Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
James madison federalist 10 essay
Federalist paper 10 james madison
James madison federalist 10 essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: James madison federalist 10 essay
According to James Madison’s Federalist #10 a faction was a group of citizens, either large or small, who came together and act on common grounds for the rights of other people and/or their community. He believed that we as citizens naturally broke up into factions because of differences in opinion especially political ideology. Also Madison expressed that the distribution and collection of riches and property is so unequal that it causes the development of common faction. Although stating that factions are more of an inevitably harmful thing he does believe that they still are a way for the people to express their viewpoint to their government. Madison does argue for the control of factions, which he proposed in two ways. One of his methods …show more content…
Essentially, interest groups use many different tactics to accomplish their central goals but this paper will detail 2 of them. The first being lobbying, which is the act of persuading businesses as well as government leaders to help a specific organization by changing laws or creating events in favor of that group. Interest groups use this technique by hiring someone to represent them and advocate their cause to on the behalf of the entire group. These hired representatives usually have more than enough experience within the political field and are able to persuade connections within the government for help with their concerns. This method gets a lot of criticism because although lobbyist offer their input to government officials on pending laws, they only look at what is favorable for their cause. When trying to make a difference you have to not only reflect on your argument but on the side affects of that argument as …show more content…
When creating and enforcing federal policies each of these 3 factions within the triangle influence one another in what is called sub-governments. Depending on how well each of these factions interact and build relationships with one another it can be a base for a strong control over policies in any area. This entire process of the iron triangle starts with interest groups and their support with congress in areas such as funding, electoral support or even information surrounding politics. By doing this for congress, interest groups gain assistance in areas that directly benefit their individual cause such as laws being passed in their favor. The bureaucrats on the other hand get their funding directly from decisions that congress members make. Congressional funding and the power to oversee operations allow members of congress to have a slight advantage of this faction of the iron triangle. Yet Bureaucrats do have the power to render policies that can be either beneficial or detrimental to congress leaving both factions needing to be in each other’s good graces. Lastly the relation between interest groups and bureaucrats intertwine because of the support each of the factions can give to each other based on special favors. Bureaucrats can implement programs that are not highly regulated while
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.
An iron triangle is defined as a three-sided, mutually advantageous relationship between members of Congressional Committees, Bureaucrats, and interest groups. Most of the Congressional Committees and Subcommittees have relationships with the agencies whose programs they authorize and appropriate money for. The committees and the bureaucrats from the agencies have close relationships with interest groups that want to influence policy. The literal components of an iron triangle, such as one involving agriculture, include key members of the House and Senate committees on Agriculture (such as a committee chairman), officials from the US Department of Agriculture (such as a director of a division), and lobbyists who represent an interest group such as the American Farm Bureau Federation. The relationship is simple, and simple.
The Federalist, No.10 explains the nature of factions within the government and how they can harm the implementation of proper policies and
It can be argued that event without the “hereditary orders,” a distinction of interests can be found and were discussed in several papers. Interests will vary from state to state, from the rural farmers to the businessmen of the cities. These distinctions were discussed in Federalist No. 10 as factions. While the hierarchy of such interests is not related to nobility as found in England, a faction is defined here as a number of citizens who are united and motivated by common interests adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the community. It is proposed that there are only two methods of curing the adverse effects of factions: by removing its causes or by controlling its effects. The intent of the proposed system of checks and balances seeks to cure selfish interest by the latter. Power to any one person or branch would be limited by the other branches, preventing any person, branch, or faction from gaining an excess amount of power and leverage towards their own interests rather than the collective interests of the people.
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.
James Madison, an American statesman and political theorist that was present at the constitutional convention. Many of the ideas proposed by Madison are part of the reason that the Constitution has withstood the test of time. Madison was ultimately prepared to deal with one of the biggest problems this new government would face in his eyes, factions. Factions, which as defined by Madison are “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 156). Madison addresses various ways that he sees factions can be cured of its mischiefs such as removing a faction’s causes and also controlling their effects. Madison points out that this is would potentially create an even bigger problem than the factions themselves by stating, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Madison 156) Madison also stated that the way for a government to remove the cause of faction was either to destroy the liberty that causes factions to exist in the first place or to give every citizen the same beliefs and opinions. Madison deemed this impractical, because it is nearly impossible to give everyone in a given place the same opinions and destroying the liberty would take away the very thing that the colonies fought for 4 years earlier. The fact is Madison knew that the country wouldn’t be able to count on a well-educated statesman to be there any time a faction gets out of hand. Madison knew the only viable way to keep factions under control is not to get rid of factions entirely but to set a r...
Many governments in the world, like the US have subgovernments, systems that help make the voices' of small groups interested in specific things heard. Without many subgovernments small interest groups would not even be recongnized. The iron triangle is one of those subgovernments; congressional committees work with interest groups and a bureaucratic agency to have demands met. Thanks to the iron triangle may small interest groups have a voice in their country governments' legislature.
In Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison sees Factions as being inevitable. Humans hold differing opinions and are all living under different circumstances, and are likely to group together with those most like themselves. Some groups of people will attempt to work together to benefit themselves even if it goes against public interests and even if it infringes upon the rights of others. In the Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison feared that Factions could be detrimental to the common good and in order to minimize the effects and control the effects of Factions, the best form of government would be a large republic. According to Madison, to minimize the negative consequences of Factions, they must either be controlled or the causes of Factions must be removed. Since he describes the causes of Factions being the different interests and living conditions between individuals, it can be argued that this solution is not very feasible. It would be impossible to make sure every single person makes the same amount of money, has the same goals, and even goes through similar life experiences. The greatest source of Factions, the deepest and biggest cause of Factions, according to Madison, is the unequal distribution of property. The acquisition of property or lack of property creates class divisions the foster differing interests. Since it is not possible to
Partisanship is a natural phenomenon for Human beings; we seek out, long for, and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through these people, we polish our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our viewpoint. Factions give breadth, depth, and volume to our individual voice. James Madison, the author of the Federalist #10 underlined the causes of factions, the dangers factions can pose, and solutions to the problem.
Next, Madison explains the reasons why unequal distribution of property leads to factions. Under the liberal society, people can freely practice their own faculties and experiment of life. Because people make decisions based on their reasoning and self-interest, they will focus on what is beneficial to them. When a group of people come together because they have the same interest, it becomes a faction. According to Madison’s writing “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest… (Page 63)” He believes the unequal distribution of property will divide people into different group and eventually lead citizens to factions. Moreover, because faction is made by people who hold sim...
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
The “advocacy explosion” in the United States in the 20th century has been caused by the extreme increase in the number of interest groups in the United States. The general public views the increase and the groups themselves as a cancer that has come to the body of American politics and is spreading. The explosion in the number of interest groups and interest group members and finances has had an effect on the decline of the American political party and partisanship, the effect on democracy and the public interest, and the bias that has come with interest group competition.