In Federalist Paper No. 10, Madison writes that “a well-constructed Union” has one especially important task to accomplish. This task is the ability to “break and control the violence of faction.” Through use of the word faction, Madison means, “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” (Madison p. 1). I fully agree with Madison’s assessment on factions. If a faction grows to acquire the power of majority, then it will have the ability to oppress the majority factions. In cases like these, the wishes and beliefs of everybody …show more content…
are not being respected. Essentially, the wills of majority factions would be imposed, sometimes with force, upon those who disagree. In my opinion, a well-structured society should take into consideration, every person’s beliefs and interests. Therefore, the limiting of power that a faction can impose is an important step to protecting the interests of everybody. But, how might a system prevent the rise and takeover of a majority faction? Madison discusses a few possibilities. First, Madison suggests “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence” (Madison, p. 1). This idea is not a very good option, because I personally believe an ideal form of government is founded on the basis of liberty. Without freedoms, there is really no reason to live in the first place. While liberty breeds factions, as Madison explains, it is an unfortunate byproduct of a necessary element found in the more ideal forms of government. My disagreement with destroying liberty as an option to stopping faction take-over is in line with Madison’s view. He claims destroying liberty is “worse than the disease.” Here he means to say that acquiring liberty with the destruction of factions is a far better solution to having neither liberty nor factions at all. Freedom is far too important to give up. His second suggestion is to give “every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests” (Madison, p.
1). In my viewpoint, the mere thought of this proposal goes against the very nature of liberty and free thinking. Why have a form of government that is meant to incorporate the opinions of all its citizens if every person is taught to or forced to think the same way? This idea is more in line with tyrannical forms of government where the citizens do not truly have a say and also in line with Communistic governments that try and force everyone to be equal, which works well on paper, but fails miserably in actual implementation due to the easability that a ruler will be led astray towards corruption. My views once again agree with Madison’s however. He claims the second suggestion is, “impracticable as the first would be unwise.” He continues in saying, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed” (Madison, p. 1). He explains that people have this natural right to express themselves despite being wrong or right on any given issue. It is simply a “liberty.” With liberties come “different opinions” which is okay, because different opinions are the natural outcomes of the freedom of …show more content…
expression. With no effective way to prevent factions from developing, Madison proposes the solution is in controlling their “effects.” Madison suggests that to find “relief… supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote” (Madison, p.
2). His remedy is in the formation of a republic. As long as a faction does not become the majority, then the wishes of everyone can be protected through voting down the changes that minority factions wish to implement. Here, I disagree with Madison’s assessment. I am a supporter of majority opinion, because it is in accordance with the favorably superior preferences. However, at the same time, why is it that the majority is not labeled a faction by Madison while the congregated minority beliefs are? In a perfect governmental system, everyone’s wishes should be heard equally. This should include the minority factions as well. If not, then the majority would be imposing their beliefs over the minority. In a way, the majority itself is a faction and Madison seems to be okay with this. In fact, Madison’s entire argument regarding a large republican government seems to really focus on keeping minority factions from being overruled by the dangers of majority opinion. Madison claims a republic in which delegates are used to represent the people is favorable over an absolute democracy, because, “…on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen
body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations” (Madison, p. 3). Here Madison claims that the “chosen body of citizens” are wiser than the rest and deserve to make changes to the country. In a sense, I agree with Madison. I agree that a government needs a form of representation, especially one as large as the United States government and I agree that the people need to choose a “body of citizens” which will “best discern” the interests of the country, but without any implementations in check to help all social classes from being considered to hold office, this idea promotes a form of Autocracy. I say this because the rich, who have a better opportunity to receiving a better education and who have the funds to run for office, would be selected to run the government. The reliance on elected officials to make all our major decisions is a practice which limits liberty, but it is a necessary limitation. A true democracy would be virtually impossible, because there are far too many issues for the general populace to be bothered with while also living their daily lives. However, while I view a republican government as favorable, the one in which Madison describes does not take into consideration the views of the poor and the less fortunate. They will overlooked by the elected officials, because the elected officials have no insight into the lives of the less fortunate. The elected officials have only lived fortunate lives. Also, naturally, the poor and less fortunate would make up a larger group of people than the rich. So in essence, the government would be run by a minority faction while the majority is forced to follow the faction’s regulations. This is actually the current form of government we have right now in the United States. So, one may see the influences that Madison and his colleagues have had on the structure of the United States system of government. In conclusion, I actually see a glimpse of Hobbes’ philosophy within Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10. From a more simplistic view on Hobbes, I see the idea that government is necessary and “the people” need to be governed. Without governance, there would be chaotic consequences. This is expressed in his book, Leviathan where he expresses that the only way to protect against these consequences, “is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men” (Hobbes, p. 227). While Hobbes is typically viewed as a proponent of an absolute monarchy, his quote also addresses “one assembly of men,” which could be read as a group of elected officials which is more in line with Madison’s view on government. While Madison does not express any interest in establishing some form of sovereign entity, like a monarchy, he does support an “assembly of men” as Hobbes put it. So, in a way, Madison and Hobbes advocate for similar forms of government. In my opinion, what Madison proposes is a near perfect form of government. As someone who lives within a government based on Madison’s viewpoints, I can advocate specifically for a change to the system to allow for a more equal “battle field,” if you will, between rich potential candidates and candidates of lower class.
Federalist 51 is an essay written by James Madison in support of the creation of the United States Constitution which would serve as the replacement for the faulty Articles of Confederation. Madison along with several other federalists wrote a series of anonymous essays that eventually became to be known as the Federalist Papers. The purpose of these essays was to inform the public about the suggested structure for the new government that would protect our natural rights. Madison’s paper Federalist 51 outlines a description of the foundation of the new government where each branch of the government would have its own unique and separate powers exclusive to that branch and the power to check and balance the other branches.
Madison believed the ways to eliminate factions by removing its causes and to control the effects. Even though factions cannot simply be eliminated, Madison believed that the destruction of liberty or to give every individual the same opinion. Direct democracy is not strong enough to protect its personnel, property rights, and have been characterized by conflict. It is surprising, but Madison recommended a strong and large Republic. He believed that there would be more factions, but much weaker than in small, direct democracies where it would be easier to consolidate stronger factions. Madison concluded his argument by saying, “according to the degree of ple...
This passage places emphasis on one of the three arguments James Madison makes in Federalist 10. Madison explicates the deficit of factions specifically factions that could cause nothing but “mischief” for the United States. In this particular passage, he explains how factions are inevitable in our country, however, controlling the effect of factions would diminish their “mischievous impact.” Thus, prohibiting factions assists in reducing the probability of “[a] weaker party or an obnoxious individual” from gaining power over the minority. These smaller factions that Madison hopes to avoid are a direct result of “pure democracy” that he accounts as have “general[ly]…short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Therefore, this particular fragment from federalist 10 serves as the precedent to the introduction of a mixed Constitution of a democracy and republic, in this case, a large republic.
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
Patrick Henry’s Anti-Federalist argument had a big purpose when it was wrote. It was Henry’s way of talking about his objections to the new Constitution. He listed varies objection to the constitution and stated reasoning behind his objections to make others see his point. Henry was a liberal activist. He wrote his document in first person. The audience for his stated was for the general public. The general public that this would have been in interest to was the government, anti-federalists, the state, and any adult in general.
Within the document Madison states, "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own" (Madison, The Federalist, No.52. R83). Through the quote Madison states that the government is split into branches that act as their own separate entities. By having these branches be completely separate from each other, the government can assure freedoms and liberties for the people. Madison explains how having multiple branches protects the people by stating, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of another part" (Madison, The Federalist, No.52. R84). Madison states that by having separate parts of the government, one part can fight against the corruption of another. Having the government be separated into parts can also keep the entire government from being corrupted instead of just a fraction of it. Madison 's paper states that having the government be separated into parts can protect the liberties of the
In the beginnings of the United States there was a unity called Federalism. Although legislators had serious differences of opinions, political unity was considered absolutely essential for the stability of the nation; factions. If others were to enter in to this great country they should also become intertwined in our "ways". This opinion is seen in President George Washington's' letter to John Adams. He stated that people coming into our government should be "...Assimilated to our customs, measures and laws.become one people". But he also said "they retain the Language, habits and principle (good or bad) which they bring with them" They could not only keep there religions and other customs; but have a freedom of their pursuit of happiness: first amendment right; something that was violated in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Public perceptions of factions were not related to British excesses and thought to be "the moral diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished". James Madison wrote in the most popular Federalist Paper number ten where he described his definition of a faction "by a faction, I understand a number of citize...
As a leader Madison legitimately wanted the best for the American people. As he grew into a politician of authority, he did the best he could at the time to accomplish what the people as a nation needed to be able to thrive for years on after with efforts towards the “Constitution,” “Bill of Rights”, and “Federalist Papers”. All of which are still effective today in the United States Government. James Madison not only wanted the best for his people, he loved what he was doing as well. From a young age he was interested in the political debates over independence. He continued and rose up the ladder in his career because of his passion for what he did and the care he put in his work knowing it will benefit many people other than
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. He recognized that in order to abolish political parties from the government completely, liberty would have to be abolished or limited as well. For this reason, the government had to accept political parties, but it did not have to incorporate them into being a major part of the government. He says that the inclination to form factions is inherent, however the parties effectiveness can be regulated. If the party is not majority than it can be controlled by majority vote. Madison believed that in the government established by the Constitution, political parties were to be tolerated and checked by the government, however the parties were never to control the government. Madison was absolutely convinced that parties were unhealthy to the government, but his basic point was to control parties as to prevent them from being dangerous.
To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: one, to remove its causes and the second to control its effects. The first is impossible. There are only two ways to remove the causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests. Destroying liberty is a "cure worse then the disease itself," and the second is impracticable. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence.
...he other hand, Madison discusses the topic of liberty in that it is what fuels factions. He says that removing liberty is one of the only ways to destroy a faction. He proceeds to state that this is not probable, and that factions can not be destroyed, but we must control their consequences in order to have a stable government. Madison believes that the Constitution preserves man's liberty by fairly representing them in a central government.
The dangers of faction can somewhat outweigh the good. The framers of the American Constitution feared the power that could possibly come about by organized interest groups. Madison wrote "The public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival factions 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." However, the framers believed that interest groups thrived because of freedom, the same privilege that Americans utilize to express their views. Madison saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy to protect individual liberty, and the general public from the effects of such inequality in society. Madison says "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
In conclusion, Madison thinks the human nature is ambitious, and the fixed outcome of human ambitions is people create factions to promote their own interests. In the case of preventing corrupt or mischief by factions, he believes majority and pure democracy is not a solution. The method he advocated is a large republic with checking system. He converts human ambition to provide internal checks and balances in government. His point of view stimulated the approval of the proposal of the United States Constitution.
In the Federalist Papers, there was a great concern for Factions. Factions are a political group that has one single major aim. They can be very powerful; which could be a positive and a negative thing depending on the goal they are trying to achieve. A fear that factions could actually control the government made the founding fathers uneasy. The Constitution did not support factions but could not abolish them either, because it would go against the liberty of citizens. Madison also did not support factions as he states in Federalist 10 that “The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties”. Either way factions had to stay because abolishing factions meant abolishing liberty.
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.