Hello there, for your reading you will write a one page response to the following questions:
1. What did Madison mean by 'factions'? In what ways are factions present today?
2. In Federalist 51, what did Madison present as the most efficient way of governing the nation? How did his way address his thesis in No. 10?
Additionally, you will be required to write at least three solid comments on the blog over the course of the next week, either stating some observations you made while writing your response, reading the documents, or responding to a classmate's comment. Of course appropriate grammar is expected and respect your fellow classmates! Have fun...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMadison felt the most efficient way to govern a nation would be to have separate branches of government that would each have the ability to check each other's power. He was very aware of the imperfections found in human nature and wanted to create a system that would not allow any ambitious person to take over. In Federalist 10, he wrote of how the causes of factions could not be removed because it is natural for man to develop differing opinions and try to oppress those who disagree. He knew, however, that is was possible to check the effects of factions. In Federalist 51, he established a way of doing so by stating that separate branches of government would check each other. This would ensure that no faction oppressed the others to an extent that it would be able to rise to power.
ReplyDeleteBy "factions" Madison meant a group of people with a common cause. He felt that if such groups were allowed to prosper, the government would suffer. Factions would be an issue because separate parties would be more focused on arguing with each other than working together and actually getting anything done. He was afraid that if too much liberty was given to the people, they would all come up with their own contrasting ideas that would make governmental processes difficult to carry out. He wanted to have a large, powerful government that had jurisdiction over a smaller society because he believed that this would decrease the number of factions present. Many factions still exist in today's society. There are separate established political parties, like Democrats and Republicans, that have differing views on government. When running against each other (look at Corzine and Christie in the New Jersey gubernatorial race) the Democrat and the Republican tend to slander one another more than they state their own views or do anything productive. Additionally, established religious groups , like Catholics and Jews, could be considered factions. Though religion is not directly related to government, one's views that stem from being part of such a group could impact their ideas on government. Madison felt that these contrasting ideas would be deleterious to society because they would tear people apart.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMadison meant political factions when he brought up the idea of ‘factions’. He goes on to state the fact that factions are the death to governments. He states that a faction is a group of people linked together by a common impulse or cause. Madison thinks that this is bad because if these groups prevail the government will fail because of opposition of ideas which could lead to chaos according to him. He believed that “too much liberty” was the cause for these factions. In response Madison believes that people should be given the same opinions, passions, and interests to stop these factions from being made.
ReplyDeleteFactions exist in today’s government. Two examples are the Democratic and Republican party. These political factions are always at a constant competition. Either party is always trying top find away to over throw the other. For example the fact that the Democrats hold the majority in Congress, whenever the Republicans ever try to draw up a bill these days it automatically gets shot down by the Democrats based solely on the fact that it is a Republican bill. This is the kind of faction opposition that Madison fears.
In Federalist 51 Madison believes that government should be separated into separate branches. He believes this because he thinks that if there is a single house than the government would be able to be corrupted easily by ambitious people. A system of separate branches would set up a system of checks and balances which distributes the power evenly. Also it allows the other branches to check up on one another. In Federalist 10 Madison states that factions would destroy a government because they could take over a government with their opposing ideas. But since Madison sets up this system of checks and balances through the separate branches of government it takes away the fear of a political faction taking over the government. Also it takes away the fear of having factions that have different ideas.
ReplyDeleteJustin brings up an interesting point about the Republican and Democratic factions. He supports Madison's point by stating that a Democrat or a Republican will veto a bill drawn up by the other merely because it has been presented by their opposition. This way of thinking prevents any sort of compromise or sharing of ideas between the two parties. It also prevents things from getting done because each party is constantly focusing on ways to damage the other instead of ways to work together. Madison said that factions can be an issue in government and in this sense he was correct. Factions, like Republicans and Democrats, tend to fight together and do more harm than good. However, these separate parties can also be seen as a positive things because they allow a more broad range of ideas to be brought to the table, which represents all people with varying beliefs. It would be much more beneficial if the separate parties were able to work together and mold their ideas to attempt to represent everyone instead of focusing on having their own party's ideas dominate.
ReplyDeleteWhen Madison talked about factions, he was describing the different groups of citizens that each had similar passions and interests regarding the government of America. These factions conflicted with each other because they had different ideas about basic problems with the government (predominantly on different political styles). Madison also discussed that the possession of property led to altercations between these factions as the amount of property affected the views of each factions. Groups with more land were more likely to be focused on other concerns, while groups with smaller amounts of land were concerned with acquiring more land in order to gain more power. Groups' interests with less land would be focused on attaining more land, rather than focused on reforming the government.
ReplyDeleteIn today's society, factions are represented by political groups. The Republicans and Democrats are the most dominant and largest groups. Both of these groups are constantly bickering over issues that arise in Congress and around the country. Dana's point about the conflict between Jews and Catholics is interesting because even though they are not formally involved with politics, they still are opposing groups that have different interests. This concept could be applied to a wide array of categories (sports, schools, teams, etc). I think it's important to acknowledge that factions do not always have to be associated with politics; they can be applied to any conflicting possibilities.
Madison describes factions as a group of people uniting together to achieve a certain goal or motive. These united people all have the same vision and desire of how rights of citizens and the community as a whole should be handled and what should be established long term. With different factions being established, more and more differenced in ideas and ways about how individuals think the government should run appear. The more factions within a society lead to the more differences and differences always lead to conflict. There are so many people proposing ideas and beliefs but no one will ever shy away from their idea and faction, going along with someone else. Madison states in Federalist number 10 that one of the main causes of factions during the Constitutional period was the distribution of land. Some citizens had an abundant amount while others had barley anything. Madison states that factions will always be apparent in America, the causes may be different but differences in opinions and beliefs will never disappear therefore they will not. Even though these factions make is hard for their to be any type of democratic government due to instability they cause, Madison makes the analogue, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” This analogue shows that even though it may cause distress factions are needed for their to be liberty because they allow the public the express their opinion and have their own ideas. Madison proposes that individual rights and liberty is the most important thing and there needs to be some sort of balance between the two so they can co-exist with a stable government. Today, just as Madison predicted factions are evident all throughout society. An example of factions today is the different political parties in government. The two main ones are obviously the democrats and republicans then there are multiple other parties that are minor. They all have a common goal of running government but the ideas of how they would do this are very different. Each party competes with one another and tries to express to the public that their ideas are the most sensible and beneficial to the country.
ReplyDeleteMadison proposes that the best way to establish government in America is to have three branches of government, judicial, legislative, and executive. These three branches of government should be self-regulating and all have equal power so there is no conflict. Given this power, restrictions also need to be placed on how far and to what extent each of these three branches can do. All men have flaws and some can even be power hungry, restrictions will ensure that no one makes the mistake of going too far because sometimes it can even happen without realizing it. Madison states that the judicial, legislative, and executive branch must control the people and to control themselves. To ensure that power is not taken too far Madison proposed this idea so that there is a system of checks and balances. As each branch keep the other in line and checks for any misuse of power it balances things out and makes certain that the government will never get to the point of that of Britain’s. In federalist 10, Madison says how factions will always be apparent in society but they need to be controlled so that government can be stable because if they are not it can cause the government to diminish. This idea of three separate branches displays the idea of factions and different groups but it allows there to be a stable government because each of these branches with check and balance one another. No one will be able to completely destroy the government and any fears can be erased.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana's example of the different religious factions. These factions have probably brought up the most devastation in governments. For example the Protestant Reformation was an era where wars were fought over by different religious factions. This was all only because of the fact that people believed in God in a different manner. So I can respect the fear that Madison has for the idea of political factions and how they would make a government go into a sense of corruption and chaos.
ReplyDeleteFederalist 51 talks about the steps taken to ensure the peoples' rights are protected, and the separate branches of government are given an equal amount of power. Madison believed a system of checks and balances would be efficient enough to prevent any branch from acquiring too much power. If one part of the government gained more power than the other two, there was the slight possibility that one branch might try to overthrow the other two for supreme and absolute power. Madison also used these checks and balances as his solution to the problematic factions in Federalist 10. Like what Dana and Justin said, with power evenly distributed across the board, it became impossible for one faction to rise to the top. Madison understood that factions will always exist; if more factions existed, the chances of one group becoming stronger than all of the other was slimmed to none. The system of checks and balances would make sure the factions, along with the different branches of government, had the same amount of power.
ReplyDeleteFactions, according to Madison, are a group of people who are united by similar ideas, and have a common passion and goal. There were issues between factions because of conflicting interests, and Madison explained that the only way to get rid of the conflict was to eliminate the rights of the people, or to have everyone have the same ideas and goals. Madison explains that factions have divided people on issues of religion, politics, and other reasons, but they have also brought groups of people together for a common purpose.
ReplyDeleteFactions are present today in government, with the republican and democratic parties, but really are present wherever there are conflicts of interest. If there is a disagreement and different sides to the argument there are factions involved. Factions will always be present and it is impossible to eliminate them because different people have different opinions.
In article 51, Madison proposes different branches of government to more evenly distribute power, and ensure the rights of the people. This addresses what he wrote about earlier with factions, because with a system of checks and balances it is impossible for one faction to rise above another and over power the other. Factions could easily overpower government decisions with their opposing viewpoints, however with the different branches of government and a system of checks and balances, it prevents the government from collapsing in on itself.
ReplyDeleteChris brought up an interesting point that factions do not only have to be political ones, that they exist where ever a disagreement exists. I also like Dana's reference to the New Jersey elections, how people spend more time disagreeing with each other instead of promoting their own views is a greta example of how factions could be detrimental in government. This is also applicable, as Chris brought up, in every day life, with sports teams and just general difference of opinion.
ReplyDeleteMadison defined factions as different groups of people who come together, or against one another, because of a common goal, interest, or plan they all share. Hence competition. This competition and shared impulses may lead to clashes and conflicts, which ultimately leads to instability and corruption. In Federalist No. 10, Madison points out that there are only two ways of ending the problems the factions create; by ridding the causes and further manipulating the effect. He then continues to describe to to get rid of the causes; by destroying the liberties and freedoms necessary to thrive off of, and by bringing everyone in society to one perspective and all holding the same opinions, passions, and interests. (ultimately creating a homogenous society) It truly is not possible for society to be this way, and especially to be this way successfully. As Madison describes afterwards, to get rid of freedoms and liberties would further corruption, and they are essential parts of politics and also society in general. They are what create the factions that are so necessary for "survival." Madison continues to describe how these freedoms and liberties ultimately carry out to the individual, and his (or her) thought process and perspective. Each citizen has the right to their own point of view, and the differences in passions and influence the individual brings onto others is necessary for society to thrive off of. America values the importance of liberty and variation. The differences brought in by factions is what feeds into society, just as society feeds into what is thought by each faction. As much controversy as these factions may cause, without them, the stresses, if not more stresses, would just continue in society, and cause just as much instability and corruption as the factions would in the first place. Factions and the differences they bring to one concept creates competition which is also essential for society, especially American society. America is a capitalist nation, and capitalism is based off of competition. Competition and the variation brought to one united aspect is how groups and individuals in those groups are capable of voicing their personal thoughts and values, which may further effect their perspective on an issue. This is highly the case in politics where the Republican and Democratic parties hold specific values and motives that ultimately represent each party, yet a specific individual from the party also has their own personal perspective that is most likely influenced by the general view of the group. As Chris had previously said, factions are not only in politics. This is because it simply takes at least two different groups who hold a common goal and/or general motive. Factions are seen in religion (both in different religions and also in the same religion: Orthodox or Extremist groups vs. reform groups) sports, education, and so on. Without factions, there would be a lack of influence and inspiration. Competition and variety is ultimately what fuels society.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate goal of the Americans was to not end up being corrupt and power hungry like England, leading to the fear of a centralized government. Madison proposed a way to create a centralized government that would not be so entirely concentrated and powerful by having three different branches. Madison used the overall concept behind factions in order to create a way for power to be equally distributed among the groups, and providing a way to bring in different perspectives towards making a decision. (group effort) This would take away the power of the individual; creating a way to prevent absolute power. Madison also proposed the concept of checks and balances, which provided a way to keep the distribution of power successful, and also prevent a group from coming into full power by themselves. Each group is able to place their input towards one aspect, and hopefully come to a decision that is thought to be best. Each branch also has its own roles and responsibilities that the other groups don't hold to the same extent, if they have it at all. This way, the group effort towards governing and making decisions for the country is forced, further avoiding the possibility of absolutism.
ReplyDeleteCarly's observation on Madison's judgement is important to understand because they lead to the importance of an individual. America valued freedom and independence (as that is what they fought for in the Revolutionary War). Madison never forgot the importance of liberties and values during the time the constitution was formed. He knew that if they were forgotten or abandoned, corruption in the American government would form. The importance of each citizen's point of view (the different factions) is crucial for the success of a strong government.
ReplyDeleteMadison is referring to different political parties separated by their different opinions when he refers to factions. Each individual group of people is linked together by a common impulse or cause. In his time, the two main factions were the federalists and the anti federalists. The factions were an issue in the government because there was the possibility that they would focus more on fighting with each other than working together to get things accomplished. Believing that factions were the death of government, Madison states that if these groups prevail the government will fail because of opposition of ideas would lead to chaos. He acknowledges that factions will always exist because of the vast range of opinions in American society, even today. Although several examples can be produced, today’s government displays factions mainly by the two main political parties, the republicans and the democrats. For example, Corzine and Christie, who come from separate parties, have slightly shifted their focus onto making their opponent look bad instead of concentrating on representing the people. Factions like these are a detriment to society according to Madison.
ReplyDeleteMadison discusses having three separate branches of government, the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive to efficiently govern America. He explains that each branch should be independent and have the same amount of power. Madison also mentions the need for restrictions on power. He stresses that the government must be able to control the people, but also control itself. Madison also mentions that in most republic governments the legislative branch is the most powerful, so he uses the Senate and House of Representatives to balance out the power and provides checks and balances. This addresses the factions that he wrote about earlier because with a system of checks and balances it is impossible for one faction to rise above another and over power the other. The government cannot support large groups ganging up on smaller groups and ultimately getting whatever they desire. The majority must agree on justice and general good for society to be balanced and for the government to be successful.
ReplyDeleteFederalist papers! Madison knew his stuff. The fact that these ideas, especially the three-branches-of-government model, endured so long over time is inspiring as well as exciting. Madison made good, solid predictions as to what the country would need, and definitely took the long-term into account on this one.
ReplyDeleteIn class we talked about the most important danger to take into account when forming a government: decay. The government has to be able to change with time and adapt; it has to be flexible and as the ideas of the people shift, it should also be able to shift in response or agreement. As time passes, new problems arise and new technology is created, and with these new laws must come to keep a new order amongst the people.
The Articles had a weak central government that gave the states so much power that it was incredibly difficult to make an amendment to the Constitution or even to pass a law. Madison knew that a central power was needed to make the passing of laws and amendments easier, but he also took into account that making this process too simple would only be baiting corruption in the future. His government with three branches theory allows all three branches to check each other and make the process of creating a law or amending the Constitution challenging, but still, possible while leaving no room for corruption.
For example, if a bill is proposed by Congress and passed, it's sent to be approved by the President. He can veto it if he feels that the bill shouldn't become a law. After it's vetoed, Congress still has a chance to make the bill a law if 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate want it passed. Making a bill a law is an endeavor, to be sure, but since the President and the Congress can check each other back and forth, it is less likely that a bum law can be made.
Three separate parts of government also make corruption less likely, as well as the idea of two chambers in the Legislative Branch. It was also good of Madison to allow the state legislatures to pick their representatives in the Senate; that would definitely please the people who felt they were being skimped on state power.
Federalist No.10 on factions intrigues me. It seems that the people of Madison's time looked down upon the idea of factions more than we do today. Madison felt that a faction was made up of people whose ideas went against the ideas of other groups of people. He thought that the government system he planned would set a way to deal with factions while still allowing people to express their opinions and exercise their freedoms.
ReplyDeleteToday we have plenty of factions, whether they're large political factions, or factions based upon certain beliefs that people wish to see established politically. These factions are more praised than despised or suppressed, in actuality, they balance each other out and also allow the voice of the people to be heard, making it clear that the voice of the people differs on many fronts. Factions thrive and cause our government to thrive, gaining more or less control in intervals like a sort of power-based hot-potato so as not to give any one faction too much power for too long.
I like Dana's idea that religious groups can be considered factions. They may not be directly related to politics, however, a lot of religious groups have different standpoints on plenty of ideas that have to do with politics. For example, there are the differing opinions on sexuality and the legality of abortion when it comes to different religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteJustin brings up a good point; Madison is right in his suspicion of factions, and we should still be suspicious despite their contributions, for factions can cause plenty of problems. If they get too large or too powerful, they can swallow up the authority of the government itself. Or, as Justin mentioned, they can even end up turning a blind eye towards their own beliefs when these beliefs are "shared" by an opposing faction, simply because they oppose that faction's other ideas. Situations like these cause corruption, one of the main fears of those creating America's new government system.
Claudia's example also has plenty of merit; she addressed Corzine and Christie, but I believe this same strategy of making the other politician "look bad" is used in plenty of other elections. Opponents in elections make not only hits on the opposition's ideas, but even worse, they can even drag personal beliefs and flaws into the public eye in order to paint a picture of a terrible person. Factions should be watched. Perhaps we should heed Madison more and work to eliminate the corruption in our many thriving factions.
In Federal 10, Madison described a "faction" as a number of citizens who are united in a common interest or passion. His general connotation towards the word is bad, however he also understands that the cause for factions is indispensable. He compares factions to fire. A fire cannot be permanently prevented without getting rid of air, however without air, we would not be able to live. In this respect, factions cannot be prevented without getting rid of liberties, however getting rid of liberties would mean no promise of freedom for the people. Dealing with factions is much less detrimental then dispensing of peoples liberties. I really liked this metaphor, because it struck me as an interesting way of looking at factions. I also took the metaphor one step further, realizing that fire can be destructive but it can also be beneficial. Likewise, factions can help a society, or hurt it. Some helpful ones include groups within the UN and CIA. Other, less helpful ones include the Bilderberg group, and Al-Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteMadison also described what he felt would be an efficient way of governing the new nation. In Federal 51 he explained that each department of government must be independent of each other, and that they all must be dependent on the people. Likewise, to preserve the peoples rights, the government would have to be “divided and then subdivided” to provide a system of checks and balances. As he had recognized in Federal 10, leaders’ self love and opinions would act on one another. This being said, he stated that “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” meaning that the leaders must have some personal reason to do what is best for the people, or the system would become corrupt.
By "faction", Madison was describing a group of people who are united in their beliefs that are against the rights of other citizens. He believed that they were formed because of human nature and the liberties given to them. Although he thought that without liberties, factions couldn't flourish, he also believed that liberties were essential to political life. So he decided that the causes of factions could not be removed, and only the effects could possibly be diminished. Today, factions are present in political parties. For instance, the two major political parties or "factions" in America are the Democrats and Republicans. When used today, factions usually refers to more independent or radical parties such as Libertarians, the Green Party, and others.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist 51, Madison outlines the benefits of a government with checks and balances in place. He thought that the ambitions of the separate factions described in Federalist 10 would cancel each other out. They would provide competition in the legislative branch, the one he thought was most important.
In the 10th Federalist paper, James Madison discusses that the Constitution developed a method to control violence created from factions. Madison defines factions as groups of people that are united or separated by common interests and goal. Man’s passion for different opinions in religion, government, methods in how a country should be governed, as well as a person’s like or dislike toward a leader are just some of the many causes that create factors in governments. Furthermore, Madison states that the most common source of factions is the unequal distribution of property. Inevitably, men of the same social and economic stature are more likely to have the same type of beliefs as men of different statures.
ReplyDeleteFactions will always be a part of society, as Madison states, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” One of the main factions that are present in today’s society is the main faction in the political party between the democrats and the republicans. These two groups share the common goal of wanting to provide the best methods to run the nation. However, disputes amongst the members of the government caused these two different groups to form.
One of the problems that the writers of the Constitution had great trouble with was to not create another Great Britain. The Americans feared giving too much power to the national government, and therefore, Madison wanted to prove that the Constitution’s form of government would give the people the power. Madison states that each of the three branches of government will be independent and have “a will of its own,” and through checks and balances, the government would not have anyone who abuses their power for personal interest rather than for the interest of the nation. Also, dividing the governmental powers ensures that the national government would not have too much power. Madison states that the legislative branch has greater power, and the remedy for this problem is to divide the legislature into different branches, in to the House of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, Madison believes that the Constitution’s method of dividing the government into different branches will be the most effective way to make sure that the government does not become tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteIn Madison’s Federalist Paper 51, he addresses the thesis of the Federalist Paper 10 very clearly when he states that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Madison makes another reference that all men have different opinions and passions, and if that was not a human characteristic, we would not need a government, and there would be no factions present in our society today. However, because of the rivaling interest, as Madison states, the Constitution needed to provide guidelines and methods in creating a successful government that would fit to the interest of the people.
I find it funny how worried Madison was about factions. He was worried that with liberty comes freedom of opinion, with freedom of opinion comes a variety of beliefs, and people that share the same beliefs unite together and argue with other factions. His concern is almost prophetic, seeing how now in current times we have the Democrats and Republics arguing amongst themselves and trying to deny each other the bills they want passed.
ReplyDeleteBut they are a necessary evil as well, Madison believes. They'll exist as long as there is liberty, and even though factions give governments headaches and slow it down, you still want there to liberty. And they do have their benefits; factions keep each group's ideas in check and keep each other from doing things totally insane, eliminating the issue of passion when it comes to government. Too many factions, and there's too much arguing. Not enough factions, you slip into dictatorship. It's a fine line, and it brings up a question that seems to manifest throughout American history: how much power does the government get, and how much freedom do the people maintain?
Chris and Dana made interesting points on factions in general, outside of politics; they're everywhere. Religiously, you see people with different beliefs debating (or fighting) where their churches' ideas don't agree. You even see that with people in the same religion, like how Christianity is subdivided into a whole slew of Protestant religions, Catholicism, etc.
ReplyDeleteSports, too. And not just the fact that people have different teams that they support, but in the running of sports as well. One thing that comes to my mind is the lockout 1998 to 1999 NBA Season. The Player's Association was a faction, the NBA was another, and they couldn't agree on a Collective Bargaining Agreement, and until they could, the season had to be kept from starting. Of course, David Stern, the NBA commissioner, won in the end. He ALWAYS gets what he wants. But it took a while, because there was a faction opposing him.
In Federalist 51, the 3 branches of government were proposed, though I'm not sure that they have been quite as efficient as Madison would have hoped (thanks to factions, of course). But it's a good system. Each branch of government clearly has different powers, but at the same time, their duties are connected so that each may keep the other two in check and balance them out.
ReplyDeleteAn example is with passing a law. The power to propose a law is in the Congress, and it is exclusively a power in the Congress. But the President has a power related to that: vetoing a bill. But then, the Congress has a power related to that: overriding a veto. Even though their powers never directly overlap, they're connected enough so that each can keep each other in check. Otherwise, we'd have three branches each running things the way they'd like, and it would be like having 3 separate monarchs in control at the same time. The branches are connected, but not identical, and this allows them to have a coherency that allows for an efficient, in control government.
Looking deeper into the idea of factions put my mind in a new perspective on our American government. I always thought our government was separated into three separate branches simply because of each branch having its own roles and responsibilities. Although this is somewhat true, I've now realized that creating these branches was a way to distribute the power, and avoid absolute power.
ReplyDeleteNot only was my perspective on the basis of our government altered, but I was able to relate to the concept of factions and realize it corresponds with other things like sports, theater, art, companies, etc. Through this i realized that factions does not only apply to political ideals, but practically applies everywhere.
ReplyDeleteBy reading Dana's point on religious factions and Scott's point on factions in sports, I have realized that factions, and the competition it causes, has not only been part of American history, but the history of our world; and it still affects our world today. The concept was either been directly or indirectly used through out all sorts of governments, organizations, and associations for hundreds and thousands of years. People have always had different values and perspectives on things that relate to what others believe as well. These beliefs have also always clashed with what other people thought. The process of factions being created and the competition it brings has not only been a fundamental of America, but a fundamental part of our world globally.
ReplyDeleteA fundamental criticism of democracy is a majority overpowering a minority. In a pure democracy, a minority, no matter how large will not be able to stand up to a majority. In the 10 Federalist paper, Madison addresses this concern. In it, he includes the idea that as a republic, a strong majority will have to filter their ideas to one person, who will represent many. As the amount a person represents becomes larger and larger, a faction's, or a majority's ideals becomes more and more vague and controversial. As more people join a populace, the lines between factions will hopefully become blurrier and blurrier, because in a large group of people, it is difficult to come up with two solid polar opinions that each group applies too. In every faction, there will be some sort of moderate. There will be people in one faction who lean occasionally to the ideals of another. Because of this, a small faction may not have as large a voice as the rest of the populace, simply by being a minority, but that doesn't mean they will be smothered by the majority. It may not be completely flawless, because a minority does not have as much voice as a majority, but as Madison points out, there is no better alternative in which the populace has a voice. A minority faction may be violent when it feels it does not have a voice, but because of reasons stated above, this will not likely happen, because as more and more people joining the majority and the minority, the views of each party become vaguer, and it is difficult to stamp on another faction's ideals without disagreeing with many members of the majority.
ReplyDeleteDana makes a great point by stating how factions are not only found in governemnt but in religion too.Not only Americans, but people all over the world practice different cultures and worships different things. Today, there are even sects of religions branching off of one main one which causes even more diversity.This huge variety shows how advanced we have became to accept differences but still be able to unite as a country. In history, individuality and differnced were looked down upon but today differnces and uniquness is admirable.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and analyzing the federalist papers i now know more about the governemnt and why it is set up the way that it is. Before, I did not know why there were three branches of government and what their purpose was. After reading these artciles i learned how they all have sepearte jobs but work together to check and balance one another. The three branches allow the power to be evenly spread, so there is not one person who has absolute power. The three braches of government was a great idea developed in early America so that the new nation did not fall into the type of government that Great Britian had.
ReplyDeleteSarah brings up an interesting point that is discussed in federalist paper 10. A leader has to have some self-reason and motivation to allow himself to do what is the best and right for the people. If a president for example has no interest in helping the public and no drive to better the nation the system will become chaotic and corrupt. Leading a country for the wrong reasons can lead to absolute power and dictatorship, this is why Madison proposed that a president or leader should not just meet the requirments but want to help others and see progress in our nation. As the public sees this dedication they will develop hope and confidence and they too can help to make changes.
ReplyDeleteWhen James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 10 about the advantages of the new Union, he described the way the newly and well-constructed Union had allowed for control over the violence of a “faction”. These “factions” were political groups and enemies of the government, fighting against every change the government wanted. Madison described them as a disease, one that every popular government has faced. Yet Madison writes that liberty is to faction what air is to fire; liberty keeps factions fighting for the cause, creating disorder and dissent. These factions, no matter how annoying or aggravating, are necessary to the government. They help fuel the government to maintain our liberties. Factions are present today as well in the form of the Republican and Democratic parties. These two parties are further broken down into smaller factions such as the neoconservative party and the Conservative Democrats that all contribute to finding the best way of maintaining a stable nation.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist Paper 51, Madison presents that the most efficient way of governing the nation is by creating a separation of powers within the national government and to create a system of checks and balances. He discusses that the power over people should be divided through three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial within the federal government, stressing the idea that each branch be separate and independent from the others in order to not encroach on another’s powers. Madison suggested that to create security against encroachment on other powers, that the government should create a check and balances system, but allowing most of the power to the legislative branch. He also stated that in order to maintain liberty, it would be best that no governmental branch involve itself in the appointment of others. His presentation of his ideas addressed his thesis in Federalist Paper 10 as well when he acknowledged the factions and realized that they will always be present no matter how much we try to fight them. The only way to counteract factions is to have several of them.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Scott that Chris and Dana made an interesting point that factions exist everywhere not only in politics. It’s interesting to see that factions do exist in sports as well and Scott made a great point by bringing up the 1998 to 1999 NBA Season. His example of two groups that could not agree on a settlement, the NBA and the Player’s Association illustrated how opposition from factions could keep goals from being met like they do in politics. Factions apply to much more than just the government, they apply to everything in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Sarah and how she stated that a leader has to have motivation to do what is best and right for the people and the country. Without an honorable motivation, how can we expect the leader to do what is best to help improve the nation. Instead, all that will come is corruption and decay of the country. Madison’s point that a president should want to truly help the nation progress and grow helped establish the barrier between the right leader and the wrong leader. It is this dedication to improvement that prevents a nation from deteriorating because of the self-interest and greed of one person.
Emily brought up an interesting point when she mentioned that the only way to fight factions is to have many of them. I think the best way to fight factions would actually be to limit the access and communication that individuals had amongst themselves. If the few ambitious people cannot spread their radical ideas and beliefs to the persuadable people, their infection won't spread. The country should look into creating policies combatting factions because they can destroy organizations, governments, and even countries. The problem is that some people take it way too far and even if they initially had good intentions, those intentions were lost in the competition between factions. We must remember that competition brings out the best and the worst in people.
ReplyDeleteFactions exist everywhere because competition is in man's basic nature. I believe that many times, factions manifest into huge issues because the leaders either have the wrong intentions, or lose sight of the good intentions.
ReplyDeleteAn example we should all keep in mind due to the upcoming event known as penny wars...
Some teachers get extremely involved, whether they began with the hope to help the needy or not, it is almost inevitable that the most competitive teachers get sucked into spirit and forget the humanitarian cause behind the war.
It is extremely difficult to keep a clear perspective all the time which is why finding a good leader is so difficult. Everyone is human and at some point will be influenced by some emotion or outside affect. In the struggle to find a solid leader, since nobody is perfect we need a just man that can keep his head straight when the most important decisions need to be made.
Even our founding fathers were swayed by different factors as to how the developed the nation that we call America. They had the opportunity to leave their stamp on history and needless to say they took that opportunity.
In Federalist 10 Madison points out that factions are fueled by the fact that there is liberty. I find that to be very interesting because he also describes a well constructed union as "its tendency to break and control the violence of faction". When I read this, I briefly wondered if our country was a truely well constructed union. Since America offers so much freedom shouldn't there be a lot of disention? But Madison describes further that factions are run by groups of people that are united or separated by common goals and interests, and to me, this includes more than just violent goals as well. So I concluded later that factions were a good thing for our country because it brought about leaders representing the majority as well as some minority leaders. The majority of these factions had goals in their minds that helped develop the country and therefore didn't have to be such a bad thing Madison described it to be.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of more than one faction balancing one another so one doesn’t become more powerful because even though its harder to come to a conclusion on things, a wider variety of interests are taken into account. Even though a smaller republic is ideal and easier to deal with, I don’t really think it hears the minorities which are sometimes important for certain decisions. I disagree with David's comment "a minority does not have as much voice as a majority". I think that every voice should count, and even if it takes forever to reach certain goals because it is hard to reach an agreement, wouldn't it be better to have an end result that covers everybody and not just the majority? I'm sure the minorities aren't very happy when they're left out and I think they should all be heard. And I know that its not easy to iron out all the ramifications of these ideals, but I think that we would just be closer to a better union and utopia if it were possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana when she says that separate parties, like Republicans and Democrats can be seen as a positive thing because they allow a broad range of ideas to be brought to the table, which represents most people with varying beliefs. Like she said, it would be more beneficial as well as productive if they worked together to represent everyone instead of focusing on their own party's ideas. The dominating ideas of a single party are also biased as well and can be balanced by other opposing interests. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”. If one party became too powerful, like Scott said, it could become a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist # 10, Madison mentions Factions are causing some problems in the nation. By Faction, Madison means they are a number of citiznes who are united by some common passion. That the passion is adverse to the rights of other citizens. There are not many factions today but there are some. There are some political factions that split from their own party, whether its Democratic or Republican. These people differ from what there party beleives but still consider themselves as a member of that political party. There are also political religous groups like Christian Right. These groups are deemed factions because they sometimes go against some constitutional rights. In the big shceme of things, factions are basically groups that pursue self-interest at the expense of the commmon good.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist # 51, Madison mentions that the most effective way in governing a nation is using checks and balances within the government. However, first, Madison says beleives that no government branch should be involved with others. Madison also asserts that the legislative branch should be the strongest and therefore should be divided so they are as little connnected to each other as possible. This is where checks and balances also comes in, as Madison stresses that both groups of the legislative branch should check and balance each other so one does not become corrupt. In the end of Federalist 51, Madison mentions factions again but this time he has a slightly different oppinion. He recognizes that factions will always be present, so the way to counteract them is have more factions. This goes against his thesis in Fed.10 becasue there he said that the factions should be controlled.
ReplyDelete(federalist 10)What Madison means by factions is the opinion of the people. But in the passage he is saying that these factions can destroy a government. Everybody have different opinions concerning religion, government, and many other points. These opinions and interests by the people can be bias and prejudice though. Madison concludes that a republic has an advantage over a democracy because it controls the effects of faction better. Factions are presented today in many ways. There are many groups who have their own opinions and have bias views. For example, there are racial and religious groups which have factious views.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Rebecca's point on factions not being bad, because they represent the majority and minority. I hadn't really though about it this way, because I was focusing on the bad factions that have been formed over the years, not only in America, but around the world as well. I knew their are good factions, however now I am seeing it more as a matter of opinion. Those who support and are involved with the factions I consider bad, most likely since it is the right thing to do. Whether or not a faction is considered "good" or "bad" all depends on who is looking at it, however they do represent a huge American right to freedom.
ReplyDeleteMadison defined factions as a group of citizens who are joined together by the same passion or interest. In Federalist No. 10, Madison said that factions cause instability within the government due to the fact that they up end with controversies when public interest is disregarded. Two solutions that he presented in the article included removing the causes of faction and controlling its effects. An evident example of a faction that is present today would be a political party such as the Democrats and the Republicans. The people who are consisted within a political party share similar beliefs. These parties try to be in command of public policy so as to help the interests of their members. Madison stated that the contrasting views that factions came along with would be harmful to the society because they create problems with the people.
ReplyDeleteIn Federalist No. 51, Madison presented a federal government which included the separate branches of government that utilized a system of checks and balances as the most efficient way of governing the nation. The main goal of the checks and balances system was to guarantee that no one individual or party had too much power in the government to cause corruption. In Federalist No. 10, although Madison stated that factions were detrimental to a government, his establishment of the checks and balances would prevent a political faction from taking over the government. Therefore, checking the effects of factions would avoid corruption and maintain the balance of power.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dana's point about how factions do not always have to pertain to politics. For example, in Christinity and Judaism, people have opposing viewpoints. This type of faction regarded religion and not politics for a change. Therefore, factions don't necessarily have to pertain to politics, as long as it is a group that shares a similar passion/belief in a cause, it would be considered as a faction. In addition, I like how Chris and Scott brought up further instances where factions don't pertain to religion or politics, but rather sports and everyday life. It helped me better understand that factions could concern multiple topics that some wouldn't even think of and it puts the term on a much broader scale of thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnswering #1... In Federalist Paper 10 Madison uses the word 'factions' in order to indicate certain groups of people. As a skilled speaker, this simply allowed any reader to understand/recognize the different types of people who were involved in the issues at hand. Like several people have stated so far, factions of people could now be divided into... liberal, conservative, republican, democratic, and so on. Because there are different factions of people, this indicates several different ideologies and opinions amongst many. When these ideas clash, conflicts are created in return. As stated today... "Every reaction has an equal or opposite reaction." *hits himself on the head* Going on, factions became known as a danger to government. In order to run a government a leader would usually hope for positive and strong opinions for one common cause in order to have a people excel, however, because there was such diversity amongst ideas, and no true common beliefs amongst all people, other than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this did indeed cause problems for the government which the states were trying to form.
ReplyDeleteDerek makes a good point about factions checking other factions, this would workout very well if our country had more than two main political parties. Because we only have two main parties, many congressmen sometimes vote the way their party is voting instead of the way their state is voting. Also many past presidential elections are often about "who will do the least harm" instead of "who will do better for the country". If our country had more factions, then their would be a wider variety of people to elect, which could result in is choosing the strongest leader.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the factions in our government are not restrictive on who can support either side, I feel that the factions make it easier for less affluent people to gain support. Our presidential elections tend to favor wealthier candidates simply because they can buy themselves more publicity through television, banners, pins, posters, etc. Factions can also be seen as BENEFICIAL because a poor republican can gain support through his political party instead of his wealth and rank. Since factions are inevitable, we must look at the good that they bring to our government and in a more general outlook our country.
ReplyDeleteResponse to #2... Madison's beliefs of running the nation's government was based on the idea of having separate branches.By having separate branches, a system of checks and balances was established and by doing so an equal balance would be reached amongst the members of the nation's government, and this in return would reflect upon the people, or from the people. People naturally have their own opinions and by realizing the key things about 'factions' Madison was able to capitalize upon his beliefs. The gov't had to realize that when factions exist amongst a people, there resides several different viewpoints. And when these viewpoints come together, once more, conflicts may result, but by creating a system that was able to balance the powers of all of the branches of government the wishes and needs of the people could be equally established amongst society. Human nature would be protected, and the ambition of the people would be portrayed through the government which they would uphold.
ReplyDeleteI want to support several classmates acclaims and back them up, such as Chris, Michelle, Dana, Scott, etc... Factions is just a word we use to describe different groups of people in our lives with different viewpoints, and sometimes these differing viewpoints lie within the same groups of people. Factions do not only pertain to politics and religion, that is something we all realize. They are an everyday thing, and really factions apply to our lives every single day at several moments each day. Our society is formed, faction upon faction, upon faction, of differing ideas, people, and so on. And even our naturally developed factions create their own system of checks and balances!
ReplyDeleteFactions are always going to exist because man wants to assimilate himself into a group in order not to be alone. Once in the group, he will have be completely persuaded in the cause of the group, which in the case of Madison is detrimental to society, because it only represents one point of view and will not benefit all of society. Madison's approach to solving this problem is probably the best solution out there. Since one cannot eliminate factions, because it is man's nature and if they are banned it is a clear violation of the freedom of speech, the government must regulate them in order that society as a whole is represented equally and everyone recieves benefits. And besides, if a person is an optimist and believes that humans are generally good, than there is no problem with factions. They just help get the ideas of the people out in a more unified and cohesive way. That way, when representatives vote, they'll only get one letter from one faction instead of thousands of letters from individuals all asking for the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIn federalist 51, Madison wants to use a system of checks and balances to spread power and representation equally. Madison was saying that if a certain faction gets more power than other factions, than this stronger faction can oppress the weaker one which causes a threat in the eyes of Madison. Madison would rather have more factions but all weaker power. I agree with Marco's statement that factions will always exist because of the nature of man and that it can only be controlled. Since factions can not be destroyed, Madison felt that this is the best way to control these factions. Federalist 51 address's the thesis of federalist one because federalist 10 was about what and how factions can destroy a government. Then in federalist 51, Madison shows examples of how to control the issue of factions and keep a stable government.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete