How much government control is appropriate?
Hundreds of years have past since the ratification of the US constitution was achieved in the year of 1787, however, its soul argument between federalists and anti-federalists —how much control from the government is appropriate to American lives and liberties—still has been a modern heated political debate between the two main political parties, Republican and Democrat. For me, I support the federalists and Democratic Party, for I believe only with moderate control from the government and under the guarantee of power limitations of the government can our liberties and rights be truly protected.
Since the core argument between federalists and anti-federalists about the ratification of the US Constitution was about how much control the government should have over American lives and liberties, it was reflected in different areas, especially in politics and economy as well as finance. Among the political issues, firstly, they held opposed positions about the power of the state and the national government. Leading by some important celebrities like Patrick Henry and George Clinton, the anti-federalists believed that each state should have a sovereign, independent government.[1](Constitution of the United States)They were afraid of the centralized power would cause tyranny, thus losing freedoms and liberties, so they favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. However, the federalists, like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton held the opinion that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states.[2] They deemed the America needs a strong and centralized federal government, which would unite the American states more tightly and effectively. Secondly, the federalists and anti-federalists argued about whether to carry out the Bill of Rights. For the anti-federalists, they considered without the Bill of Rights, the power of the federal government would be too strong to control, especially for the president. In this way, citizens’ liberties and rights would easily be infringed and could not be well protected. The federalists, however, thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, for it would create a "parchment barrier" that limited the rights of the people, as opposed to protecting them.[3](The Great Debate)In the fiscal and economic realm, because the anti-federalists did not want a strong president, so the central government had no power to tax or raise money. On the contrary, the federalists considered a strong national government also needed the ability and power to tax and raise money, and they argued that “a strong central government would foster the commercial growth of the new country”.[4](McGuire 2011) In this way, the interest of different states would be more united than before, and the conflicts would be eliminated.
In my perspective, I agree more with the federalists’ ideas, for the Failed State under the ruling of the Articles of Confederation had proved that it had too many weaknesses and limitations to fix, like lacking of central government, legislative inefficiency and economic disorder;[5](Brackemyre) but the federalist ideas about the central government could easily turnover the situation of Failed State. To begin with, lacking of central government led to no independent judiciary, and inability to deal with internal and external affairs and threats. Without a central government to deal with foreign affairs, America was at serious diplomatic disadvantages. The congress was unable to subside both inside and outside threats immediately and effectively, since the central government highly relied on state troop’s militia. Externally, the Congress was unable to defend the frequently harass from Britain; internally, rebellions like Shay’s Rebellion always took long time to subside because of lacking a strong national army. In addition, the Articles of Confederation and the anti-federalists’ ideas proved to be ineffective because of legislative inefficiencies. Since each state had one vote, it naturally caused unhappiness among the large state. And the legislative inefficiencies also caused difficulties to pass the law and the amendment. This means that the amendment had by common consent by the national Congress and all of the states, under this condition, requiring a unanimous vote made it extremely difficult to pass changes.[6] The last flaw and limitation of the anti-federalists’ opinion was the economic disorganization, which showed in the way like Congress could not regulate trade, no uniform of the currency and no power of taxation. Since the central government had so little trade power, there was very little economic coordination amongst the states. Each state had its own agenda and import and export policies differed greatly from state to state. This meant that the national government could print money, but each state could as well. Consequently, America had no uniform system of currency which made trade between the states, and with foreign countries, much more difficult and less efficient. Also, it were states, instead of the national government that could raise money, but it was often the case that the money was oftentimes not raised by the states or given to the national government long after it was due.[7](McNeil 2012) So the central government always failed to pay off America’s foreign debts and managing foreign affairs. I think since the anti-federalists did not want a strong national government, the weaknesses and flaws of the Confederation would not truly be eliminated from the root and the problems of the society could not be solved, unless an efficient central government was established.
However, based on what the federalists thought which proved to be right by time, a strong and central government could solve all the above problems effectively, like legislative inefficiency and economic disorganization. Besides, under the guarantees of the Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances, the power of the central government would not easily be abused. In this way, the tyranny would not form and worth worrying about. Also, the Bill of Rights well protected the American citizens’ liberties and freedoms, and prevented their lives from government interference. Last but not the least, the federalists support that not all the power belonged to the central government, some powers also were granted to the state government. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.[8] So I think the federalists’ ideas makes more sense, and the development of America after the year of 1787 and the prosperity of modern America all proved that the road they chose was right.
The disagreement about how much control the government should have over American lives and liberties between federalists and anti-federalists developed into a heated debate among Democratic and Republican Party. Tracing its origins back to Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Democratic-Republicans, which was built to oppose the Federalists at that time, the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[9](Kenneth Berry and Goldman 2010) The modern Democratic Party represents moderate liberals and it positioned itself at the left. The Republican Party, commonly referred to as the Grand Old Party (GOP), was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854.[10] It represents moderate conservatives and positioned itself at right. Since the Democratic and Republican Party represent moderate liberals and conservatives’ ideas separately, they always stand in totally opposite positions when they argue about many political issues, like the business and economic regulation, taxation and military. Generally speaking, the Republican Party is considered more business friendly and favors a more limited role of government in terms of regulating the economy. This includes less regulation on business, such as restrictions that might seek to relegate the pursuit of profits to environmental concerns.[11](Fuhrmann) So the Republican Party can always win the capital support from business owner, as opposed to the common workers. The Democrats, however, strongly support to put limitations on business and banks, and they rely heavier on government intervention to regulate the economy and business. So they favor Keynesianism instead of laisser-faire capitalism, which is supported by republicans. Higher regulation results in higher costs, so the Democrats support higher taxation among the rich. They believe “businesses are more focused on earning a return for shareholders and willing to cut corners in terms of protecting the overall social good”.[12] Also, they think the Trickle-Down economics from the republicans is not true, because the wealthy will be wealthier and wealthier, on the contrary, the middle and lower classes will not get the benefit from it. The Republicans think the government should tax less and put fewer limitations on the wealthy, for the wealthy spend more, invest more to expand their business, so that the middle and lower classes can benefit through improved employment. They consider higher tax rates on the rich a form of class warfare.[13]( Democrats VS Republicans) As for the military, the republicans prefer to increase the spending and have a more hard line stance against countries like Iran, with a higher tendency to deploy the military option. By contrast, the Democrats prefer lower military spending and more unwilling to use strong military force to fight against countries like Iran and Syria. Although these two parties have so many divergences, their common aim is to flourish and develop America.
Between the Democratic and Republican Party, I support the former most, for that cannot agree more with their ideas about the taxation and the economic and business regulations. The democrats present “Cut taxes for every working family, but not millionaires. Cut taxes for middle class, not the wealthy. Cut taxes for working families, not richest 1%.”[14](Democratic Party Platform) They consider that the government needs a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, not a tax code that hoards wealth for those who already have it. Actions are carried out by some democrats like President Obama and Democrats in Congress; they cut taxes for every working family, putting more money in the pockets of Americans who need it most. A typical family has saved $3,600 during his first term. In addition, I strongly agree the regulation of economy and business. Because I think the Keynesianism is right, both the government and the market itself play a part in the economy. Without the help and regulations from the government, the whole country will suffer great losses and cannot recovery easily when faced with economic crisis like the Great Depression. The government intervene the economy just to maintain the economy in good running, but not to control the whole country’s economy. For example, two democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected to change the floundering economy caused by Bush-Quayle. They knew the private sector is the engine of economic growth, but they also knew that government can make a difference. After a generation of stagnation, America has the lowest unemployment and fastest economic growth in more than 30 years. The Americans have the lowest inflation rate in decades. More Americans own their home than ever before.[15](Ibid 14) In addition, the business needs regulations, for that some large business may over interfere in the politics, like the election. Given this more pro-business bias, Republicans tend to receive support from the owners of business and investment capital compared with the Democrats, as opposed to the labor component that constitutes workers and their interests. [16](Fuhrmann)
Among the politicians in the Democratic Party, I like Bernie Sanders most. Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, who is known as a leading progressive voice on issues such as income inequality, healthcare, LGBT rights and campaign finance reform.[17][18](Powell 2006) I like him because of his proposition about the campaign finance reform, and I think he is the only person who really cares about this issue. Sanders believes unless the campaign financing system is reformed, the U.S. Congress will become paid employees of the people who pay for their campaigns -- the billionaire class. “‘The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue,’ Sanders said Tuesday. ‘Let us be frank, let us be honest, the current political campaign finance system is corrupt and amounts to legalized bribery.’”[19](Carney 2015) So he will introduce legislation to provide public funding for campaigns. Besides, he suggests the lawmakers must pass related constitutional amendment about disclosing the wealthy donors.[20](Ibid 19) In my view, though it is difficult for this proposal to be passed by the republican-control congress, once it is passed, the corruption and bribes caused by large business will be eliminated. And it may also raise the awareness of the people to protect their vote rights. In this way, the American citizens’ vote rights and the will of them can be truly protected.
Although the federalists or anti-federalists, republicans or democrats hold different positions and opinions, what they all want is a flourishing and progressive America. But I agree more with the ideas of the federalists and Democrats since both of them support appropriate control and power from the government. I think only with the protection from the government and the guarantee of power limitation and separation that citizens’ rights and freedoms can be well protected.
Work Cited
[1] Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists
<ahref="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>
<ahref="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>
[1] Would you have been a federalist or an anti-federalist 2014 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist/
[1] The Great Debate. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
[1] McGuire, Robert. “Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Consitution”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. August 14, 2001.
URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-interests-and-the-adoption-of-the-united-states-constitution/
URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-interests-and-the-adoption-of-the-united-states-constitution/
[1]America’s First Failure at Government The Articles of Confederation
http://ushistoryscene.com/article/articles-of-confederation/
[1] The Great Debate https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
[1] Sarah McNeil, Articles of Confederation, 2012 June, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=277 (accessed 2012 June
[1] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist/
[1] Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman (2010).The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.
[1] "The Origin of the Republican Party, A. F. Gilman, Ripon College, 1914". Content.wisconsinhistory.org. Retrieved2012-01-17.
Democrats vs Republicans http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican#Abortion
[1] Democratic Party Platform. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Tax_Reform.htm
2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000
[1] Ryan C. Fuhrmann, CFA What are the main differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to regulating the economy?
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp
[1] Powell, Michael (November 6, 2006). "Exceedingly Social But Doesn't Like Parties". The Washington Post. RetrievedNovember 26, 2012. He knows what the corporate media might do with his answer, but whatever... 'Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I'm a democratic socialist.
[1] Sanders, Bernie (March 22, 2015). "If We Don't Overturn Citizens United, The Congress Will Become Paid Employees of the Billionaire Class". Huffington Post. RetrievedJuly 18, 2015.
Carney Jordian. Bernie Sanders to fight for campaign finance reform. Aug. 04,2015.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250187-sanders-campaign-finance-system-amounts-to-legalized
[1] Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists
<ahref="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>
<ahref="http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html">Constitution of the United States - Federalists Versus Anti-federalists</a>
[2] Would you have been a federalist or an anti-federalist 2014 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist/
[3] The Great Debate. https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
[4] McGuire, Robert. “Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Consitution”. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. August 14, 2001.
URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-interests-and-the-adoption-of-the-united-states-constitution/
URL http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-interests-and-the-adoption-of-the-united-states-constitution/
[5]America’s First Failure at Government The Articles of Confederation
http://ushistoryscene.com/article/articles-of-confederation/
[6] The Great Debate https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
[7] Sarah McNeil, Articles of Confederation, 2012 June, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=277 (accessed 2012 June
[8] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/would-you-have-been-a-federalist-or-an-anti-federalist/
[9] Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey M. Berry, and Jerry Goldman (2010).The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. Cengage Learning. p. 276.
[10] "The Origin of the Republican Party, A. F. Gilman, Ripon College, 1914". Content.wisconsinhistory.org. Retrieved2012-01-17.
[11] Ryan C. Fuhrmann, CFA What are the main differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to regulating the economy?
[12] Ibid 11
[13]Democrats vs Republicans http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican#Abortion
[14] Democratic Party Platform. http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Tax_Reform.htm
[16] Ryan C. Fuhrmann, CFA What are the main differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to regulating the economy?
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp
[17] Powell, Michael (November 6, 2006). "Exceedingly Social But Doesn't Like Parties". The Washington Post. RetrievedNovember 26, 2012. He knows what the corporate media might do with his answer, but whatever... 'Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I'm a democratic socialist.
[18] Sanders, Bernie (March 22, 2015). "If We Don't Overturn Citizens United, The Congress Will Become Paid Employees of the Billionaire Class". Huffington Post. RetrievedJuly 18, 2015.
[19] Carney Jordian. Bernie Sanders to fight for campaign finance reform. Aug. 04,2015.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/250187-sanders-campaign-finance-system-amounts-to-legalized
[20] Ibid 19
Comments
Post a Comment