Populist Parties

One of the ideas that spoke to me the most was the relationship between legislation and the government. Coolidge supported the notion that people must rely on themselves, rather than legislation to get them through life, and that more laws, regulations, and taxes hurt people. Agreeing strongly, I believe that these values are often forgotten this day in age because the masses have become accustomed to receiving governmental aid. The government has become too large and powerful, and leaders must acknowledge the harm that this responsibility places on both the people and the system. Power must instead be given back to the people by the ridding of unnecessary laws, regulations, and programs.

The political and social injustices that were present in the Gilded Age inspired several reformists to change society through social changes and reforms. These activists sought to reform against political corruption, labor conditions, women's suffrage, and ideologies. Most of these reforms helped to improve the social issues of America's corrupt society. For instance, many people of the middle class were against the theory of Social Darwinism, the idea that some people were genetically predisposed to be better than others through natural selection and that the government shouldn't be involved in private businesses or free-markets (laissez-faire). Reform Darwinists believed that the government should be able to interfere with private businesses

May states “His outrage at the ludicrousness of sociopolitical fads and the stupidity of the people who support them are both at play in this story.” (May). People in society will allow themselves to be controlled by the government, but never think about how the people actually run the government because they're here to serve the people needs. People today can vote on who they believe seem beneficial for their needs. Their need to be a change to where there's more flexibility for people to rotate their schedule around.

This document was essential in the success of separation of powers because it pointed out the social class gaps and disadvantages of a monarchy. He aims to show the comparison between King Louis XIV and the oppressive oriental despots. Overall, Montesquieu aims to satirize and define government and society. I think that in criticizing the deceased King, he also points out the lack of human rights by stating that the King, while he had inexhaustible finances, his soldiers and his people are living in poverty. I think that this source is biased but not necessarily false.

In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.

It does not seem wise to have citizens out of work due to differences in opinion. Washington might have been around long before these issues, however, he foreshadowed what would happen if we had different political parties. He stated, “They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests” (Washington). He knew if we were divided as a nation we would not function as one

The government in many countries rarely proves itself useful and that obtains most of its power from the majority because they are the strongest group, and will always obey the government and its laws, not because they hold the most legitimate viewpoint. People's first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law ordered by the greater mass. When a government is one that is unjust meaning, it does not have the best interests of the people, provides instability in the aid of the people, and would sacrifice its own people for economic or political gain some examples would be Nazi Germany, people should refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from that kind of government (Thoreau, 1849). Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws of governmental systems solely since you want a change in legislation or government policy, this is all done through nonviolent techniques such as boycotting. Martin Luther King says, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Throughout time diverse regions have considered other societies to be barbaric, causing them to have the desire of “civilizing” them. Likewise, During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American nativist groups, possessed a similar perspective towards immigration. Nativist’s opposed immigration, as they believed that it would negatively impact the United States socially, morally, politically, and economically. Socially and morally, the nativists feared that foreigners were a threat to the American society, as they were culturally inferior, possessed many ailments, and committed crimes. Politically, the ethnocentric nativists believed that immigrants would corrupt the government and negatively influence American politics.

Anarchy refers to absence of government; while anarchy is often associated with extremists, it is a necessary tool for checking the excesses of society’s political leadership. Even with the constantly disappointing and corrupt leaders, human beings still vote for new leaders because they have been socialized to believe that governments are necessary for a peaceful society. On the other hand, anarchists argue that anarchy is the most obvious course of action as it will give human beings a chance to create a society they want instead of a society dictated by rules created by the minority rulers. Opponents of anarchy argue that the society will be thrown into chaos in case of anarchy. From analyzing Aristotle and Hobbes’ perspectives

This is the contrary in Mill’s eyes. Democracy nurtures the tyranny of the majority by allowing public opinion to stomp over the voice of the minority. This form of tyranny is the gravest and most enslaving. There is little or no guarantee that what the majority deems fit or best is really so. It is paramount, bearing in mind that the stance of the majority is also tainted with motives and biases that should not come in when making decisions for a society.

The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.

Madison talks about how the government and people are connect and the ties that bind them together, but the main goal of Federalist 51 is how to divide the government and how to keep it divided. Federalist #10 1- The one big thing is that our government is too unstable. People believe that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of the two rival parties. Also things were not decided to the right of justice they were decided to the needs of the minority party.

Limiting the rights of citizens with different ethnic and racial backgrounds, deteriorates are chances as a nation for unity and success. I believe that the nation should re-evaluate the policies which discriminate subcultures within our nation.

I think it would be difficult to get a people involved in this issue due to the issues it presents. Part of the problem is that many do not see the need for change and how it could benefit us as a society. I also think that getting support by law makes could impede changes from occurring. One of the biggest changes that I see in social movements in our time is the way they are approached. This movement that I spoke of would be approached in an efficient manner to ensure that it is taken seriously.

One of the main purposes of elections is to provide citizens with the opportunity to hold their representatives accountable. Those appoint are not obligated to do a good job because they are not faced with reelection. There is no guarantee that the one who is randomly selected for their district represents the ideas of the majority. The power of the general public would diminish because they would not be able to select the voice to represent them. Often we really do elect representatives because we believe they’re good at their jobs.