The Federalist Papers and Government Today
In The Federalist Papers by James Madison, Madison discuses various aspects of government and how the government must be organized in order to better represent the people. In The Federalist, No. 10 Madison discusses the nature of political factions and parties and how they can affect the government and its practices. The Federalist, No. 51 discusses instead how the government being in branches helps maintain liberties and better protect the American people. The topics mentioned in The Federalist Papers continue to explain and structure our government today.
In “Federalist No. 39”, James Madison sets to outline and discuss how the planned Constitution conforms to the American view of Republican principles. In doing so he establishes that the decided form of government, post-Revolution, will be Republican in nature and that “If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible”. Madison asks what distinctively makes a government Republican in nature. A few different governments are described, noting that, while they may be described as Republican, they are Republican in name only.
Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others.
In Madison’s work of Federalist No. 10, he identifies factions were a problem. He views them as “a dangerous vice”, but at the same time saw factions as a necessary evil. He mentions that “The regulation of these various and interfering interest forms the principal task of modern legislation; and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.” Here Madison states that factions, opposed in spirit to democratic ideals, spreading “unsteadiness and injustice” which are actually necessary for the function of a representative government. Throughout his paper, Madison explains how pure democracy wouldn’t be able to work, because it had “no cure for the mischief of faction.” He believed that this type of government will give so much power to the majority that it was doomed to fail. He sounded very confident that the new constitution would work. He believed of having a representative and a republic system. He had no doubt in mind that new constitution would be the end of the states embarrassment to the world. Madison saw democracy not as an ideal but something that could be modified to be fitted.
Throughout The Federalist No. 10, James Madison frequently used the term “public good”. What Madison proposed was that the public good is best protected by representatives elected from masses that hold an extensive variety of opinions. While this does put the security of some rights into the hands of the government, it also demonstrates a remarkable faith in both the individuals in charge and the individuals who elected them. The more a group of individual leaders feels the ability to express their differences, the safer the rights of the people will be, because as Madison asserted, “the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security.” Thus, the protection of individual rights could be of benefit to a Republic that depends on the diversity and wisdom of a popularly elected
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.
Madison stated, “the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the government of their respective states”.
Madison’s views about human nature: power and majority rule? Why did the Framers prefer repr+esentaTve democracy over direct democracy? Human nature: ±he implicit conclusions Madison draws from his condiTonal (if-then) logical statements are plain. Men are not angels, and therefore government is in fact necessary. Moreover, men are not always governable by angels or God. ±he people follow their passions and leaders su²er from ambiTon for power. ±hus, internal and external controls on government are necessary because men are governed by men? Majority Rule: A³er recognizing the need for a majority in rouTne votes, he asked when "a majority... united by a common interest or a passion cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority, what remedy can be found...?"
Federalist No. 10:
The central idea depicted by the text of Federalist Number 10, written by James Madison, is that the establishment of a federal government was key to a peaceful and well-managed nation. Madison also described factions as dangerous to the nation. In order to get everyone on the same page in terms of agreeance to a constitution, Madison adopted a desire to give everyone the same ideological beliefs. He thought that this would resolve the issues of too many factions containing opposition to the ideas of Federalism. The republican form of government also played a role in the establishment of the constitution by providing citizens to vote for the leaders that they wanted to run the country instead of running it themselves (Which
He discusses how Madison noticed the problem of each of the 134 states having its own agenda. Madison even thought that people were interested in their local politics. They don’t think of the whole state or even the whole country (Wood, 2012). He wanted to change this and create a stronger government that would override certain state powers like money printing and the ability to pass tariffs. He suggested that democracy was not a solution, but a problem (Wood, 2012). Basically, on a state level, he wanted to elevate decision making to limit democracy which was actually causing more harm than