does anyone else feel that Madison contradicts himself? I may be misinterpreting what he is trying to say, but I feel that by condemning factions in Paper #10 and then by stressing the importance of the people controlling the governement rather than the government's fate being in the soel hands of those who are politically influential, he is in some sense saying to opposite things.
I agree with John that in todays world factions cannot be seen as the greatest threat to American politics. Due to the internet and 24 hour a day news channels politicians must be much more carefull when they do anything, politics included.
As For Alex this single almighty government of yours is exactly the thing Mr. John Madison was trying to prevent.
I completely agree with Danielle. Even though you, Alex, believe in your almighty government, factions would form in any situation similar to that. In Communism for example, or any dictatorship there have been countless and countless uprisings and revolts that are similar to the ones that our Founding Fathers started. Even in our democracy, factions form because not everyone can be represented and there is no such government, at least not in existence, that is able to do that. In a utopia sure, but not in real life. Therefore whether we like it or not, and whether they are harmful or help strengthen a government there is no way of avoiding it.
On the note of factions: I believe people having different opinions is beneficial, but organizing factions is not.
Haven't you guys noticed how most of American simply declares itself either Democratic or Republican without looking at the real issues. They hide behind and support a certain political faction because they are either too lazy or ignorant about the real politics of the situation.
Well if we don't like the empire scenario than we could always go back to the parliamentary democracy.
This is a sort of middle ground between dictatorship and useless faction gridlock.
In fact, "a recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption."
I find this rather amusing, to answer Wilson’s question: Do you think that one giant political party today would destroy America based on Madison's ideology of factions? As I stated before, within Political PARTIES, there exists political FACTIONS as well. No, I do not think a huge political party could destroy America, because political parties face conflict and disagreement within themselves. (Again I know I’m repeating myself, and I know Marianne has a problem with that but,) within political parties are separate factions. For example: The Republican (political) Party has factions of Conservative Republicans, Moderate Republicans, and Liberal Republicans. Same with Democratic (political) party: Conservative Democrats, Moderate Democrats, and Liberal Democrats. I know that usually Republicans tend to lean towards the conservative end, and Democrats tend to lean towards the liberal end; it is regardless, those factions do exist. I don’t even believe that a huge political party could even exist: Throughout our history, we've had a majority voting for party or another. We've swung back and forth between conservative and liberal. Invariably, as it seems that one side or another has dominated the U.S. for many years, the mood changes. People get fed up with one extreme or another and swing away from it and back toward the other side or the middle. To correct Wilson’s question: Do you think that one giant political faction today would destroy America based on Madison's ideology of factions? Yes, I have to disagree with Ally on this topic. Factions have the ability to take over, because of human interest. Wouldn’t you, if you had the chance, enough power, and people supporting you, try to take over a corporate company rather than making sure everyone else in the company had a fair share of the money? Let me clarify my position: I believe that small factions are useful and innocuous, but large and powerful ones (if they are able to exist and survive in our society) are harmful and dangerous. This is exactly what Madison was afraid of and this is why he suggested a Republic. Ally, a government without factions, I agree, is impossible, because the public will always have an opinion, but this is not the issue here; Madison was talking about how huge, and powerful factions are able to ‘destroy’ the government. In the present day, huge factions don’t exist (I am not talking about Political Parties), and because they don’t exist, we don’t see any destruction.
To address Wilson’s second statement: A single branch of government. Wilson, you just said that you agreed with the theory of checks and balances. Can you clarify what you mean by: “Without [checks and balances], any of the three given branches would be too powerful, overpowering the other/others, therefore eliminating the entire purpose of three branches...and at that rate, why not just have a single branch?” If I am reading this correctly, you agree with the checks and balances theory, so you should also agree with the fact that a single branch wouldn’t work, so I do not understand the purpose of your question, if you have time, please let me know of your intentions of this question. Kyle, I think your response to Wilson’s comment was very smart and satirical. A dictatorship is exactly right; communism for example, is supposed to be an ‘utopia’ but because there is one person in charge with no checks or balances placed on the dictator, so therefore, the dictator, because of self-interest, will become what we have known as ‘evil’, and try to gain as much power to take over the government. Thus, Communism will not work with large nations because the public interest isn’t accounted for.
On a response to Ritu’s comment: it is interesting to hear your theory about high school cliques, I heard of that connection before, I don’t remember when, but it is a very good analogy to our everyday life: Cliques are present everywhere we look, if one becomes over powerful and ‘popular’ they will eventually be able to sway other people into their own beliefs. Same with powerful factions, they will be able to control the government.
Sorry this was a little late, I responded to posts from the beginning of the thread.
Amy
Hi guys. While reading the Fed Papers, number 10 I noticed that Madison assumes that all factions are “bad”. He repeats that they are dangerous and led by “some common impulse of the passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens”. If we go by the definition the dictionary gives us of faction, as a group within a larger group or a party, we can assume that the Republican and Democratic parties are also factions. Although they may not agree with everyone’s interests or concerns, they are not adverse to the rights of other citizens. Instead, they try to help the majority of the people and convey the people’s best interests. I do agree that there is some corruption in all forms of faction but generally, they work for the common good. I agree that factions are essential to the development and protection of people's rights. However, they cannot be allowed to get out of hand with violence, etc. Like Madison mentioned, we need a strong central government that is equal in distributing liberties as it is in controlling them.
Everyone that's asking...let me clarify...
I am not in favor of a single branch, or I am saying I think there will be one.
What I meant was that Checks and Balances are simply a structure used to keep each branch of government from an excessive amount of power. Think about it...if one branch had more power than the other, than it would be overbearing to the other two, and would reduce the degree of power they have the rights to. Example: if the executive branch somehow gained so much power, (without checks or balances) the president would replace politicians and judges with those he wanted, or would only pass bills that he was self-interested in rather than publicly-interested in.
My point: Checks and Balances are the structure that maintains the limits of power each branch has the right to: Congress can veto the president's bills/impeach him, etc. (most of us learned all the checks and balances in eighth grade so I don't think I'll have to cover all of them.)
I am NOT in favor of a single branch of government...that would cause corruption, anarchy, dictatorship...under whatever circumstances.
Hope you understand my point now!
I read an article that talked about the physiology of human nature. A group of people were tested to focus on the relationship between majority and minority. For example, a notion was given to the group and the majority accepted it as true. However, there were certain individuals who disagreed and attempted to fight against the majority. Of course they lost, and later were swayed by the majority. Although this does not happen in all situations, it does prove that factions are somewhat ineffective. I agree with Alex and believe that factions today are just useless and the power that some factions have completely obliterate those of others. The idea of having factions to check each other is a good one, yet it is also a naive one since it obviously did not and is not working. The division of the branches of government works, I guess, but like Alex said, lobbyists and parties control much of what happens in our society. So to sum what I just said, I basically think that there is absolutely no way to help our current situation and having factions check each other is foolish and will not work. There will always be a party who has greater power and one cannot assume that multiple factions will somehow solve the problem. This idea is similar to communism because if you look at it fundamentally, it sounds great. But then you realize that it can only occur in a utopia and that human nature always screws everything up. To be honest, I think that influential people and party members should just settle their differences in the octagon.
Responding to Alex's earlier post - I disagree that organizing factions are bad. Although the formation and activity of factions sometimes do result in violence in extreme cases, getting into groups are the only way people can voice their opinions and make a statement. If there was only one person who, lets say, wanted increase minimum wages, no one would listen to that person or care about his/her opinions. If there was a large groups of people with the same goal, they could get their point across so that the government could take action and help them. The more people are involved , the more seriously they are taken. Of course that doesn't mean we should have an all out faction free-for-all; this is where Madison brings in his ideologies about representation and the like.
I have to respond to Alex's statement of "all factions are bad."
Although Madison's definition of of Faction ("A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority 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") hints that factions should be bad just because of the "adverse to the rights of other citizens" part, it is a matter of a person's standpoint. For example let's take the Civil Rights Movement:
Somebody who opposes racial equality might call people who support racial equality a faction. However when you stand on the other side of the spectrum, somebody who supports racial equality may call a group of people who don't support racial equality a faction.
Therefore the usage of faction as defined by James Madison is based on a relative standpoint.
To address Danielle on this point, we as a class may see Alex as
"anti-Alex the Almighty Faction", but he can also see us as a faction, too.
I do agree with some of you saying that factions have been beneficial, but they have also been harmful. Madison states "have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good." Factions can be like competition. They can drive parties to work harder for the good of the people, but sometimes competition can get the best of somebody and they end up competing to win over working for the common good. A perfect example would be Democrats and Republicans.
I agree that there will always be a majority over something but the need for factions is still prevalent. What happened to the individual’s interests? If we all just agreed on the same thing and became one big faction it would be the same as communism; it only works in theory. If there is one big faction, at some point there will be a corrupted party that will try to seize power over everyone else. This is why we need factions; if one group were to try to overpower another, they couldn’t if there were many factions of equal power. Even if they did not have equal power, the sheer number of factions would prevent one party from overpowering the others. What prevents one nation in let’s say the UN from dominating the floor with their discussion? If one representative from a nation is spending hours and hours talking only about their country’s interests the others will keep him/her in check by basically telling them to be quiet. Why? Because each representative has its nation’s interests in mind and they will not allow one to overpower the others.
In response to Alexa Y's comment to Alex's comment, on organizing factions being bad, I do agree and disagree. I agree in the manner that not all factions, like the Red Cross, are bad. However, you bring up a point about individuals only being able to voice their opinions in groups, and i think this is highly untrue. Yes, maybe you could be heard by more people in a group, but you could voice your opinion anytime. Whether or not someone hears this opinion and agrees or disagrees is another matter. The example you posed is flawed because it takes only one person to make a change. People like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. probably did not join a group to voice their opinions. They openly declared what they believed and those who had similar beliefs followed. I do, however, agree that a collective might be more affective than an individual.
In response to Alan's comment: Much of Martin Luther King's work and Ghandi's work was because they had created a faction. Their effectiveness was only achieved because others agreed with them and decided to create a larger group. Don't get me wrong, I think that they were outstanding individuals that shaped history; but their work was carried out by a faction.
Oh wow that first sentence didn't make sense. I meant to say that much of their work changed society and the way people thought because of factions.
Oh and and since i just saw rebecca's post, i agree about the whole communism thingy. Indeed having certain factions to check one another is great; however, "it only works in theory." If factions kept checking each other, an outcome would never arise. Like you said, look at the UN. Because each person has his or her own countries' interest in mind, the UN is failing. Having many factions is just impractical and as one can see, no solutions are coming out of the UN. Similarly, look at the government now and how long it took them to come to an agreement over the bailout plan. Because of their inefficiency, due to the "beneficial" factions, the stock market and the economy has suffered. Maybe having a single party isn't so bad after all, because at least we would be able to quickly come up with a solution without each person trying to involve their own interests.
In response to Alex's point, I believe Alex neglects certain shortcomings of the parliamentary democracy form of government. While it is true that the lack of checks and balances can allow for greater action on the part of the government, these are necessary to limit the power of one faction in democracies. The failures of parliamentary democracies can be seen in no greater consequence than in post-World War I Germany.
wow so i wrote this big long comment in response to rebecca's and they just totally killed it. Said blogger is unavailable. So i don't wanna rewrite what i wrote, but I want to just say that you don't need a group to voice your opinions. Just cause MLK and Gandhi had people to listen and help, I'm sure many did not want to involve themselves with the two in the beginning. Obviously they worked because of the collective, but the two basically began on their own. Anyways, I'm sure you could voice your opinions to your pet or mirror, but it just wouldn't be as effective.
Actually John you're missing several key facts.
First of all, there are no long term detriments of a Parliamentary Democracy. The United Kingdom is alive and kicking. Just look at the value of the euro compared to the value of the dollar for proof.
The great success of the United Kingdom is real live proof that the system works better than our political system.
For example, when the UK didn't like the policies set forth, Tony Blair resigned. But when the US doesn't like Bush's policies (if you want proof just look at his approval ratings; they are among the lowest in our entire history) we just let him keep doing his thing.
Secondly, post world war one Germany was a failed LIBERAL DEMOCRACY called the Wiemar Republic. I think that only further proves my point.
(sorry to shoot you down barnum)
This is totally off topic with the factions but I noticed it as I was reading. I don’t know if it was just me but I think that Madison was making references to the issue of slavery when he said… “The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests” All white males had the right to own property, only women and slaves were not entitled this right. I think he’s talking about slavery because he goes on to say “the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts”. The North and the South were divided from the beginning on the issue of slavery. The North and the South can be considered factions since they had different ideas and were a group within the larger country. I think Madison might be reflecting how the issue of slavery was not solved either way during the creation of the constitution.
Another thing I noticed was that Madison seems to be angry over the Hamilton plan when he says, “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” Here the abolition of debts probably means the assuming of state debts by the national government as proposed by the Hamilton Plan (during the Constitutional Convention).
In response to one of Alan's comments, I actually agree that accomplishment comes after group cooperation and support (sorry Alan). How far can an individual get if all they have is their own word and argument? Not far. Anyone in history from Martin Luther King to our founding fathers could not have accomplished anything if it weren't for their supporters and group efforts. There definitely is power in numbers, especially when these numbers begin to scare authority, facilitating success. Playing devil's advocate, you might say well what about monarchs of history whose words, unsupported, created change all over a kingdom. Well how many examples of these laws or decrees that the monarchs created were not rebelled against in some way, revoked, or fought against to the point of the collapse of the king? In summation, there is definitely power in numbers and and individual cannot accomplish it all on their own, support and cooperation is imminent!!
In response to Rebecca's comment, I agree that Madison could have been discussing slavery specifically, but I also see it as a general statement. His mention of the controversy over who gets to own land could have just been an example he decided to use to represent the many political disagreements. Also in your second quote, again, he could have been referring to the North and South specifically, but when he uses the word "frivolous" it makes me feel that he is rebuking the silly arguments opposing factions are having. Madison is trying to point out the important issues of concern that must be taken care of ASAP, like dangerous factions and government formation and regulation, rather than worrying about other differences between North and South, social classes, gender, or even age that can be taken care of after there is a government created and agreed upon to take care of them.
To what Alex said about all factions being bad all the time because of Madison's definition: the factions aren't groups of people who are anti the common good, they are groups of people who disagree with their government and want to modify it. They are "harmful" to the people who have no issues with the government and/or the politicians who don't want to change the government. Madison was forming a brand new government and having factions so early on would definately be detrimental to it. There was no way he would have seen them (and subsequently defined them...) positively because that would not only be contrary to his goal of governmental solidity, but it would have encouraged the development of factions to everyone who read the Federalist Papers.
that said, now that our government is solid and not on the verge of collapse, we can most definately view factions as positive because they force a balance between the conflicting interests of the people.
so your conclusion should have been... "Hence, all factions are bad according to James Madison"
PS thank you soooo much for correcting everyone's definitions of anarchy, it was really bothering me but i was too lazy to correct them myself. (:
Rebecca, i noticed the same thing. I found that the whole north and south argument was definitely a clash of, you guessed it, factions. However, we find that on the issue of slavery, the founding fathers were able to come to some sort of pseudo-compromise. Wouldn't Madison have simply wanted one side to just be quiet? Also, which side would be the common good of the public, and which would be the faction? or would they both be factions? but if they were, both factions, there would be no majority and there for no public good, thereby defeating the purpose, right?
Post a Comment