Public. The Federalists were opposite of idealists; they were realists. And it is this realism that is directly responsible for the success of democracy within the United States. Democracy, the ideal, is held dear by most Americans. "What Americans would not do…for the vindication of a fundamental first principle: the right of the people to determine their own future," comments Albert R. Papa in his article "The Allure of Civics Book Democracy".
Factions and the Constitution The framers designed the Constitution in such a way as to lessen the influence of political parties in American government, however at the same time, the very essence to the formation of political parties, liberty, was left in the Constitution. Both Madison and Schattschneider cite that while the Constitution does not support factions, it cannot abolish them because of the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the citizens. They both go on to say that liberty is the spark, which causes political parties to develop. In Madison's Federalist 10, it is evident that he was not in favor of the formation of factions. He states, "…The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…" Madison made the point that the dangers of factions can only be limited by controlling its effects.
The Anti-Federalist were also comprised of prominent men who ferociously supported the ideals of the Revolution and protecting liberty even though the Federalists would often accuse them of abandoning these principles. The debates at the Philadelphia Convention were rooted in principles deeply held by both groups. ... ... middle of paper ... ...only a small republic could produce the voluntary obedience of the people to submit to the authority of the new government and its laws. The Federalist believed a republic, in the truest sense, could not exist in a post commercial world. Anti-Federalists did see the need for a union between the states to provide a defense against foreign enemies, promote, and protect commerce, and maintain order between the states.
Bessette and Pitney, Jr. support the idea that “strong partisanship…can be healthy for deliberation and democracy” (296). In Federalist 51, Madison suggests that because of human nature’s shortcomings coupled with the opportunity of power through governance, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (331). The dysfunction of the American political system is not instituted by political partisanship, it cannot be blamed solely on media actions, and the system of government institutions and functions is not at fault: it is a problem of the political knowledge and character of the citizenry. Madison wrote that “knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives” (Barbour 179). The systematic dysfunction of American politics is underpinned by the weakening of political knowledge and involvement across the population.
Hobbes contends that the government should greatly restrict individual liberty because free individuals necessarily act in ways that threaten the survival of their society. Reversing the traditional maxim, which says that individual liberty empowers and enriches society but weakens government, Hobbes contends that individual liberty strengthens government but endangers society. While it seems that Hobbes is fearful of threatening the government, a close reading of Leviathan show that Hobbes is so fearful of threatening society that he believes that the government should focus exclusively on ensuring the survival of its society without regard to the quality of that survival. Therefore, he contends, the government should neutralize the threat of the individual by disarming him of his liberty and by forcing all individuals to behave in a way that protects society’s survival. We must begin by distinguishing individual liberty from the other type of liberty that Hobbes discusses, what we will call “ancient liberty.” Individual liberty is “the absence of… external impediments of motion” (Hobbes XXI 1, XXI 10).
Intro: The Declaration of Independence shapes our ideal vision in America by letting every individual have unalienable rights, not having to live under a tyrant, and having equality. These rights are to be protected by one government that is willing to secure these rights for the people. Due to not being responsible towards the people’s happiness, this government will be overthrown and replaced with a new one in which the people will be satisfied with. Topic 1: Unalienable rights are rights each individual should have, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; these rights are declared to be natural and inherent. Nobody has the right to our services... ... middle of paper ... ...ape our ideal vision in America as to citizens being protected by a strong government.
How could the founding fathers save the Union and “secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?” (Constitution) They designed the constitution to rejected the democratic Articles to embrace a constitutional form of a republic government. So that the freedom of the people would be ensured by protecting their liberty from the corruptible nature of man. Any form of “Constitutional degeneration was the technical definition of ‘corruption’...corruption was the normal direction of constitutional change” ( Banning, 174) “Pride of independence deep and dangerous hold on the hearts of many of the state politicians” ( Bennett, 112) The leadership under the Articles at the state level was more democratic. However, was heading towards oligarchy, because these men who were in power often only concern themselfs with their own state, and competing with other states to benefit their state or goals. The politicians were using their power to .
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract theorists who set the foundational footprints for the fundamentals of political life right into our own times. The two great thinkers imagined the world without a state in order to determine the legitimacy of the state that is present in reality. They differed greatly in their notions of the ‘state of nature’ and in doing so they developed contrasting conceptions of the role of the state and the nature of rights and liberty granted to the people. Hobbes’ political regime relies on the protest that the sovereign should have unlimited rights with no dissent or dissolution such that public and private interests are parallel. On the other hand, Locke sees man as a creature of reason rather than one of desire wherein he believes that the purpose of the government is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men that are independent of the state.
(Madison p. 1) Factions can be compared to the modern day lobby group; or as groups of people with a common self-interest. These groups are only involved for their own benefit and would be indifferent to the individual rights of other citizens as a whole, only hoping to further their own ideas. Madison believes that factions are inherent to human nature, making it unavoidable that people are living under a state of liberty. Madison argues that "the most common and durable source of factions has been the...
The first reason is republic has more efficiency to prevent the tyrant of majority than pure democracy. Madison thinks the pure democracy is not a cure for faction. In his paper, he wrote “A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole… And there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual (Page 67).” When using pure democracy as the form of government, the decision is made by majority people. Yet, when a faction is majority itself, it can constantly acquire the vote and deprive the rights of minorities. It also can use democracy’s voting system to promote their interest instead of the common good.