Federalist Paper No. 62 - The Senate

As far as our readings are concerned, I find that this particular Federalist Paper seems to have itself fixed within America's political conflicts of today, more so than any other. Believed to be written by Madison, Federalist No. 62 is a critique upon the House model and how the Senate as a solution should be applied under the Constitution. One of his dissents with the house really caught my eye, mostly because of how, ironically, it applies to the Senate today. Madison's argument that, "...mutability in the public councils...[and] continual change even of good measures is inconsistent...with every prospect of success," is very much a truth that haunts our country's stability today. Our nation's leaders are constantly mutable on very large national and international matters, such as war and health care, that have resulted in severely damaging America's reputation internally, and more importantly, externally. The election of new senators and their ever-changing opinions on the War on Terror has taken our country's reputation from a bastion of hope, freedom and prosperity worldwide to that of a power-hungry country concerned with nothing more than the pursuit of land and resources. More internally, Madison's argument that, "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood," reflects our current universal health care debate with an almost eerie accuracy. The constant chants by the people to their senators to "Read the bill!" at health care rallies, combined with the senators coming on various forms of public media and proclaiming that the bill, like much modern legislation, is just too long and in too many different embodiments to actually read, shows how much mutability has destroyed our credibility. Overall, Americans, and sadly other nations, have lost respect for our government, and it leaves me wondering if Madison's ideal Senate really helped us, "...[possess] a certain portion of order and stability."

Federalist Paper No. 10 - Factions

When James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 10 he was very concerned that without a proper Constitution to establish a rule of law in our country, we would succumb to the wills and wishes of "a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion...adverse to the rights of other citizens...and [the] interests of the community." He worried that these factions would cause discourse, and in the worst cases violence, and felt that the best way to subvert them in the long run would be to have a large and expansive political process under our new Constitution. Unfortunately, there was no way he could anticipate this solution leading to even larger issues of "factionalization" in our world today. One need not look farther than our various 24hr news stations propagating their various viewpoints to get a real-life example of the dangers Madison didn't consider. While he may have thought that a larger body led to more, but smaller, factions that would cancel themselves out, America is currently inundated with "...persons...[who] have been interesting to the human passions," such as Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, et al. who, "have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good." We now have an informed public, in the loosest sense of the phrase, separated into "Fox v. MSNBC" for example and attacking each other and their local politicians with everything short of violence, while getting further and further away from the goals they wish to achieve, like health care reform. With the ability to be spoon-fed what you should believe 24 hours a day, without considering the varied viewpoints of other people, even the largest political body is bound to fall prey to factitious behavior, and I am beginning to worry that not even suggestions as insightful as Madison's can do much to avoid it.

Thomas Jefferson - Letters: "To Maria Cosway"

Humans, as a species, have always marveled at our abilities that separate us from the likes of animals, especially our ability to logically reason. Up unto this point I think that Jefferson, in our readings and my minimal knowledge of him prior to the class, was very much enamored of and respected for his handle on said ability. In all of his writings there breathes an inherent air of incredible intelligence and understanding, and while at times it can come across harsh and blunt it was always so beyond his years that those small faults typically, in my opinion, overlooked. After reading this letter, and his other pieces on morality, however I find that he had an advanced understanding not just of what being a human-or an American-is, but more importantly and to his credit, what being a human, or American, means, and that if he lacked this keen, albeit sometimes hidden, ability, he wouldn't be respected today for the intellectual that he was. This however may be typically overlooked because he has a tendency to be contradictory in his writings. For example, Jefferson revels in the value of a good set of books to read as they provide much more frequent reminders than does history of the good, and occasionally the bad, in us all, and then later turns around and from the perspective of his "Head", says that, "Put into one scale the pleasures which any object may offer; but put fairly into the other the pains which are to follow, and see which preponderates." From an intellectual perspective this makes sense, why revel in the past if once we have done so we realize that it is just that, past, and may not currently be the present time we live in? However his "Heart" counters this logically sound argument by saying that, "Morals were too essential to the happiness of man to be risked on the incertain combinations of the head," and, "Had [a man] ever had...one generous spasm of the heart [he] would exchange it for all the frigid speculations of [his life]." Overall, I found this all too brief glimpse into the mind and heart of Thomas Jefferson to be very enlightening and a humanizing and humbling moment in my perception of one of our countries most profound leaders.

Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia--Population"

Since kindergarten, as Americans, we are taught that America is the 'land of opportunity' or a 'grand melting pot' of sorts. We are taught that part of our nation's strength lies in its diversity and its openness to offer freedom to anyone who wishes to obtain it. I suppose because I have never been taught to question this that I have always just made the assumption that this "openness," per se, dates as far back as our founding fathers. However, after reading this part of Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virgina" I am both intrigued and put-off by his conclusions. Now it should be duly noted that the primary desire for immigration has changed over the centuries, as Jefferson saw America wanting merely to, "produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible..." but interestingly enough he goes on to question if this is the best thing for our country. While he notes the advantages it proposes such as larger numbers, more legitimacy as our own nation, and a stronger work force, he wonders if it may not be more worthwhile to consider the long term and create our own mass population. Ultimately it seems like the common fear amongst our ancestors was that openly inviting people from foreign nations would dissolve our abilities to form a strictly American culture, and if the culture it would create would potentially be, "more turbulent, less happy, [and] less strong," perhaps waiting and creating the population strictly of American citizens would be worthwhile. Overall I just found this to be a startling look into the philosophy of a nation that in recent history has been so stereotyped as open to the people of the world.