Module 5 Part 2: Sorry for being late to the Federalist Paper Party

 Module 5 Part 2: The Federalist Papers


In parts 9&10 of the federalist papers the discussion of Republics, confederacies, and factionalism take center stage. In part 9, Alexander Hamilton makes references to and invokes the style of Machiavelli's The Prince when referencing the various histories that have plagued republics. Hamilton specifically refers to the issues of despotism, nepotism and corruption remarking on how these issues especially can stem from republics. However, Hamilton makes a point of referencing how far Political Science and Political Philosophy have come since the days of the Roman Republic, or the failures of the Medici (possibly one of the most powerful factions to ever exist.) Hamilton then calls on the enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu, whose suggestion of combining elements found in confederations with republicanism to create a “Confederate Republic.” Montesquieu through Hamilton explains that 

“This form of government is a convention by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body." (Hamilton)

This single quote provides much of the relevant context for Hamilton's hopes and fears about the idea itself. Having just won a war versus a heavily centralized military power was reason enough to be terrified of a strong government, let alone one of your own creation. However that fear of centralization seems to be overcome, by a fear of one of the colonies trying to usurp the others. Because as Madison points out in part 10, the thinking of the time considers human kind's natural stasis to be in a sort of “natural factionalism.” Essentially saying that over the course of human history we have shown that “[Humans are] much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” (Madison) Which is why the number one fear when creating a new government, is what to do with/ how to handle these natural and powerful factions that arise.

Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson and many others addressed these faction based fears by creating the constitution to curb the side effects of factionalism. That is to create a united democratically elected government that spread factions into each colony, but in a discontinuous way. Essentially instead of having one repressed colony, by having elections across the colonies, discontent had been spread through the country but not centralized in any one area (in theory.) Which creates a situation of intense political discourse, but should prevent a regional rebellion (missed that mark.) In a small way it can be traced to the Roman Republic's method of conquering the disjointed tribes of the Iberian Peninsula and their later wars in Gaul. The strategy of dividing a larger confederation or culture into smaller, chunks to then conquer, and then finally centralize the authority of the state. Which again, is a brilliant strategy when considering the speed and methods of communication at the founding of our nation. However, today as the American system has changed, progressed, regressed, and sputtered. The issue of factionalism remains as relevant and as dangerous as when Hamilton's brought up the subject more than 200 hundred years ago.

That is because American factionalism is now built around the party system. That is to say that most American factions can be traced back to a horridly binary democratic or republican cause. While there are many small parties, and even large factions within each of the major parties, the fact remains that within our political system we have only two politically empowered parties or factions. Which is a major concern when considering that factionalism is at its worst in a binary state, where there is only one winner and subsequently one loser. A worry the founders had, when the cautioned against parties.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Birth of a Nation Paper

  The Birth of a Nation is a historically important film made in  1915, that covers the era of reconstruction flowing into the films present day. While the film is controversial, and in this writer's eyes downright disgusting, it is historically important for a number of reasons. Many of which will be listed in this paper. To note, being of African American heritage and having been partially raised by the daughter of black-Indian sharecropper born in 1929, my views on the subject matter, and the film are inherently biased. Despite my fervent hate of this film, and the makers of it, and the experience of watching it, there are some important notes that can be taken away.  One of the most impactful things the film portrays is a country still grappling with the legacy of the Civil War. The idea of brother against brother or Kin against Kin, that the Civil War did touch upon almost every aspect of American life, and every American life. As shown by the effect it has on both f...
Read more

Entry 2: Connecting class readings, and the Idiocracy to the 2004 Presidential election

  The film Idiocracy, by Mike Judge features many humorous and scarily accurate assessments of American Democracy. Like most Utopian or dystopian tales, the story largely reflects on the time it was written/made, which in this case was during or in the immediate fall out of the Bush V Kerry election. While understanding of the 2004 election has grown in the decades following, at the time of the film one of the major talking points of the race was the “electability” of George W Bush, with much emphasis put on his someone “you'd want to grab a beer with” persona.  What stemmed from that persona was an assumption (and was hoped to be an overreaction) that the American people wanted someone like them to be president.  A horrible idea when one considers that America is one of the most unhealthy, overweight, and poorly educated nations on earth, but a perfect setting for the film Idiocracy.  One of the cornerstones to George W Bush's electable persona was his plain spok...
Read more

Module 6: “Call in the attack dogs” The Vice Presidential Debates

       Over the course of American electoral history presidential debates have changed the course of elections, drawn millions upon millions of eyeballs, and led to more arguments than the state of Israel. Yet throughout this contentious history of yelling, lies, counter lies, and nonsense, one political event usually gets somehow more contentious, the vice presidential debate. This is because historically the President or the Presidential candidate is supposed to maintain an element of decorum and respect, in order to inherit or keep the office of the Presidency. However, as we have found over the course of Donald Trump's political career that he himself is his own attack dog, and Mike Pence is a more traditional face for the administration. Thus the Vice Presidential debate that took place resembled what a Presidential debate should look like. While neither side had a revelatory win or moment, both sides maintained their talking points, forced each other into awkwa...
Read more