fed and anti fed

1. The focus of Madison’s Federalist 10 essay is his concern over factions. Explain what factions are, why they form, over what issues they form, and why both minority and majority factions are dangerous.

According to Madison factions create “instability, injustice, confusion and violence.” By factions federalist No. 10 clearly states “a number of citizens, whether they amount to a majority or a minority of the whole. The two main groups that Madison refers to are the minority and majority groups. The first consisting of “considerate and virtuous citizens.” In other words the wealthy and well educated privileged persons. The latter being “an interested and overbearing majority ”consisting mostly of day-to-day laborers poor in education and rich in numbers. Factions are formed because people are either united or separated by common interest regarding their own and the rights of other citizens. Factions are formed over issues like private faith, personal liberty… Madison admits that the first object of government is to protect the diversity in the faculties of men, which enable him to acquire property. This is the main issue responsible of forming factions, the acquisition of property. However men have “unequal faculties of acquiring property.” Madison further explains the existence of factions: “as long as man finds a connection between his reason and self love his opinions and his actions will have an equal influence on each other.” This is why both minority and majority factions are dangerous. Both groups separately pursue and act in favor of their own interest thus creating “unsteadiness and injustice” with in the public administrations.

2. Explain why the causes of factions cannot be prevented, and explain how the effects of factions can be controlled.

One cannot prevent the causes of faction because they are “sown” in the nature of men. In other words, naturally, every one sees things differently. Madison understands that different opinions concerning religion and government and many other points “divide mankind into parties.” This is why the effects of factions cannot be prevented by human hand without taking away the God giving liberties of men. A harsh ruling government could in fact, in order to eliminate effects of factions, destroy liberty, which is essential to life. However, that would defeat the purpose of creating a nation under the belief and grounded upon the idea of freedom and equal opportunity. So, Madison proposes that the regulation of various and interfering interest be vested upon the hands of modern legislation. By this Madison means a body of men that would act as a judge between creditors and debtors. In Madison’s opinion “justice ought to hold the balance between them”, since “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause” because his personal interest would bias his judgment. Yet this form of justice must include both parties because “the parties are and must be themselves the judges.” Thus the most powerful factions must be expected to prevail. This is how factions, according to Madison, can be controlled.

3. Explain why a republic is better at controlling faction than a democracy. Also explain why the size of the republic is crucial and how a large republic will further control the effects of factions.

Since the causes of factions cannot be removed relief is found by controlling its effects. Madison suggests that a republic is better at controlling the effect of factions than a democracy. By republic he intends a political order in which the supreme power is held by a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers representatives responsible to them. In contrast pure democracy consist of “a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person”. Pure democracy fails to provide a cure for the troubles of factions. Madison supports his idea by referring to history. The past proves that such democracies have been “spectacles of turbulence and contention; found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property” and are generally short. Additionally, since not every citizen has equal possessions and differs in opinions and passions, it’s unwise to give each and everyone equal political rights. Madison’s ideal government is one in which the scheme of representation takes place.” His first argument in favor of a republic is the delegation of the government and secondly the enlargement of that delegation. The bigger the republic the greater the diversity. This is to say that in theory: the voice of the people will be better heard through the funnel or “medium of a chosen body of citizens.” Under such regulation the representation of the people will be better heard than if said by the people themselves. Madison is in favor of a large rather than a small republic for two reasons: primarily because however small, a republic must be raised to a certain number in order to protect the public good against conspiratorial groups of plotters. Secondly, limited to a certain number in order to prevent the confusion of a multitude.
4. Why would Madison’s argument in this essay convince people that the replacing the articles of Confederation with the proposed constitution was a good idea?

Convincing people to replace the Articles of confederation for the new constitution wasn’t easy, but not impossible. The articles of confederation created a single national assembly in which each state had one vote, it also recognized the colonies as independent units. This limited the ability of the central government to respond to collective problems like; the lack of common national currency, the lack of control of interstate commerce and the inability to collect taxes. While the first two problems limited the growth of interstate markets, the inability to collect taxes hindered those who envisioned a new nation as an international economic power. The solution to all these problems seemed to be in the act of strengthening the powers of central government. In the proposed constitution Madison calls for a bicameral legislature in order to appease both large and small states regarding representation. This leads to the Great Compromise, which splits the legislature into two bodies: one appointed by population and the other assigning each state two members. In order to prevent this new form of government from becoming tyrannical, the framers of the constitution added into it the principles of separation and powers and checks and balances. Madison adds in this essay the different levels of government that enable the federal government to be more responsive to the people grievances: “the great and aggregate interest being referred to the national, the local and particular to the state legislature.” In continuation, the system of checks and balances protects individual freedoms by “providing each branch of government with over lapping powers so that no one branch can exercise complete control of any function of government (AM GOV p.25).” This way the likelihood of a single branch becoming too powerful is diminished. Also in a large republic each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens making it difficult for those unworthy candidates to succeed. Having said all this, Madison’s audiences begin to see the proposed constitution as a reasonable solution to their collective problems.

5.Turning to the Brutus 4 essay, what are Brutus’ reasons for believing that a representative government is best? What is the object of every free government, according to Brutus? In contrast, what is the object of every tyrannical government? What then is key to “forming a good constitution”, in Brutus’ view? How is this accomplished?

According to Brutus the object of every free government is “disposed as to pursue the good and happiness of the people and that any lesser interest yield to it.” Furthermore, free government is practicable only when people posses the power of making the laws by which they are governed. Brutus says a representative government is best because it is designed as to understand the “true interest of the society for which it acts by collecting the views and whishes of the whole people in that of their rulers.” In other words, the happiness of the people is the ultimate goal of every free government. In contrast to free government is tyrannical government whose ultimate goal is “the happiness and enlargement of one or few, who are willing to sacrifice public felicity” to accomplish the goals of self-love. This is done so by separating the interest of the governors from that of the governed. In accordance with the principle of full and just representation, the key to forming a good constitution is to “frame it as that those who the power is given shall be subject to the same feeling and aim at the same objects as the people do, who transfer to them their authority.” To ensure this, the people must have an “equal, full and fair representation.”

6. Brutus believed that the proposed constitution would fail to achieve the public good. Explain why he believed that he proposed government would not have the confidence of the people and explain the consequences for a government that lacked public trust.

Brutus argues that the proposed constitution fails to provide equal representation because the smallest states are to send the same number of members to the senate as the largest, and, because the slaves are to increase the proportion of members. What is more, in “so small a representation there is no security against bribery and corruption.” This leads Brutus to the idea that the proposed government will not have the confidence of the people. Brutus denounces that further distrust of the people comes from the legislature candidates who will, with this new government, be exposed to the dangers of corruption and self-indulgence: “to effect their purpose, they will assume any shape, and mould themselves into any form…and mislead their minds by spacious reasoning.” These men with their soothing manners and cringing flattery mixed in with patriotism will then have the upper hand over the “honest and unsuspecting” folks. Again, the weakness of representation will not have the confidence of the people. The consequences for a government that lacks public turst are that the people will not have enough attachment to it as to be ready when called upon, to support it or by force of command to compel obedience to it. Ultimately, the representation in the legislature, according to this essay is not formed as to give reasonable ground for public trust and without public turst any form of government does not function harmoniously.

7.Both Madison and Brutus make predictions about the kinds of individuals who would be elected as the people’s representatives. What does each have to say about the character of elected representatives? What does Madison desire? What does Brutus desire? What does Madison fear? What does Brutus fear?

Madison predicts that in a large republic the larger number of citizens choosing the members of legislature will be able to filter out unworthy candidates. Also that with the suffrages of the people being more free they will most likely center in men who posses “the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters”. Madison was afraid of giving to much voice to the people. He feared that “men of factious tempers, of local prejudice or of sinister design, may, by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the votes and then betray the interest of the people”. This is why Madison believes that an extensive republic is most favorable to the election of proper congressmen. On the other hand, Brutus denounces the typical characters found in the legislative body as men who are generally “artful and designing, possessors of brilliant talents and abilities; they act together, gang like, and share the spoils of their country”. They keep their object ever in view and follow it with consistency. Brutus compares the nature of these men to that of Proteus, a God of the ocean who could take any form desired. Brutus explains that in order that the people safely trust in legislatures, the candidates should not only be of their choice but also posses and fulfill a list of requisites. Worthy candidate should be men of integrity, posses the ability to manage public concerns. Men who will pursue the good of the community with diligence, “who will not be turned aside form their duty by private interest or corrupted by undue influence”. At the same time, Brutus fears that the people of the state will have very little in common with those who may be chosen to represent them: “men whose names they never heard,” which leads me to answer the final question. 8.Whom do you think was right, Madison or Brutus, and why? Does our modern political system still manage to control the “mischiefs of factions” as Madison intended? Or does our modern political system reflect Brutus’ prediction that “the happiness and aggrandizement of one, or few” is the focus of government?

Both Madison and Brutus made predictions of our modern political system, and I can safely say that both are right in their predictions. I agree with Brutus in his prediction that the people have very little acquaintance with those who are chosen to represent them.
A great deal of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the federal assembly; they will consist of men whose names they never heard.

I agree with Brutus in that we, the “people,” are not familiar with our public officials. We don’t even know the names of our own representatives, not to mention what they are like, and especially what they don’t like. A simple yet substantial proof of this I find in looking back only a few weeks ago when Dr.Yale asked us to name our two state senators and “we” the class, could not answer with confidence. What is frightening is that in our class there is all kinds of ethnicities, genders, a variety of ages and no one could answer with confidence, I am assuming, my self included, no one knew. It is true that we don’t see our government as a part of our selves, but as Brutus suggest, as a body distinct form us, and as having separate interest to pursue. This leads to a certain extent a “perpetual jealousy” against our own government. As a result we oppose their laws and evade and reluctantly obey them. For example; “click it or ticket,” I must always put my car seat belt on, not only because it can save my life in case of an accident but also because the law compels me to do it. I don’t want to pay a fine. I have better uses for my hard earned money. So we the public scrutinize and watch their conduct only to see if they mess up. Like when president Clinton was in office, his name will always be affiliated with the scandal of miss Monica.
However, I also agree with Madison because he points out and makes clear that the causes of faction are sown into the nature of man. That: “as long as man finds a connection between his reason and self love his opinions and his actions will have an equal influence on each other.” This we can see in the extravagant amounts of money spent on campaigns. I also agree that the state legislatures don’t serve long enough as to respond to the problems and issues of the people. They are more interested in remaining in their seats of power than in making changes for the betterment of the people. Especially here in the state of Texas, we as Texans tend to have a mentality in accordance to the famous phrase “if it aint broken, don’t fix it.” Yet we still complain about every thing. And do nothing about it. In the end, and I hate to say it but I lean towards Madison the most. He was afraid of mob rule and I am too. Uninformed, uneducated folks are easy persuaded, sheep like and herded easily by a more intelligent conniving few. Men, who Madison warns us, are of “factious tempers, of local prejudice or of sinister design, may, by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the votes and then betray the interest of the people.” Id like to believe that the object of the American government is ultimately the happiness of the people, but we in turn are so greedy that we are never happy with what have, we always want more. I think that this is the true source of our unhappiness; our own greed and ambitions may drive us to good and better things or to being more needy and dependent.