Factions in American Politics
Oprah's support of Obama- CNN
In class we have been discussing the issue of factions,
groups that advocate for certain rights and privileges that selfishly regard
only that group and may conflict with the rights and privileges of other
groups. In federalist #10, James Madison talks about the threat that
factions pose to the America and how the constitution he aims at getting
ratified will help to alleviate the problem. Madison suggests that a
large republic, with so many competing interests, will prevent just one or two
factions from dominating the political arena, whereas a smaller, state-level
sudo-democracy would leave open the possibility of certain groups coming to
power despite their abuses of power. Since Madison saw factions as inseparable
to human nature, he concluded that dealing with them, not eradicating them, was
the answer and that his vast republic would do so.
The article I have come across recently (link at top)
addresses the issue of interest groups, which is pretty much the modern day
equivalent to factions. This specific article discusses the role that
Oprah Winfrey will play in the election process as she throws her support
behind Barack Obama and holds a fundraiser to help him with his campaign.
She and her semi-religious following, in modern day terms, constitutes a
faction that is attempting to further their own interests. The question
is how correct was Madison with his assertions?
Personally, I find him to be undeniably correct in most of
his opinions regarding factions. Firstly, his assertion that factions
cannot be eliminated has held true, seeing as how over two centuries of
American history they still exist and exist to an even greater extent than they
did before. Secondly, I believe that the republic has been successful in
keeping corrupt factions from taking over the entirety of the government.
Although I believe the true power in the United States is held in the hands of
an elite few, I don't think that factions themselves have come to assume all
the power, as demonstrated from this article. Oprah, just like the NRA or
the AARP, has some power and a following, but does not have the overwhelming
ability to sway the election. Likewise, she does indeed have power to persuade
thousands of opinions, and thus has not been eliminated by some larger,
dominating faction. So overall, I think Madison's statements have held
true.
The opposing opinion to this, however, is to say that the
elite that makes up every single presidential candidate we have or have ever
had is a faction in itself. Even though these individuals are different
in their political agenda's, the fact that they are wealthy elites technically
means they are part of a faction, one that Madison specifically mentioned as a
dangerous one. To me this falls somewhere in a gray area. Although
they are part of the same faction, I think that faction is so vague and all
encompassing that they don't really work together to achieve similar goals, and
thus do not pose a threat to the fair election process. I do, however, recognize
it as a valid argument.
Questions to consider:
Was Madison correct about the creation of factions being
central to human nature, or do you think they are more a product of their
society?
Was Madison correct in assuming a large republic would
create enough competing interests as to eliminate the threat of faction oppression?
Would something like race, gender, or age constitute a
faction? If you believe so, where does faction classification stop?
Feel free to answer any or all of the above
-Vince
Posted at
10:45PM Sep 08, 2007
by AGOSTA, VINCENT in General |