My name is Harry and I am excited to be in this politics class. I don't have much experience in online classes, so I hope to learn as much as possible from Prof. Murdaco and all my virtual classmates.
Harriman Beepat Prof: B. Murdaco POL 166 September 17, 2013 Assignment Due 9/17: Choose a quote from Bourne and write it out in your blog. Under that write your interpretation of what you think the author is trying to say and explain that. Then, after that write out your own explanation of the meaning of this passage and why you chose this specific quote and how it relates to this class. “America is a unique sociological fabric and it bespeaks poverty of imagination not to be thrilled at the incalculable potentialities of so novel a union of men. To seek no other goal than the weary old nationalism, belligerent, exclusive, inbreeding, the poison of which we are witnessing now in Europe, is to make patriotism a hollow sham, and to declare that, in spite of our boastings, America must ever be a follower and not a leader of nations.” This essay by Bourne is about diversity and multi-culturalism. It is about the fear that new immigrants coming to this country after World War 1 will not subscribe to the Anglo-Saxon views. Furthermore, there was also a view that in order for them to be “American”, and be assimilated into society, they should be forced to conform to the “American” way of life. Lehman College in my opinion, reflects this diversity and multi-culturalism and the above quote I selected depicts in essence the synopsis of this paper and what the author is against; the myopic view that all new immigrants should forget their old customs and culture and totally adapt to this country’s melting pot. In my view, America is a trans-national country, comprising of citizens of all nationality and ethnicity, and because of this, it should be a leader in showing the world the true meaning of cosmopolitanism. Not merely by being a follower of societies of the past but by being a pioneer of the first true international nation. I am a first generation immigrant and this passage speaks to me in many ways. For example, if one was to look to the white house, you will see a President who epitomizes what Bourne so eloquently wrote about in this essay. A President comprising of varying ethnicity, and who looks like modern day America and whose extended family can be found in all corners of the world, and to me this is America.
Harry, Beautifully said. I agree with your interpretation of Bourne's essay. We are fortunate to have a president that embodies a varying ethnicity, but some people in this country do not agree. They would have us deny a path to citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in this country. It seems that whoever comes in to this country last wants to close the door and let no one else come in. I do think that English should be our language and all should learn it. I have traveled a great deal in China, Australia and Europe and find most people speak English or want to learn English. Every new arrival, French, German, Greek, Norwegian, Indian, Chinese, Russian all learned English. I don't think we should have to make exceptions for anyone.
I really like your quote. In fact, this essay is in all its extent a great essay. Bourne took the time to criticize the weakness of the nation who was saving the Anglo-Saxon from the oppressive hand of the Europeans. Lehman for sure reflects the world in which we live with is good and bad sides. P.S I love Lehman!!
Harriman Beepat Prof: B Murdaco POL 166 September 24, 2013.
Assignment (Due 9/24): Choose a quote from Chesterton and write it out on your blog. Under that write your interpretation of what you think the author is trying to say. Then, after that write out your own explanation of the meaning of this passage and why you chose this specific quote.
“Hence in international relations there is far too little laughing, and far too much sneering. But I believe that there is a better way which largely consists of laughter; a form of friendship between nations which is actually founded on differences.”
Chesterton wrote “What is America” almost a century ago, and it pertains to learning about other countries and cultures around the world then and even more so today, as the world is slowly shrinking with “progress.” He concludes that one should take the time to learn about others, and celebrate their differences. This celebration of diversity is what in my opinion the author writes about when he stated that “friendship between nations is actually founded on differences.” I chose the above quotation as I feel that Americans need to be aware of the diversity of beliefs and culture around the world, and what conclusions can be drawn from international relations. In fact, such knowledge of diversity hopefully can only increase the peace and prosperity of the US. Many older Americans believe that the younger generation of Americans hardly have any knowledge of their own heritage, and furthermore young people do not learn about and understand the value of Western civilization, and its implications that has been passed down to us from ancient western traditions. The majority do not understand the ideas and reasoning of the Founding Fathers of America. Therefore, with this in mind many questions why should young people be traveling abroad and studying other cultures, when they don’t even understand their own cultural heritage? American, ignorant of their own heritage and the reasoning behind it, is unable to think critically about other cultures. And this inability will lead to confusion and error. And such confusion and error will weaken the US and the values and beliefs that have made it great.
I agree with you to a certain point. But other cultures also have to understand their culture and the American culture as well. Respect is earn and given. If you respect me I respect you on that aspect culture does not play apart it is just human nature.
Harriman Beepat Prof: B Murdaco POL 166 October 1st 2013
Assignment (Due 10/1): Choose a passage from one of the readings (Adams, Rush, or Paine) and one from the Declaration of Independence. Write out both passages. Under that interpret the meaning of what the author is saying, and why they are saying it. Explain why you chose this passage and how it relates to the lecture.
“Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.”
In Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, he argues for Independence for the colonists from English rule. His argument begins with more general, speculative reflections about government and religion, and then gradually developed onto the specifics of the colonial situation. Common Sense was by far the most influential article of the American Revolution, and it remains one of the most influential and brilliant pamphlets ever written in that era. Paine's political pamphlet brought the rising revolutionary sentiment into sharp focus by placing blame for the suffering of the colonies directly on the reigning British monarch, George III. Paine discusses in general, the notions of monarchy and hereditary succession. Man, Paine argues, was born into a state of equality, and the distinction that has arisen between king and subject is an unnatural one. He says that even if people were to choose to have a king- that does not legitimize that King's child acting as a future ruler. Paine calls hereditary succession an abominable practice and has brought with it innumerable evils, such as incompetent kings, corruption, and civil war. I chose the above captioned passage as it directly makes a case for Independence from England, and it gave the colonists legitimacy in their fight to achieve this end. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”
In the above quotation from the Declaration of Independence, the injuries and usurpations refer directly to the colonists, and the suffering they endured at the hands of their colonial master from England. George III was definitely a tyrant and to some extent a dictator. He took no heed to the demands of the colonists for basic representation, more autonomy and a general sense of fair play. As the above quotation from Paine’s letter states, the common enemy of the colonists was the Monarchy, and I chose the above quotation from the Declaration of Independence to show the similarities between both documents.
I think that is an interesting quote. The absurdness of allowing someone to rule simply because he or she was born into power is obviously ridiculous. Paine said it leads to incompetent rulers because the only qualification is blood line. However, when the people choose a leader for themselves they tend to look for the obvious qualities a leader should have, like honesty, wisdom and so forth. I chose to write about the dangers of a government unwilling to change with the times and the needs of later generations which is related. Just like a man is not qualified to be king simply because his father was king, a law is not qualified to be a law today just because it made sense as a law 100 years ago.
Harriman Beepat Prof. B Murdaco POL 166 October 8th 2013
Assignment: Due 10/8… Choose one Article from the Constitution and choose a specific Section and a specific Clause or short paragraph (for example Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5). Write out the clause, interpret it, and explain why you chose this passage.
I chose my target sentence from the preamble.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The emphasis on personal liberty was one of the most noticeable features of this new republic. The Fathers of the nation, on writing the Constitution, took into account the varied political and religious background of its new citizens, especially with regards to suppression. This was instrumental in preserving the freedom of new Americans in the New World. The authors of the Constitution, in giving authority to the Federal authority, were careful to protect the rights of all persons by limiting the powers of both the Federal and State governments. This resulted in laws that guaranteed Americans, the freedom to make their own decisions about jobs, religion, and political beliefs; move from place to place; and go to the courts for justice and protection when they feel these rights are being infringed upon. Though there are certain passages in my opinion that are somewhat outdated in the constitution, especially with regards to the burgeoning diversity in this country, one can truly go anywhere, work in any job, believe in any religion, support any political party and sue anyone.
This government shutdown is really confusing. While some members of Congress retained all their staff, others function with only essential employees. This led me to think, if these members of Congress can function with their barebones staff, why do they need all these people working for them? Just imagine, each member can legally employ twenty two full time employees, plus paid interns. It’s no wonder there is a feeling that there is too much government. This country is just bloated and hemorrhaging money. In 2009 when the economy was at its worst, numerous private companies downsized. In that period, they learnt to do more with the few employees they had. Now these same companies are functioning profitable, without the need to rehire. Maybe this government can learn something from the shutdown and emulate the private sector by streamlining its workforce. This is not something I say lightly, but have you ever gone to a Federal office on business? It seems as if their main duty is to abuse the public, and doing nothing is normal.
Harriman Beepat Prof. Murdaco POL 166 October 22nd 2013
Assignment (Due 10/22): Choose one passage from Madison and one from Hamilton and write out the passage and interpret it, follow the same format as previous assignments.
From Madison’s # 10…“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.”
Liberty and faction are essential in any strong government, but what isn't healthy is the violence of faction, and controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through representative methods of governing. Madison continued by making the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on rebellious opinions, and remove liberty. Furthermore, he dismisses this as being against the nature of man, and surmises that faction is a normal part of liberty, wrapped in the weaknesses of people. Like a fire that died because it consumed the oxygen from the air, a faction cannot continue its manipulative influence without the liberty it wants to suppress. The underlying causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.
From Hamilton’s # 15…“There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties.”
Clearly Hamilton was referring to the United Nations, even though this organization was formed decades in the future. Though this “league of alliance” was a novel and a noble idea, it is quite impractical in reality, as the present day UN can attest. As it is at present, and using the UN as an example, one worldwide governing authority would struggle to meet the needs of the diverse and different cultures throughout the world. This is clearly an indication why countries have their own government, which understands and caters to the differences of its people. For any government to try and assimilate the diversity of the world into their structure, it would be a considerable bureaucratic nightmare. Even present day countries cannot meet the needs of their different people that make up their population.
I really liked the quote you picked from Madison because it addresses the complexity of life and why laws on paper often times fall short when trying encompass that complexity. No law can predict every possibly situation that arises from the element of human nature being involved. However, it is that element of human nature that makes life so chaotic and at times violent in any sense of the word, that also makes life wonderful and flavorful and interesting. I agree with Madison that we must embrace the side of us that makes life complicated because making things overly simplistic would also make life boring and even oppressive. To try and control any aspect of nature is dangerous and in the end never successful. His metaphor is perfect, to get rid of air would get rid of fire, but would also get rid everything we love.
Harriman Beepat Prof. B Murdaco POL 166 October 29th 2013
Assignment (Due 10/29): Choose a passage from one of the Anti-Federalist writers, write out the passage and give your interpretation of the passage, then explain what this passage means to you or why you chose it.
From anti-federalist # 17: “It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislature, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.”
The author of this anti-federalist paper, Brutus, questioned Madison on every one of his unsubstantiated beliefs, about the good quality of this new government created in the Constitution. While Madison argues that a large nation will benefit citizens by balancing out the dangers of local factions, Brutus argues that such a system will be run by snobby aristocrats, uncaring of the common citizen, and sharing little of their daily concerns. Furthermore, Brutus wrote that democracy would be best served in smaller territories, where the people share common views. While the federal government grew larger, the Anti-Federalist concerns over a dictatorial government never materialized. Though in the end, they did gain the passage of the Bill of Rights, which remains one of the most important political documents of the United States. Most of the concerns that the anti-federalists wrote about, did indeed came to pass. They saw in the constitution threats to their rights and liberties won from England. They not only discuss the issues of the constitution, but numerous questions of this new system of government were also debated. They also questioned whether members of the government should be elected by direct vote of the people? Or whether slavery had its place in a nation dedicated to liberty? These were some of the queries of the anti-federalists, but most importantly, they voiced many viable arguments about the Constitution, and as stated above, they were indeed responsible for the Bill of Rights being added to our blueprint for governing this fledgling country.
Go to the link for "American Politics." Look up the section "Federalism" and explain the differences between horizontal and vertical federalism.
What is Federalism? Federalism is a political concept in which the member groups are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. This term is also used to refer to a system of the government whereby, the sovereignty is constitutionally divided between constituent political units and a central governing authority, the power to govern is shared between provincial/state governments and national, creating a federation. The proponents are called federalists.
What is horizontal federalism? Horizontal federalism refers to the different ways state governments relate to one another.
What is vertical federalism? Vertical federalism is the relationship among central, states and local governments vertically. Central government is at the top of the vertical line, and then state government and then local government. The main difference between horizontal and vertical federalism is the relationship between the national and state governments, referred to as vertical federalism, and horizontal federalism, which is the relationship that exists between the various states.
I think the elitism is one of the more legitimate concerns with a centralized government of such a big nation. When you look at more local governments you more often see evidence that anyone who puts his or her mind to it can achieve a position on political office but when you look at eh federal government you mostly see people born into a higher station in life running the show. One reason I think is caused by the fact that we have such a strong central government for such a large country, is because one needs the resources and know-how to campaign and get the attention of the entire nation. It requires the right money and the right friends and it has become very easy to keep the common man out. Also it takes a lot of wisdom to be in office and meet such a large range of needs therefore the only people who seem to be qualified are people who have received a very privileged education whereas a person running for office in a small town or states may only need to have grown up in that given area and have contributed to the community in some way in order to have the know how to properly govern. I'm not saying it our leaders shouldn't be properly educated but I think an inevitable result of needing such an education to govern such a large country is that a select few will qualified to do so, and those few people will probably be out of touch with how everyday life is for most people.
Harriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf: B. Murdaco
POL 166
September 17, 2013
Assignment Due 9/17: Choose a quote from Bourne and write it out in your blog. Under that write your interpretation of what you think the author is trying to say and explain that. Then, after that write out your own explanation of the meaning of this passage and why you chose this specific quote and how it relates to this class.
“America is a unique sociological fabric and it bespeaks poverty of imagination not to be thrilled at the incalculable potentialities of so novel a union of men. To seek no other goal than the weary old nationalism, belligerent, exclusive, inbreeding, the poison of which we are witnessing now in Europe, is to make patriotism a hollow sham, and to declare that, in spite of our boastings, America must ever be a follower and not a leader of nations.”
This essay by Bourne is about diversity and multi-culturalism. It is about the fear that new immigrants coming to this country after World War 1 will not subscribe to the Anglo-Saxon views. Furthermore, there was also a view that in order for them to be “American”, and be assimilated into society, they should be forced to conform to the “American” way of life. Lehman College in my opinion, reflects this diversity and multi-culturalism and the above quote I selected depicts in essence the synopsis of this paper and what the author is against; the myopic view that all new immigrants should forget their old customs and culture and totally adapt to this country’s melting pot. In my view, America is a trans-national country, comprising of citizens of all nationality and ethnicity, and because of this, it should be a leader in showing the world the true meaning of cosmopolitanism. Not merely by being a follower of societies of the past but by being a pioneer of the first true international nation. I am a first generation immigrant and this passage speaks to me in many ways. For example, if one was to look to the white house, you will see a President who epitomizes what Bourne so eloquently wrote about in this essay. A President comprising of varying ethnicity, and who looks like modern day America and whose extended family can be found in all corners of the world, and to me this is America.
nice point of view on your quote
DeleteHarry,
DeleteBeautifully said. I agree with your interpretation of Bourne's essay. We are fortunate to have a president that embodies a varying ethnicity, but some people in this country do not agree. They would have us deny a path to citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in this country. It seems that whoever comes in to this country last wants to close the door and let no one else come in. I do think that English should be our language and all should learn it. I have traveled a great deal in China, Australia and Europe and find most people speak English or want to learn English. Every new arrival, French, German, Greek, Norwegian, Indian, Chinese, Russian all learned English. I don't think we should have to make exceptions for anyone.
I really like your quote. In fact, this essay is in all its extent a great essay. Bourne took the time to criticize the weakness of the nation who was saving the Anglo-Saxon from the oppressive hand of the Europeans. Lehman for sure reflects the world in which we live with is good and bad sides. P.S I love Lehman!!
ReplyDeleteHarriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf: B Murdaco
POL 166
September 24, 2013.
Assignment (Due 9/24): Choose a quote from Chesterton and write it out on your blog. Under that write your interpretation of what you think the author is trying to say. Then, after that write out your own explanation of the meaning of this passage and why you chose this specific quote.
“Hence in international relations there is far too little laughing, and far too much sneering. But I believe that there is a better way which largely consists of laughter; a form of friendship between nations which is actually founded on differences.”
Chesterton wrote “What is America” almost a century ago, and it pertains to learning about other countries and cultures around the world then and even more so today, as the world is slowly shrinking with “progress.” He concludes that one should take the time to learn about others, and celebrate their differences. This celebration of diversity is what in my opinion the author writes about when he stated that “friendship between nations is actually founded on differences.”
I chose the above quotation as I feel that Americans need to be aware of the diversity of beliefs and culture around the world, and what conclusions can be drawn from international relations. In fact, such knowledge of diversity hopefully can only increase the peace and prosperity of the US. Many older Americans believe that the younger generation of Americans hardly have any knowledge of their own heritage, and furthermore young people do not learn about and understand the value of Western civilization, and its implications that has been passed down to us from ancient western traditions. The majority do not understand the ideas and reasoning of the Founding Fathers of America. Therefore, with this in mind many questions why should young people be traveling abroad and studying other cultures, when they don’t even understand their own cultural heritage? American, ignorant of their own heritage and the reasoning behind it, is unable to think critically about other cultures. And this inability will lead to confusion and error. And such confusion and error will weaken the US and the values and beliefs that have made it great.
I agree with you to a certain point. But other cultures also have to understand their culture and the American culture as well. Respect is earn and given. If you respect me I respect you on that aspect culture does not play apart it is just human nature.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf: B Murdaco
POL 166
October 1st 2013
Assignment (Due 10/1): Choose a passage from one of the readings (Adams, Rush, or Paine) and one from the Declaration of Independence. Write out both passages. Under that interpret the meaning of what the author is saying, and why they are saying it. Explain why you chose this passage and how it relates to the lecture.
“Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.”
In Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, he argues for Independence for the colonists from English rule. His argument begins with more general, speculative reflections about government and religion, and then gradually developed onto the specifics of the colonial situation. Common Sense was by far the most influential article of the American Revolution, and it remains one of the most influential and brilliant pamphlets ever written in that era. Paine's political pamphlet brought the rising revolutionary sentiment into sharp focus by placing blame for the suffering of the colonies directly on the reigning British monarch, George III. Paine discusses in general, the notions of monarchy and hereditary succession. Man, Paine argues, was born into a state of equality, and the distinction that has arisen between king and subject is an unnatural one. He says that even if people were to choose to have a king- that does not legitimize that King's child acting as a future ruler. Paine calls hereditary succession an abominable practice and has brought with it innumerable evils, such as incompetent kings, corruption, and civil war. I chose the above captioned passage as it directly makes a case for Independence from England, and it gave the colonists legitimacy in their fight to achieve this end.
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”
In the above quotation from the Declaration of Independence, the injuries and usurpations refer directly to the colonists, and the suffering they endured at the hands of their colonial master from England. George III was definitely a tyrant and to some extent a dictator. He took no heed to the demands of the colonists for basic representation, more autonomy and a general sense of fair play. As the above quotation from Paine’s letter states, the common enemy of the colonists was the Monarchy, and I chose the above quotation from the Declaration of Independence to show the similarities between both documents.
I think that is an interesting quote. The absurdness of allowing someone to rule simply because he or she was born into power is obviously ridiculous. Paine said it leads to incompetent rulers because the only qualification is blood line. However, when the people choose a leader for themselves they tend to look for the obvious qualities a leader should have, like honesty, wisdom and so forth. I chose to write about the dangers of a government unwilling to change with the times and the needs of later generations which is related. Just like a man is not qualified to be king simply because his father was king, a law is not qualified to be a law today just because it made sense as a law 100 years ago.
ReplyDeleteHarriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf. B Murdaco
POL 166
October 8th 2013
Assignment: Due 10/8… Choose one Article from the Constitution and choose a specific Section and a specific Clause or short paragraph (for example Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5). Write out the clause, interpret it, and explain why you chose this passage.
I chose my target sentence from the preamble.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The emphasis on personal liberty was one of the most noticeable features of this new republic. The Fathers of the nation, on writing the Constitution, took into account the varied political and religious background of its new citizens, especially with regards to suppression. This was instrumental in preserving the freedom of new Americans in the New World. The authors of the Constitution, in giving authority to the Federal authority, were careful to protect the rights of all persons by limiting the powers of both the Federal and State governments. This resulted in laws that guaranteed Americans, the freedom to make their own decisions about jobs, religion, and political beliefs; move from place to place; and go to the courts for justice and protection when they feel these rights are being infringed upon.
Though there are certain passages in my opinion that are somewhat outdated in the constitution, especially with regards to the burgeoning diversity in this country, one can truly go anywhere, work in any job, believe in any religion, support any political party and sue anyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis story is from roll call:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rollcall.com/news/essential_it_depends_whom_you_work_for-228169-1.html?pos=hftxt
This government shutdown is really confusing. While some members of Congress retained all their staff, others function with only essential employees. This led me to think, if these members of Congress can function with their barebones staff, why do they need all these people working for them? Just imagine, each member can legally employ twenty two full time employees, plus paid interns. It’s no wonder there is a feeling that there is too much government. This country is just bloated and hemorrhaging money. In 2009 when the economy was at its worst, numerous private companies downsized. In that period, they learnt to do more with the few employees they had. Now these same companies are functioning profitable, without the need to rehire. Maybe this government can learn something from the shutdown and emulate the private sector by streamlining its workforce. This is not something I say lightly, but have you ever gone to a Federal office on business? It seems as if their main duty is to abuse the public, and doing nothing is normal.
Harriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf. Murdaco
POL 166
October 22nd 2013
Assignment (Due 10/22): Choose one passage from Madison and one from Hamilton and write out the passage and interpret it, follow the same format as previous assignments.
From Madison’s # 10…“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.”
Liberty and faction are essential in any strong government, but what isn't healthy is the violence of faction, and controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through representative methods of governing. Madison continued by making the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on rebellious opinions, and remove liberty. Furthermore, he dismisses this as being against the nature of man, and surmises that faction is a normal part of liberty, wrapped in the weaknesses of people. Like a fire that died because it consumed the oxygen from the air, a faction cannot continue its manipulative influence without the liberty it wants to suppress. The underlying causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.
From Hamilton’s # 15…“There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties.”
Clearly Hamilton was referring to the United Nations, even though this organization was formed decades in the future. Though this “league of alliance” was a novel and a noble idea, it is quite impractical in reality, as the present day UN can attest. As it is at present, and using the UN as an example, one worldwide governing authority would struggle to meet the needs of the diverse and different cultures throughout the world. This is clearly an indication why countries have their own government, which understands and caters to the differences of its people. For any government to try and assimilate the diversity of the world into their structure, it would be a considerable bureaucratic nightmare. Even present day countries cannot meet the needs of their different people that make up their population.
I really liked the quote you picked from Madison because it addresses the complexity of life and why laws on paper often times fall short when trying encompass that complexity. No law can predict every possibly situation that arises from the element of human nature being involved. However, it is that element of human nature that makes life so chaotic and at times violent in any sense of the word, that also makes life wonderful and flavorful and interesting. I agree with Madison that we must embrace the side of us that makes life complicated because making things overly simplistic would also make life boring and even oppressive. To try and control any aspect of nature is dangerous and in the end never successful. His metaphor is perfect, to get rid of air would get rid of fire, but would also get rid everything we love.
ReplyDeleteHarriman Beepat
ReplyDeleteProf. B Murdaco
POL 166
October 29th 2013
Assignment (Due 10/29): Choose a passage from one of the Anti-Federalist writers, write out the passage and give your interpretation of the passage, then explain what this passage means to you or why you chose it.
From anti-federalist # 17: “It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislature, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.”
The author of this anti-federalist paper, Brutus, questioned Madison on every one of his unsubstantiated beliefs, about the good quality of this new government created in the Constitution. While Madison argues that a large nation will benefit citizens by balancing out the dangers of local factions, Brutus argues that such a system will be run by snobby aristocrats, uncaring of the common citizen, and sharing little of their daily concerns. Furthermore, Brutus wrote that democracy would be best served in smaller territories, where the people share common views. While the federal government grew larger, the Anti-Federalist concerns over a dictatorial government never materialized. Though in the end, they did gain the passage of the Bill of Rights, which remains one of the most important political documents of the United States.
Most of the concerns that the anti-federalists wrote about, did indeed came to pass. They saw in the constitution threats to their rights and liberties won from England. They not only discuss the issues of the constitution, but numerous questions of this new system of government were also debated. They also questioned whether members of the government should be elected by direct vote of the people? Or whether slavery had its place in a nation dedicated to liberty? These were some of the queries of the anti-federalists, but most importantly, they voiced many viable arguments about the Constitution, and as stated above, they were indeed responsible for the Bill of Rights being added to our blueprint for governing this fledgling country.
Go to the link for "American Politics." Look up the section "Federalism" and explain the differences between horizontal and vertical federalism.
What is Federalism?
Federalism is a political concept in which the member groups are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. This term is also used to refer to a system of the government whereby, the sovereignty is constitutionally divided between constituent political units and a central governing authority, the power to govern is shared between provincial/state governments and national, creating a federation. The proponents are called federalists.
What is horizontal federalism?
Horizontal federalism refers to the different ways state governments relate to one another.
What is vertical federalism?
Vertical federalism is the relationship among central, states and local governments vertically. Central government is at the top of the vertical line, and then state government and then local government.
The main difference between horizontal and vertical federalism is the relationship between the national and state governments, referred to as vertical federalism, and horizontal federalism, which is the relationship that exists between the various states.
http://uk.ask.com/question/what-is-a-federalism.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_horizontal_federalism.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_vertical_federalism.
I think the elitism is one of the more legitimate concerns with a centralized government of such a big nation. When you look at more local governments you more often see evidence that anyone who puts his or her mind to it can achieve a position on political office but when you look at eh federal government you mostly see people born into a higher station in life running the show. One reason I think is caused by the fact that we have such a strong central government for such a large country, is because one needs the resources and know-how to campaign and get the attention of the entire nation. It requires the right money and the right friends and it has become very easy to keep the common man out. Also it takes a lot of wisdom to be in office and meet such a large range of needs therefore the only people who seem to be qualified are people who have received a very privileged education whereas a person running for office in a small town or states may only need to have grown up in that given area and have contributed to the community in some way in order to have the know how to properly govern. I'm not saying it our leaders shouldn't be properly educated but I think an inevitable result of needing such an education to govern such a large country is that a select few will qualified to do so, and those few people will probably be out of touch with how everyday life is for most people.
ReplyDelete