Political Difficulties of the United States

The majority of high school students are educated in history class that the Constitution accommodates three fundamental divisions of government. They are the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. While the President and Congress are selected by the prevalent vote and are meant to be representative, can they genuinely emulate the will, feeling, and opinion of the public? Or in reality, does capital and authority govern everyday politics to the disservice of true self-governance? Is there a way to position ‘We the people’ back into administration or government and obtain a deliberative society? There is not, America is not a deliberative society today.

Through the writings of James Madison in The Federalist Papers, Joseph Bessette and John Pitney Jr., and Attorney General Levi I will demonstrate how America is not a deliberate society. America is corrupted through factions, not exercising all of its civic virtues, and polarized politics.

Throughout our nation’s history, the government of the United States has dealt with an abundance of political difficulties.

One issue that has surfaced in recent years is the problem of faction. In the Federalist Papers in essay ten, James Madison defines a faction as “several citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions are bad news to a just government because they end up causing instability, injustice, and confusion.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: James Madison

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Furthermore, they force the public to become worried that the common good is being ignored in favor of the conflicts between rival factions. Not only that, factions sometimes force the rights of minor parties to become steamrolled by the power of the majority party. Deliberation seeks to overcome this political problem. Deliberative democracy can be defined as a democracy that consists of establishments that promote the idea that political choices ought to be the result of reasonable and sensible exchanges and discussions among citizens. The concept of deliberation was designed so that citizens could consider opposing views to protect the public’s interest and the common good. Joseph Bessette and John Pitney Jr. state that citizenship and democracy have an intimate relationship. Meaning that through competitive discussion, citizens can arrive at an understanding about what method or procedure will best harvest the common good. This is crucial because deliberation is meant to shape one’s viewpoint before or during the process of decision-making. It is aimed to minimize or even eliminate self-interest or faction. Furthermore, regarding individual versus communal decision-making, deliberation spotlights the quality of the decision and its product rather than the overall result. Deliberative democracies do not intend to regard political power in the process of decision-making. Ultimately, citizens ought to be influenced by the power of the preferred argument instead of private concerns, predispositions, or perspectives that are not freely reasonable to their counterparts.

The main purpose of The Federalist Papers was eighty-five letters composed by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They wrote the letters under the alias ”Publius,” to honor one of the founders of the Roman Empire. In addition, they published the letters in newspapers in the state of New York. Since nine states had to ratify the new Constitution to make it legal, the Federalist Papers were written to encourage New York to support this plan. As mentioned above, one of the most important essays in the Federalist Papers is Federalist 10. Madison harks on the dangers of faction. At the same time, he attempts to explain the possible solutions to the problem. Madison states “there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” The downside to the first remedy is that factions are a by-product of having opinions in general and the freedom to express them. You can’t enter one’s brain and dispose of their opinions and eliminating people’s freedom of expression invalidates democracy. Furthermore, the obstacle of removing the causes of faction is risking the abolition of liberty. Madison asserts removing liberty is a “remedy that is worse than the disease, because it is unwise and is essential to political life.” In addition, removing the causes in faction is difficult because there are diversities in the faculties of men. This means that even if you attempt to regulate the causes through an enlightened statesman they may not live up to your expectations. The task may prove to be too difficult. Not to mention these statesmen are incredibly rare and hard to find. In the same fashion, Madison explains it is difficult to control the effects of faction. Minority factions are defeated by simply being voted out and the republican principle that the majority rules. The majority rule can be very dangerous because it has no way of preventing the enacting of their designs. Therefore, the existence of the same passions or interests must be prevented. Moreover, the majority must be rendered incapable of carrying oppression into effect. Therefore, Madison states the Federalist Papers teach us that the U.S. Constitution attempts to inspire deliberation through “a republic, by which [he] mean[s] a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, [and] opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which [the nation is] seeking.” He promotes the Publius Solution. Madison advocates for representation by increasing the distance between the people and their government. He encourages deliberation and a search for the common good by a professional class set apart from the general public. Madison encourages the public to allow their views to be “refined and enlarged” by virtuous citizens. Meaning that elected officials listen to their constituents thus refining their needs and applying them to the whole society. He advocates for an extended sphere or increase in the geographic size of the nation to lessen the number of small republics being prone to faction. More people mean more interests to counteract each other. Furthermore, this prevents factions from combining to become a majority.

Re-imagining and theorizing the responsibility of citizens in our societies is vital to have deliberation in government. Deliberation conceives an obligation for citizens to engage as active problem-solvers functioning with others to resolve community disputes. Deliberation encourages citizens to be more than law-abiding taxpayers, consumers, and constituents or voters. It pleas for substantial and meaningful efforts that prepare citizens and put them in circumstances where they can labor collectively and address critical public problems. The deliberative viewpoint of government thus sets a great burden on citizens, because a deliberative democracy can’t operate appropriately without such expectations. Furthermore, Joseph M. Bessette and John J. Pitney assert that the civic virtues that deliberation requires of citizens who participate in its practice are self-restraint, self-reliance, civic knowledge, and civic participation. Self-restraint is when you regulate your self-seeking desires to protect the common good. Self-reliance is the attainment of ambitions through singular effort. Civic knowledge is the idea that one has a compression of the political process. Lastly, civic participation is the notion that one must participate enthusiastically or vigorously in government to defend the common good. The government of America is not a deliberative democracy because its citizens only embody two out of the four virtues listed above. Citizens do not exercise self-restraint because it is in human nature to seek out self-interest. It is in human nature to seek out factions. Likewise, citizens do not develop and seek out civic knowledge. Former Attorney General Levi states that it is extremely difficult for society to fuel debate because we usually associate with people who agree with our opinions. He claims that if they do not agree with our view we compromise to not have to change our understandings. Levi states that “one of the weaknesses of our society is that we are all pegged [as] conservatives or liberals.” We’re not a deliberative democracy because of our polarized political parties. Levi says that “real discussion” can be used to alter this weakness. He claims that our government treats real discussions as publicity opportunities and as a “contest” to see who can be more “persuasive.” Moreover, Levi argues that one cannot compromise to keep their views when their views are being confronted. He states that it is “unsettling…disconcerting [and] at times a most unwelcome pursuit of knowledge.” Levi exclaims that this will create a deliberative democracy and “forge better instruments for government and better appraisals of the wisdom legislation.” Levi maintains that a deliberative democracy cannot succeed with polarized political parties because the “quality of the debate will determine the quality of our laws.” He means that there cannot be a real debate with the interest of the common good at hand if they’re two parties attempting to promote two different agendas.

In American Government and Politics, Joseph M. Bessette and John J. Pitney agree with Levi in regard to polarized politics being a problem with deliberative democracy. They state that in broadcasted political discussions competitors regularly present arranged pieces as opposed to trading views and ideas. Bessette and Pitney maintain that the parties are more interested in propaganda than the common good. They also dispute that the American government is not a deliberative democracy because of the problem of logrolling and the rational choice theory. Logrolling is when legislators bargain for support of one another’s plans. The rational choice theory states that the citizens and politicians will do whatever it takes “to serve their personal interest” also known asfactionregardingaon many. Therefore, once politicians get elected their primary concern is getting reelected and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Such as logrolling or “bringing home the bacon from Washington or… help[ing] [to] constitute deal[s] with bureaucracy.” An individual of the prominent works on American policy distinguished “in the end there [is] no public interest just group interest…. we do not need to account for a totally inclusive interest because one does not exist.” In the year 2018, we’ve seen the American people focus on onmany vital issues concerning the common good. Some of these issues include school shootings, gun control, and sexual misconduct. Furthermore, the issue of political sexual misconduct has come to light regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is alleged to have sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford and two other women. Throughout his hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senators have attempted to deliberate the issue. However, it is really a case of Democrats versus Republicans. The Democrats appear to be disregarding the 14 Amendment. They desperately do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed so that the Republicans can’t influence the Supreme Court in a more conservative manne. Furthermore, many of the senators are using the hearing to promote their own propaganda and agenda. Therefore, they disregard deliberation and put on a façade to seem honorable to the people.

All through our country’s history, the administration of the United States has managed a plethora of political challenges. One of the problems our nation has wrestled with is whether we are a deliberative democracy or not. America is not a deliberative society. The nation does not practice deliberative democracy because of faction. Factions weaken dependable governments because they wind up triggering unsteadiness, discrimination, disarray, and promote self-interest over the common good. Second, citizens do not fully engage in their civic virtues. Citizens do not employ self-discipline because it is in human instinct to obtain ostentation. It is in human nature to seek out faction. Likewise, citizens do not develop and seek out civic knowledge. Constituents align themselves with people who share their views and do not pursue opposition. Instead, we compromise or practice the pre-existing established views of our conservative or liberal parties. Lastly, we are not a deliberative society because of our polarized political parties. The parties are more motivated and concerned and faction and faction with spreading their beliefs and concepts. Furthermore, the politicians of the groups are more worried about being elected and then reelected. They focus on how they can stay in office by pleasing the bureaucrats and highlighterpusher-upsher ups in Washington. There is no interest in the common good. In conclusion, it will take time for America to become a deliberative society because the nation and its governing system are corrupted through factionsmanner, citizens not exercising all of their civic virtues, and polarized politics.