When America became a nation, the founding fathers were filled with idealistic visions of a nation where people would govern themselves in a democracy and make decisions for the best of the people. There were certain stipulations about who could participate in the government - many weren't keen on opening up the franchise to all white male adults - but in general it was believed that 'enlightened' men would always make decisions for the best of everyone.
Obviously that isn't true, and never has been. From the time America became a country it split into factions, or parties, with different opinions on what the new government should look like. Those who argued were just as concerned with being right as with creating an effective government, and already the inability of parties to compromise was shattering the democratic ideal. However, despite the fact that throughout history and today decisions are made by biased people, our government still seems to work. Individuals have problems with leaders and political parties, but very rarely with the actual system. So despite factions and selfish interests and the fact that the government sometimes looks like a tug-of-war game between two teams that won't give up, the system somehow works. Why?
" Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency" (James Madison, The Federalist #10).
One reason which seems to make a lot of sense is that even though the American government is not the ideal government, the system is one of the best possible. James Madison argues that if people are given liberty, and the right to express their own opinions, disagreements and the formation of factions is inevitable. Factions impede progress and prevent the minorities from always being able to maintain their rights. However, a government where freedom of speech, expression and belief are allowed and unfortunately cause disagreement and debate is preferable to a government where there is little disagreement because there is no freedom. However, despite the problems, a key aspect of the basic American system is the permission to express any and all ideas so that they may be taken into consideration. Small impediments to the ideal government don't prevent the greater aspects of our government from functioning.
" In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself" (James Madison, The Federalist #51).
Factions impact the productivity of the government, but our balance of power system prevents a complete takeover. In a way, it's a good thing we have a neverending tug-of-war in our government. Better to have it slow down progress a bit than actually have someone win. The original founding fathers may have imagined a government where the leaders of the nation all agreed on paths of action and then carried them out, and this would be ideal if the paths of action were always good ones. The competition between the different branches of the government prevents any one branch taking over the government. And in this case the factions Madison discusses so much are actually a really positive aspect of our government. Because opposition between parties is so fierce, no decision can go unchallenged. And this prevents the eradication of any major rights of people unless the majority of the population is agreed upon it. It is very rare that it is permitted for major rights to be taken away because of this system.
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary" (James Madison, The Federalist #51).
The American government works because it reflects the nature of the American people. It is also flawed because it reflects the nature of the American people. Most of the time it is just, but sometimes it isn't. This isn't always a fault of the American system of government. No government can be perfect, and the ours can never be always right. However, the system is designed to reflect as many people as possible, and prevent any one person or one group from controlling the government, as is shown by the formation of the system of checks and balances. A government must be ruled by a person or a group of people, which causes flaws, but the greater the group of people, the fewer flaws there are likely to be, because factions prevent actions to go unchallenged.
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State" (James Madison, The Federalist #10).
It isn't true that flames kindled in one state don't spread a conflagration through the other states. They do, and we've seen it happen with several movements throughout American history, most notably the secession of the southern states after South Carolina's secession. However, insignificant matters never make it to the level of national debate. The most important issues which affect the nation are brought to the attention of the country, and the entire country thinks about it. Because it is our elected leaders who decide upon most issues, we have time to think and place support with those who will make the choice we have decided is best for the nation. If we had democratic votes, many might act on impulse and vote based on what they were feeling at the time. The republican system slows the process down, but this actually gives people time to think about what they are voting for and forces leaders to formulate arguments for their point of view in order to gain support for their decisions. The fact that a spark can become a fire, and also that a fire with a lasting supply of fuel is needed to make change, is one of the most interesting aspects of our system of government. Issues which are truly important to Americans are debated, and those with the best arguments win. As a result, there are reasons behind major decisions, reasons which people can understand.
Though James Madison was worried about the formation of opposing factions and considered them more of a necessary evil than something positive, I think that they can actually be a good thing because they prevent decisions going unchallenged and force leaders to justify their actions to the people. Anybody have any ideas on this?
Obviously that isn't true, and never has been. From the time America became a country it split into factions, or parties, with different opinions on what the new government should look like. Those who argued were just as concerned with being right as with creating an effective government, and already the inability of parties to compromise was shattering the democratic ideal. However, despite the fact that throughout history and today decisions are made by biased people, our government still seems to work. Individuals have problems with leaders and political parties, but very rarely with the actual system. So despite factions and selfish interests and the fact that the government sometimes looks like a tug-of-war game between two teams that won't give up, the system somehow works. Why?
" Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency" (James Madison, The Federalist #10).
One reason which seems to make a lot of sense is that even though the American government is not the ideal government, the system is one of the best possible. James Madison argues that if people are given liberty, and the right to express their own opinions, disagreements and the formation of factions is inevitable. Factions impede progress and prevent the minorities from always being able to maintain their rights. However, a government where freedom of speech, expression and belief are allowed and unfortunately cause disagreement and debate is preferable to a government where there is little disagreement because there is no freedom. However, despite the problems, a key aspect of the basic American system is the permission to express any and all ideas so that they may be taken into consideration. Small impediments to the ideal government don't prevent the greater aspects of our government from functioning.
" In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself" (James Madison, The Federalist #51).
Factions impact the productivity of the government, but our balance of power system prevents a complete takeover. In a way, it's a good thing we have a neverending tug-of-war in our government. Better to have it slow down progress a bit than actually have someone win. The original founding fathers may have imagined a government where the leaders of the nation all agreed on paths of action and then carried them out, and this would be ideal if the paths of action were always good ones. The competition between the different branches of the government prevents any one branch taking over the government. And in this case the factions Madison discusses so much are actually a really positive aspect of our government. Because opposition between parties is so fierce, no decision can go unchallenged. And this prevents the eradication of any major rights of people unless the majority of the population is agreed upon it. It is very rare that it is permitted for major rights to be taken away because of this system.
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary" (James Madison, The Federalist #51).
The American government works because it reflects the nature of the American people. It is also flawed because it reflects the nature of the American people. Most of the time it is just, but sometimes it isn't. This isn't always a fault of the American system of government. No government can be perfect, and the ours can never be always right. However, the system is designed to reflect as many people as possible, and prevent any one person or one group from controlling the government, as is shown by the formation of the system of checks and balances. A government must be ruled by a person or a group of people, which causes flaws, but the greater the group of people, the fewer flaws there are likely to be, because factions prevent actions to go unchallenged.
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State" (James Madison, The Federalist #10).
It isn't true that flames kindled in one state don't spread a conflagration through the other states. They do, and we've seen it happen with several movements throughout American history, most notably the secession of the southern states after South Carolina's secession. However, insignificant matters never make it to the level of national debate. The most important issues which affect the nation are brought to the attention of the country, and the entire country thinks about it. Because it is our elected leaders who decide upon most issues, we have time to think and place support with those who will make the choice we have decided is best for the nation. If we had democratic votes, many might act on impulse and vote based on what they were feeling at the time. The republican system slows the process down, but this actually gives people time to think about what they are voting for and forces leaders to formulate arguments for their point of view in order to gain support for their decisions. The fact that a spark can become a fire, and also that a fire with a lasting supply of fuel is needed to make change, is one of the most interesting aspects of our system of government. Issues which are truly important to Americans are debated, and those with the best arguments win. As a result, there are reasons behind major decisions, reasons which people can understand.
Though James Madison was worried about the formation of opposing factions and considered them more of a necessary evil than something positive, I think that they can actually be a good thing because they prevent decisions going unchallenged and force leaders to justify their actions to the people. Anybody have any ideas on this?
The formation of the opposing factions is mainly a good thing for the time for discussion, but a quick and decisive bill to address the issue is necessary and more beneficial when paired with the same responsive public that debates and votes. When taking too long to debate, those that is still victimized by the issue suffer even more. Also, no one decision or bill can address a major situation entirely since the world is a world full of inconsistencies, uncertainties, and especially humans. With a series of bills, a situation can be addressed and continue to be addressed when other issues following the last one surfaces until all is resolved and more or less agreed upon.
ReplyDelete