Wednesday, March 8, 2000

Martin Luther vs. Plato



            Imagine using a time machine to go back to the period of the classical thinkers like Plato and Martin Luther. When given the chance, what would you ask them? While the possibilities are practically endless, these two great philosophers revealed in their works, the circumstances and political and social atmosphere required to create and maintain a good society. It will be discovered how Plato’s ideas found in The Republic reveal what justice is in three realms, political, social and individual. The relationships between classes create a just society. It will be shown that while Martin Luther’s ideas on Christianity and the ideal society are vastly different than Plato’s, each great thinker contributes something to political thought that remains relevant today and elements of each author can contribute to a more ideal society, even in modern times.
            History reveals that many systems of thought have existed and each following generation has viewed the world with a slightly different lens. While this is clear, many of the same social issues have been discussed since the beginning of recorded history. In order to get a clearer understanding and foundation for comparison, we must first focus our attention on the life and theories of Plato. It is said that political thought began to emerge around 400 B.C through the philosophical ideas created by Socrates. While he was very well known for his contributions to political thought, he never officially recorded his ideas for others to share. This is what makes Plato so important and a worthy subject of research, as he was the man to follow Socrates and was responsible for recording much of what is known about both Socrates and Plato’s ideas, as an offshoot of his teacher. Plato’s method of thinking was different than that of the thinkers who came before him. Authors note “Plato’s explorations of political questions in the form of written dialogues, or fictitious philosophic conversations, that are still admired for the beauty of their composition and studied for the depth of their wisdom” (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009, p. 2). What is remarkable about this great thinker was his devotion to truth and justice, through continuous and deep reflection. Perhaps Plato’s most notorious political concepts are contained within his great work known as the Republic. In this work, he utilizes his creation of dialogues to evaluate many aspects of life, particularly of great relevance to our discussion, is the idea of a good society.
            Throughout the Republic, Plato continues to utilize Socrates as a main character of his philosophical inquiry. Through the conversations with close friends and other well-known thinkers, he is able to bring up the ideas commonly held by others and follow up with reasons why these ideas are valid or not, and to what extent. During book one of the Republic, his conversation with others focuses on the meaning of justice, and commonly held notions of how to go about acting upon this idea. It is said “In response to Thrasymachus’contention that injustice is more profitable than justice, Socrates observes that in justice leads to faction or conflict among human beings, so that they cannot then cooperate with a view to a common enterprise” (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009, p. 4). With this thought in mind, what can be said about the social and political climate that allows for the creation of order yet seeks to create harmony and find the good of the community? These ideas are discussed in further detail in book one and other sections of the Republic.
            The nature of justice itself is only an intangible dream. What makes the ideal worthy of study is the practical application of the ideal settings in which justice can thrive and the common good can be met, thus creating the ideal society. One main concept discussed by Plato is the idea of social classes, giving way to a more productive society and one which allows specialized involvement of each member of society for a preconceived purpose. In this way, Plato also goes on to discuss the importance of the ideal society having appropriate rule. This can be established through a relatively unknown concept at the time. Plato believed that while each class had their purpose in this ideal society, the ruler should be a philosopher, capable of dialectic inquiry. Authors note;
He concludes by writing that those who become properly trained in argumentation must be tested in the city’s matters before being allowed to practice philosophy and rule the city…Plato argues through the allegory of the Cave and the divided line that philosophers possess true knowledge, and thus are best suited to be guardians (Lublink, 2011, p.5)
The idea of an educated and justice seeking ruler is not the only forefront of the just society but also includes three other classes, with could be said to be just as important. Many have argued the direct reason for acting just during very trying times as experienced by Plato and his fellow thinkers. Due to an imbalance of power and strength, injustice, as manifested through acting out on what one wants despite the chances of others getting hurt as a result, is not the ideal state of being for the common good. We should understand that “Rather than suffer this, the many agree to treat each other justly—not because they believe justice is good in itself, but rather because they fear being treated unjustly by others” (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009, p. 5) This inherent need throughout society would benefit from a system intended on creating harmony. Perhaps one of the most interesting and important additions to the ideal city is out of the need to find a balance. By following this line of thinking it can be said,
Thus Socrates (as purposed by Plato) contends that the human community requires a division of labor according to which people work only at the jobs for which they are best suited by nature, or for which they have the greatest aptitude. ‘‘One man, one art’’ and ‘‘minding one’s own business’’ become fundamental principles of the Republic’s city in speech (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009).
Three classes each have their own role in the ideal society. The Artisans purpose is to create goods that can be used by the rest of society. Next, there must be citizens willing to lay their life on the line and protect the public as well as carry out orders of the ruler. Finally, the ruler is meant to be full of wisdom and seek justice. This is why the ruler should ideally be a philosopher. In some ways, the ruler would be known as the true guardians of the city. Authors state “The city’s guardians must be ‘naturally dialectical’, which means that they must be capable of achieving the kind of unified vision described in the allegory of the Cave” (Lublink, 2011, p. 5).
Not only is the class system an important part of the ideal society, other subjects work to form elements that either add or take away from achieving this end. Other virtues are important for the individual as well as the whole society and can be particularly important for the ruler.
These ideas are the emphasis on self-discipline to control physical desires, the value of dialogue, and the requirement that leaders of the ideal state must have acquired adequate knowledge, sufficient experience and wisdom that comes from reaching a mature age before they can start their work as rulers (Lotter, 2003, p.190)
The notion of the importance of wealth in the idea society is also discussed by Plato, and is imperative in understanding his political thought. Not only does this notion allow for the betterment of the citizens but also perpetuates Plato’s notion of seeking and being just. Plato uses dialect found in the Republic to speak on important issues concerning individual morality and thus, also introduces us to circumstances which would either create the ideal society or prevent it. In speaking with an old man in the beginning of the Republic, Plato (technically his characters) question the value of old age and in doing so, gets the response that some money is necessary to help aid morality and good behavior. Authors note “By implication Plato is saying that a lack of money-poverty-makes it very difficult to live a moral life. Adequate resources to escape poverty thus seem a prerequisite for living Plato’s moral life” (Lotter, 2003, p. 192). Other important subjects relevant to fostering the ideal city according to Plato include education and the development of the youth. Perhaps he believed that raising the youth required careful planning and deliberate introduction to certain ideas. Deutsch and Fornieri note;
Both the formation of character in the young and the preservation of character in the mature, it seems, require that some things not be heard. Thus the city in speech, the just city, requires a regime of censorship or public control of speech and artistic expression (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009, p.13).
The ideas developed by Plato are ones which may seem foreign to the modern society but used and adapted accordingly could serve to bolster a stronger economy and create a just community of loving and caring citizens. The practical application of such ideas will be discussed later in terms of how our modern society may benefit from reverting to classical modes of thought.
            Many philosophers have learned and adapted theories of previous great thinkers while some have looked at an issue or concept in a completely different way. Given the time gap between Plato and Martin Luther, it would be easy to assume that the theories held by each would be drastically different even when attempting to find solutions to similar problems. The theories held by Martin Luther will be the next topic of discussion. A central focus of Luther’s is the idea of giving an order to the balance between politics and Christian thinking. It is through his ideas on Christianity and just actions that we may understand what he may have believed to be the ideal society. He is well known for his actions in resisting the Catholic Church and many of their political expressions of authority over the common people. Authors note the extremist views of the church during the time of Martin Luther in stating “By the end of the Middle Ages such religious claims over the political realm had been formalized in the clearest and most extreme fashion in the idea of absolute papal supremacy” (Deutsch & Fornieri, 2009, p. 145) It was Luther who played a significant role in changing the tide of roman catholic rule and thus helped changed the political culture of the era.
            An important concept to understand is the basis of Christian belief and distinction between Roman Catholicism and Lutherans ideas. Previous thinkers like Aristotle developed the notion of learning to cultivate virtuous and moral behavior through equally virtuous and moral deeds. Authors note;
Theologians from Aquinas down to Ockham and Gabriel Biel had adapted this teaching in various ways to limit the biblical teaching concerning the fallenness of human nature and thereby to define a role in the economy of salvation for the moral efforts of human beings” (Deutshce & Fornieri, 2009).
Luther believed that the Roman church used this thinking to control the citizens of the community in expecting them to do certain deeds, all of which did not necessarily help the individual gain religious salvation. According to his famous posting on the church door at Wittenberg;
For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty… Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who says that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences (Fordham, 2013).
 It is with this focus that we could take elements of Luther’s beliefs to create the ideal society, through the actions of the individual affecting the rest of society.  Luther does not use his ideas to deny the just and helpful actions of individuals in society yet he understood that these actions could not lead to salvation but nonetheless could lead to a better society. Authors state “ At the same time, the very meaning of good works shifts from an emphasis on sacramental performances, dependent upon the authority of ordained priests, to ordinary service addressing the mundane needs of one’s neighbor” (Deutshce & Fornieri, 2009). In a way, Luther believed that if society was made up of true Christians, who did good deeds and worked towards the betterment of all mankind, there would be no need for traditional leadership or kingship. Another concept covered by Luther was the idea of resistance to tainted authority. He allowed the community to resist the powers of the ruling class if they were to work against the things that were commanded as Christians. It is on this reformation of thought that Martin Luther’s political thoughts are based and despite the fact that they may not hold outwardly obvious relations to political application, the very society created by followers of Luther’s ideas would in fact result in a more ideal society, an important focus of political ideology.
After examining some key points of each philosopher, we can see how each topic discussed can stand alone and also be useful in understanding the larger picture. Each philosopher’s perspective establishing justice, the ideal citizen and the proper use of authority and morality, work to form the ideal society. While the topic is the same, the methods of getting there differ from thinker to thinker; therefore a comparison is needed for further reference. Luther’s ideas were not inherently political while Plato’s did appear to have a more obvious political tone. Both philosophers spoke adamantly about justice yet it was defined in different terms and was manifested in different ways. Luther’s ideas were based mostly off of the recognition of Christian based values and teachings while he spoke out about Roman Catholicism and their political use of papal authority. Plato focused more on establishing a class that helped the ideal society through the division of labor and ruler being distinctly capable of virtuous and moral dialectic thought. To this end, the ruler must be a philosopher to be an effective guardian (ruler). Plato spoke about the role of each person in society in the terms of this separation of jobs based on specific abilities yet Luther used the idea of Christian virtues and actions to establish that everyone should be ministers of Gods words despite the current separation of priests and laity. He believed in the concept of the priesthood of all believers. Plato also spoke about communism of property in regards to the way in which the guardians lived. Luther did bring up concepts regarding the order in which power was established for secular and religious authority and worked against the traditional established ideas of his time and spoke up about the authority of the individual citizen to resist tyrannical authority. This type of resistance did not appear to be a significant idea held by Plato.
While these two philosophers had different ideas on what could lead to the ideal city or society, each author was a product of their era. Luther’s reform and ideas of the importance of Christian beliefs has been an element that has stood the test of time. To some extent, Christian virtues are still seen as an important commodity among political actors. Plato’s idea of the just city is one which may be more practical in theory than in reality when it comes to modern day society, yet many elements of his works hold important relevance to today. Earlier accounts of an attempt to utilize elements that mirrored Plato’s republic were only somewhat successful to say the least. It had been termed the perfectionist movement in the 19th century and was a cult type setting established by John Humphrey Noyes. One element that was derived from Plato’s republic was the sharing of property and wealth. Authors state “From the mid-1840s on, therefore, they agreed to share all their belongings, giving their goods and money over to the community and in turn being supported by it” (Foss,2010, p.4). This was similar to the concept of community forced upon the guardian class of Plato’s republic. Other elements from family relations to sexual partners were dictated by rules which could be seen in both Plato’s Republic and Noyes’s society. Regardless of this early attempt to follow Christian teachings and elements of Plato’s political ideas, the Republic has implications for the 21’st century.
The idea that mature age brings knowledge and helps calm the desires, choosing moral obligation and conversation over desires, is one which we currently hold, to a small degree, in America. Presidents are meant to be over a certain age, most likely to have experience enough to have gained wisdom and understanding. President Clinton made it painfully clear how important control over physical desires can be when it comes to an ideal society and acting as rulers. His inability to remain faithful to his wife had gotten in the way of his moral and political obligations. The role of money and wealth is in fact an important discussion to be made in regards to the ideal society both back then (Plato’s era) and in modern times. In many ways, money is necessary to live a life where other ideas and actions can be perused. If someone is in constant need of money, they may be more willing to act immorally to get it and thus individual justice and society’s justice is lost. An important idea of wealth found in ideas by Plato also discusses the concept of having too much wealth. In America, there is a significant gap between the rich and the poor and this may be why there is a sense of jealousy, discontentment and immoral behavior. Statistical analysis shows that there is a disparity between crime committed by certain races, who tend to be minority and live in areas of high poverty and little distribution of wealth. Immoral acts are committed in an attempt to gain power and provide for oneself, a concept that was meant to be controlled in Plato’s republic.
In some ways, politicians seem to rely on the fact that the majority of society has no formal training and does not necessarily know what is being spoken. Society members are not well versed in the ability to follow Plato’s method to the truth and therefore, modern day politicians are capable of easily leading and misleading the average voter and citizen. Authors state “Plato’s warning in Republic VII is thus a warning about the practice of dialectic in general, and especially a warning about practicing dialectic with or in front of young people “ (Lublink, 2011 p. 9)..Plato seemed to believe that those who blindly seek the truth, (let us say from dialectic questioning politicians) will become more lost than they had been before and will most likely be at the mercy of those providing the information. This has become a major problem with the media and politics today, that the average person is bombarded by information, and will likely trudge through to find the truth only to get lost. Plato also believed in public control of speech and artistic expression. In a modern society this does not exist in most cases. While we do have the FCC who regulates certain mediums like the lyrics of music deemed inappropriate, our society’s freedom of speech allows the expression of the utmost ridiculous ideas and concepts. This can be seen by evaluating the purpose of music and certain television shows. The youth could become corrupt through daily exposure to these mediums and popular culture plays a large role in the socialization of society. This has seemed to create a less than ideal society. Perhaps we would benefit from the regimen of controlled public speech and artistic expression purposed by Plato yet the reality is that Americans are too set in their ways to relinquish this right they deem inalienable, as set forth by the constitution. Despite the goodness it may cause, we are blind and dumb to the far reaching consequences of our actions.
Luther’s contribution to modern thought is also important. America is purported to be founded on Christian beliefs. The constitution was written to be vague enough to allow for interpretation of specific laws according to the situation at hand. It is a living document that is the law of the land in modern times. As a whole, our society has become less and less religious and our political correctness has attempted to establish a clear cut line between church and state. It is based on Luther’s religious focus that I believe many of our society’s problems could be remedied. His ideas on the relevance of Christian virtues would allow us to treat others like we want to be treated; the golden rule. His ideas of resisting tyrannical rule also come into play in our modern society. At times, some rulers may come across as being manipulative and may lie to gain control. Luther’s ideas of resistance in accordance with morality and the harmony of the community would serve the best interest of our nation.
Upon understanding the main concepts of Plato and Martin Luther, we realize that certain blanket problems existed even during their days and will continue to exist well past ours. While the problem of the ideal society can be examined and reached by changing different elements of that society, the combinations and actors will determine which route is necessary in a dynamic society like the United States.  We may understand the importance and relevance of these two philosophers’ ideas yet their practicality may not be as tangible as we may wish. A stubborn society will be one who is not open to new ideas or even ones which were well established in different times throughout history.

           
           
References
Deutsch, K., Fornieri, J. (2009) An Invitation to Political Thought. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Fordham (2013). 95 Theses. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt
Foss, C. (2010). Plato's American Republic. History Today, 60(12), 36-42

Lotter, H. P. (2003). The significance of poverty and wealth in Plato's Republic. South African Journal of Philosophy, 22(3), 189-206
Lublink, S. (2011). Who May Live the Examined Life? Plato's Rejection of Socratic Practices in Republic VII. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 19(1), 3-18. doi:10.1080/09608788.2011.533009

Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Electoral College PoV

My position on the Electoral College is it should remain as is, because it has provide stability and validity to our election process over 200 years as our founders intended under Article II, Section1, of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended that the states , not the people, select the president and vice president. According to James Madison's Federalist Paper No.10 our government is created as a republic and not as direct or pure democracy. The Electoral College represents and maintains a federal system of government by representing both the U.S. Citizens at large and the states. (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 74-75, 702-705, 2010)

It has become interesting how some people feel their one-vote is not being acknowledge or accounted for due to the Electoral College and that the nationwide popular vote would be a fairer method to determine the election of a president. If so, then why do we need Senators and so on to represent us. If we enjoy chipping away at our constitution, are we not chipping away at our republic form of government? Is this why James Madison and other Founders feared might happen with “pure democracy” the unchecked will of the people, that could possibly cause danger to the republic? May be not if there is an amendment to the Constitution for a change and ratified by ¾ of the states; however, our founders provided a constitutional limited republic that precisely protects our fundamental liberties from whims of the masses and excesses of democracy. (USelectionatlas, 2010), (Schulman, M., 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(American Government and Politics Today, pp. 8-9, 9-10, 704-705, 2010)

The constitution has put checks on a national level on political power, the three branches of government and on the will of the people. It also has divided the power between states and the national government in order to preserve the rights of the people. The Founders took great strides to separate powers in order to prevent popular majorities. Direct elections for a presidential election sounds more like an unchecked “majority rule” concept. How will this change in the one-person-one-vote affect the states' participation in the election of the president? (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 704-705, 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(Heritage.org, 2004)

The Electoral College electors provide representation to both the states and their citizens. The number of electors is proportion to the state's population which is equal to the state's members in the House plus two Senators. Will the abolishing of the Electoral College also rid the Senate and its representation? With direct elections, then how will we address fraudulent activity in the voting process that sometimes shows up or situation where a recount of votes is needed or where there is a close/tie election? The Electoral College is capable in taking steps in order to correct and monitor these problems that may arrive. For any fraudulent activity, the response of the electoral college is to confine the problem and take action on a particular state or handful of states where the fraudulent or questionable activity has happened such as the case in Florida in the 2000 election. In case of a close popular election, it is possible that the candidate may not be elected due to the weight of dispersing of the electoral votes for the other candidate. This depends on the candidate's popularity is condensed to a few states verses a variety of states in both popular and electoral votes. Steps taken by the electoral college is as such, if one candidate has a substantial range of popular votes on the whole, this usually means a given win; a close vote between two candidates, the election defaults will usually go to the candidate with the widely distributed majority of electoral votes. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority than the election defaults to the US House of Representatives, then the winning President-Elect must have enough supportive popular votes and sufficient elective votes. (Ross, T., 2004), (Jacoby, J., 2008), (USelectionatlas.org, 2010)

The Electoral Colleges has already integrated steps to maintain integrity to the presidential elections per William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration which are the following: contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, enhances the status of minority interest because the belief is even small number of minorities in a state can be influential in the outcome of the State's electoral votes in the difference in winning or not, contributes to political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and maintains a federal system of government and representation. (Kimberling, W.C., 2010)

I believe 270 of the 538 electoral votes is an excellent way to win the oval office. The Electoral College has held its position for over 200+ years in this diverse social, ethnic, complex nation of ours. According to Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 68, “. . . if the manner is not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (Constitution, 2010)


References
Anonymous. (2010). The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from USelectionatlas website
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Schulman, M. (2010). Why Was the Electoral College Created?
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Historycentral website
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Jacoby, J. (2008, July 16). The Brilliance of the Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Boston website
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the_brilliance_of_the_electoral_college/

Kimberling, W.C. (2010). The Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Heritage Foundation website
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/fecmemo.asp

Anonymous. (2010). Federalist Paper 68: The Mode of Electing the President
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

Ross, T. (2004, November 1). Executive Summary: The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/Executive-SummaryThe-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Direct Democracy as a Model"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp 8-9) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Dangers of Direct Democracy"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 9-10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "A Democratic Republic"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pg 10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Majoritarianism"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 11-12) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Working Toward Final Agreement"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 50) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Article II - Executive Branch"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 74-75) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Electoral College"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 336-339) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Federalist Papers No. 10"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 702-705) USA:
Course Technology.

Sunday, March 5, 2000

Tea Party

Our First Amendment has given United States' citizens the right to a 'peaceful assembly' and 'freedom' to speak out about issues in our government, society, laws, etc. in order to promote change or support. One influential group that will be reviewed in this paper is a newly formed group call the Tea Party. In the following paragraphs I well address the Tea Party's goals, their strategies in reaching their goals, and conclude if they have been successful or not in meeting those goals. (American Government and Politics Today, 124,136-43, 2010)

The tea party is a decentralized grass-roots group of people who didn't like what was going on in Washington. These people come from all walks of life, every race, every religion, every political view, such as Democratic, Republican, libertarian or Independent and are scattered throughout the 50 states of America. All these Americans that make-up the tea parties are like-minded and believe that our government should be fiscally responsible, Constitutionally limited, and favor that our economy rely on the free market concept (see exhibit A and B in the Ref pg.). The Tea Party is structurally composed of five separate national groups extending into local level Tea Parties. These groups network with each other and stand together to form a movement to save the republic. At present, there are five national groups which are the following: 9-12 project, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Express, and Freedom Works. Along with the local Tea Parties, they are all non-partisan organizations, who are supporters of the Constitution, use peaceful endeavors and are non-racial. Anyone who promotes racism or violence is immediately denounced and asked to leave the organization. (9-12 Project, 2010) (GeorgiaTeaPartyPatriots, 2010)

Tea parties have penetrated America by using many communicational vehicles. They promote their likeminded message through word of mouth, the Internet, local newspapers, Fox News, some local and national news organizations and press, message boards, conventions, conservative radio talk hosts, and gatherings. There are some tea parties that develop a caravan and go state-to-state to rally. There seems to be a never-ending flow of exposure and the use of multiple avenues to express their message of fiscally responsible government that is constitutionally limited and the belief of economic growth through the free market. Some of the public who are also discontented with the government, like their message and also believe “We the people'' have a voice and want change, but without government intrusiveness on their 'Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'. (libertarian party, 2010)

The big question is how successful have the Tea Parties been in meeting their goals. Time, perseverance and patience is working for them. At the present time, it is unknown in how successful they will be in their endeavors. The Tea Party have receive the attention of Senator Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who now acts as chairman for the Tea Party caucus. This is a good start that someone in government is listening to them and is used as a conduit for the flow of information from the Tea Party to congress. The Tea Parties are an educated group of people who read, study and learn about the constitution and our founders and continue to enrich their data bank through further resources about government in general. This provides them with armor to promote their cause. Membership is growing. According to DesertConservative.com, Tea Party News on 07/15/2010, an article states per Winston Group polling (april 1, 2010) that there are 49 million active members in the Tea Party movement. Per a Rasmussen polling (June 2, 2010), 149 + million people believe that the Tea Party movement is a good thing for America. (.msnbc.msn.com, 2010)(Foxnews, 2010)( Desertconservative, 2010)

To agree or disagree with the Tea Party ideology, I can only conclude that the Tea Parties are making their mark as an influential political interest group. So far, the midterm elections have nominated four candidates backed by the Tea Parties, who are the following: Rand Paul

Kentucky GOP Senate candidate, Sharon Angle Nevada's Republican Senate candidate, Mike Lee Utah Republican Senate nomination, and South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Sharon Angle. How much impact they will have in the future, only time will tell, perhaps sooner than later, the November 2, 2010 elections may give some insight. (abcgo.com, 2010)

References
Anonymous. (2010, August, 15). Tea Party News
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Desertconservative website
http://www.desertconservative.com/2010/07/15/tea-party-news-7152010/
Anonymous. (2010, August, 15). Georgia Tea Party Patriots
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Georgeteapartypatroits website
http://georgiateapartypatriots.com/wordpress/
Russert, L. (2010, July, 20). Bachmann chaired tea party caucus
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from MSN website
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/20/4717296-bachmann-chaired-tea-party-caucus-holds-first-meeting-tomorrow
Pergram, C. (2010, July, 19). House Gives Bachmann okay to form tea party caucus
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Fox News website
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/house-gives-bachmann-okay-form-tea-party-caucus/
Tymann, J. (2009, March 28). Guest Commentary Tea Parties are only Beginning
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Naplesnews website
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/mar/28/guest-commentary-tea-parties-are-only-beginning-na/
Anonymous. (2010). The 9-12 Project
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Fox News website
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

Anonymous. (2010). Libertarian Party, Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Libertarian Party website
http://lp.org
Khan, H. (2010, July, 15). Tea Party Influence November mid-term elections
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from ABCNews website
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-time-influence-november-mid-term-elections/story?id=11165237
Bardes, B.A., Shelley, M.C., Schmidt, S.W. (Ed.). (2010). "Chapter 4"
American Politics in Government, 2010 Edition. (pp. 124, 136-43) USA:
Course Technology.

Saturday, March 4, 2000

Jeffersonian democracy

Dear Thomas Jefferson,

I want to thank you on the Jeffersonian democracy, because you really put a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. I support your ideal vision of governing in a lightly and promoting self-reliance and virtue. You said there must be a representative democracy to help the state, yet resist corruption. The federal government can't violate the rights of individuals or rights of the states. I think the freedom of speech and the freedom of press was a good method to keep the government in check. Alien and Sedition Acts was one act where you denounced it as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights which deals with free speech. You also used the Tenth Amendment to argued that the federal government has overstepped it's bounds by exerting it's undedicated power. This federalist act became a thorn to its own party; whereby, you defeated the federalists and became the 3rd President of the United States. Your pardon to those people who fell victims under the Aliens and Sedition Acts was justly and honorable. (ourdocuments.com, 2010)(wordpress, 2010)(answers.com, 2010)

Your belief that an economic system should give people the right to work. Since your presidency of March 4, 1801, I am impressed with your endeavors to create peace, equality, and individual freedom. You restored the freedom of press, and gave the aliens opportunity to become citizens after five years of nationalization. Your efforts to reduce the debt by abolishing all internal taxation including the liquor tax. Best of all, you promoted fiscal responsibility by reducing governmental powers. I thank you for your service in the House of Burgesses. I thank you for your written paper " A Summary View of the Rights of British America," explaining that Great Britain couldn't legislate America. The King of England taxed the heck out of Americans and severely handicapping citizen rights. Your way ended the Federalist party rule, integrated it into the United States creating federal government, and split the Republicans from the Democrat-Republican. I thank you for heading the purchase of Louisiana. I liked how even when the Federalist John Adams was defeated, you peacefully transferred power of the oval office. You made great strides on how to maintain Congress with insurgencies from the Federalist Party. You did a great job revising the Virginia Constitution. Sadly, you had to give order to American ships which were in the middle of the Napoleon Wars to retreat. Thank you for avoiding the 1798 XYZ affair with France so US didn't bankrupt itself going to war at that time. (monticello, 2010)(answers.com)(USMilitaryHistoryCompanion, 2010 [answers])

You supported the Lewis and Clark expedition into the west in 1803. I thank you with trying to maintain United States neutrality in the Napoleon Wars in before 1812. I believe the Library of Congress thanks you for the collection of books that you donated in your last 17 years. I thank you for designing the University of Virginia buildings, doing the buildings. I thank you for drafting the Declaration of Independence. (notablebiographies,2010)

You will always be remembered for the Declaration of Independence and A Summary View of the Rights of British America.

Thursday, March 2, 2000

judicial branch

It is an exciting time to be studying government and politics. Since the writing of the Constitution in 1787, our government has been divided in 3 separate branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Our fore fathers developed these 3 separate branches in order to maintain a strong and fair national government while protecting the individual freedoms and to prevent the government from abusing its powers. In other words, to maintain check and balances in the government. For the purpose of this paper, I will be narrowing-in on the judicial branch which I consider a very essential and interesting part of the government.

Judges of the judicial branch are appointed only by the president and confirmed by the senate. This is unlike members of the executive and legislative branch who are elected by the people. The judicial branch is established under Article III of the Constitution; whereby, the structure of the judicial branch is formed by the Congress of the United States. The Constitution does not include the number supreme court justices, the number of justices is only specified by Congress. At present there are eight associate justices and one chief justice. The members of the Supreme Court and federal court have no term limits. They adjudicate until they retire, or die, or have a conviction by the Senate. This designated term is to protect the justices from the liability of political views and whims of the day and also allows them to interpret laws only according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and all their decisions are final and cannot be overturned by lower courts. The lower courts are 12 Courts of Appeals, 94 district courts in 50 states and federal courts that are located in larger cities. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

Federal courts take cases that involve the federal government and its officials or cases where state courts are inappropriate, such as bankruptcy cases. Federal courts may also hear cases where the citizens of the United States are affected by foreign relations or cases that involve laws created by the Constitution, Congress, treaties, and navigational waters depending on the case. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

Although the Supreme Court reviews a small number of cases each year, their main purpose is to oversee the United States court system. The supreme court interprets the law and decides if the law is relevant or not to a particular case; in which case, the supreme court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional or whether or not something is permitted under the Constitution. Again, as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court ruling is final. As far as check and balances, if Congress does not like a Supreme Court decision, they can introduce a new piece of legislation; whereby, the process may start all over again. If a law that has been passed by Congress and people have considered it unfair, they may test it through the court system in order to rectify the law. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

The Supreme Court truly has a role in our government of the United States and guardian to our Constitution . It's been 223 years to be exact since our constitution has been written for the purpose of maintaining our fundamental values of liberty, order, equality , property, security, and freedom for all. It just like the pledge I spoke when I was young: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag / of the United States of America, / and to the Republic for which it stands, / one Nation under God, indivisible, / With Liberty and Justice for all." (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)



References

Anonymous. (2010). Article III Courts

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from Lectlaw website

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a149.htm

Anonymous. (2010). Checks and Balances

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from factmonster website

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0777009.html

Anonymous. (2010). Three Branches of Government

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from factmonster website

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html

Anonymous. (2010). Current US Supreme Court Justices

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from Cornell University website

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/fullcourt.html

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

Aristotle vs. Confucius



Aristotle and Confucius are two very great philosophers. This paper will analyze how each of them balances freedom and obligation in a political state. Even though Aristotle and Confucius are different philosophers, their viewpoints are very important and both are valued because there is not one right balance regarding freedom and obligation in the political state. Aristotle and Confucius are both great philosophers who offered valuable insight and each of them balanced freedom and obligation in the political state in different (but very useful) ways.
Before we dig into the political state specifically, it is important to recognize how Aristotle and Confucius were not only as philosophers, but as men and general human beings in the world around them. Confucius was a great philosopher who believed that humans are superior and cherish that desire to be good and perfect. Confucius says many things in passages and is inspirational yet today. How many times have you heard the term “Confucius says” in quotes? They are all over the place. One example of this as stated by Confucius (n.d) is:
It is important to look at how these two great philosophers compare and contrast with one another. A big aspect in philosophy is virtue. When one has virtue, they show that they have high standards in their morals that they carry with them. It’s very important to have good morals and ethics in everything we do, everyday. People look at us based upon these; they remember us based on how we carry ourselves and how we treat others. You will see in this research that a lot of what Aristotle and Confucius focus on are relationships. This is one area that Aristotle and Confucius agree on. Taking Aristotelian and Confucian ethics as mirrors for each other leads us to reflect upon the traditional roots of both ethics, to examine their otherwise unexamined presuppositions, and to generate alternative perspectives to determine why each side proceeds in the way it does.” (Yu; 2007)
Aristotle, one of my favorites, was also a great man and philosopher. His quotes have lived on every day in inspiration and motivation. The reason why Aristotle is my favorite is because he was very straightforward. He claimed that everything we do has an end – but isn’t it true? This doesn’t necessarily mean for an actual end, but rather for a purpose. Everything we do in life has a purpose; I really believe that, as did Aristotle. One of his main focuses was logic. His objective was to “come up with a universal process of reasoning that would allow man to learn every conceivable thing about reality.” (Aristotle; 2004) The initial process involved describing objects based on their characteristics, states of being and actions. Aristotle had a major influence on Western thought and social sciences. His teacher, Plato (also widely known) had a big influence on him as well.
The way that Aristotle and Confucius balanced freedom in a political state says a lot about the two philosophers. Aristotle’s balance of freedom in a public state is quite inspirational. He’s got a wide range of respect to the public life. Aristotle believed that the public life was needed to balance common good of the world. He believed humans need to flourish upon others and be free with the world. He was very much concerned with the common good of the whole rather than just one in particular thing. Aristotle defined the human being as a “zoon politikon,
a social animal, requiring a politikon bion or public life so that each individual realizes his or her existence to its full meaning by fully functioning within the public community.” (Critchley; 1995) Looking at this definition from Aristotle, we can begin to understand because our community around is the foundation in which we survive and interact with others. If we as humans didn’t have this in our everyday lives, what would happen? We would be lonely, confined individuals with no social lives.
Confucius had a conservative view on the world and the social relationships of freedom. Perhaps what he thought is that the social interactions and behaviors of humans were their own pathways to freedom and that human actions and self awareness played an important factor. Confucius in regards to politics has a lot of ties with the Chinese culture in that he played a large part with Chinese scholars such as Jiang Qing. Qing was a leading scholar in China and worked for a restoration of Confucianism as the state ideology.  Eberlein (2008) stated the following:
Democracy is Westernized and imperfect in nature, Jiang Qing points out. If applied to       China, a western style democratic system would have only one legitimacy – popular will,        or civil legitimacy. Such uni-legitimacy operates on the quantity of votes, regardless of           the moral implications of decisions taken. Since human desire is selfish by nature, those            decisions can be self serving for a particular majority's interest. Because of this, Jiang             Qing argues, civil legitimacy alone is not sufficient to build or keep a constructive social      order.
The reason why I used this excerpt is because it tells so much about Confucius’s background with the Chinese scholar and the mindset of human decisions and desire. Another way that Confucius embraces freedom in political thought is through nature. Freedom is often times seen as the expression of nature, thus leading us to human nature.
When it comes to balancing obligation in a political state, this is where it gets tricky with Aristotle. It may not be a secret that he questions the obligation in politics and that there are many issues behind it. Aristotle didn’t focus as much on obligation, which Confucius believed that we all had obligation to do something, to be something – every human had their own duties. Aristotle looks at political self authority and obligation as two in them- selves. When referring to obligation, we think of something that someone has to do, right? Aristotle has a lot to do with the common good which I think is important to mention here, not just about what it is, but how it has a big place in the role of our society today. This concept was developed by Aristotle, Plato and Ciero but more recently is defined as conditions that are equally to everyone’s advantage. This sounds nice, doesn’t it? Another concept that Aristotle focused on was the Golden Mean. Since Aristotle didn’t focus much on obligations, he focused more on development and character. A couple examples in the way that he portrayed this are: “justice is a mean between getting or giving too much and getting or giving too little. Benevolence is a mean between giving to people who don’t deserve it and not giving to anyone at all. Aristotle is not recommending that one should be moderate in all things, since one should at all times exercise the virtues.”
When thinking of obligation in the world, the concept of common good seems refreshing. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include “an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.” (Velasquex; 2012)
Confucius looked at obligation in the political state widely and it seemed as though there was a bigger weight on obligations of the ruled, rather than the obligations of the ruler himself. Confucianism on one end accepts all values of behavior in human relationships and interactions, which involved certain roles and obligations. What this means is that each person should know what their role is, everyone has a part to play and that is their personal obligation. Confucianism can even go as far obligation in the society in interacting with strangers… meaning that one should do right just because we are all human beings. You can begin to see how Confucius thought of obligations in the political state because everyone must do their part and fulfill their own duties.
Some have even argued that Confucianism was never political to begin with. Perhaps it was just an extremely intense thought that should take place over all other social relations. Fukuyama (1995) states:
Confucianism builds a well-ordered society from the ground up rather than the top down,   stressing the moral obligations of family life as the basic building block of society.          Beyond the traditional Chinese family, or jia, are lineages and larger kinship groups; the          state and other political authorities are seen as a kind of family of families that unites all Chinese into a single social entity.
This is all very interesting because when looking at obligation in political thought, everything that you come upon is about family, relationships, social interactions, etc. It is very evident that Confucius basis his thoughts around this important structure of society.
As we can see, Aristotle and Confucius were very, very inspirational and smart philosophers. Not just philosophically speaking, but they were great men beyond that as we can see in research. Even though Aristotle and Confucius are different philosophers, their viewpoints are very important and both are valued because there is not one right balance regarding freedom and obligation in the political state. The way that they felt on freedom and obligation in a political state is different than it is today. Today, people like to blame things on others and make it not be their problem. There are so many times in our days where people don’t want to get in trouble so they would rather get others in trouble by “passing the buck” so they call it.
I feel that people think they can pass their obligations on to others and it is okay. Perhaps they haven’t learned nearly enough about the thought processes of great philosophers such as Aristotle and Confucius, including many others, who believe that human beings and social interaction and doing the right thing are amongst the most beneficial aspects of life. Of course we believe in freedom but there are still people who try to take that from others.
Although I have read about many philosophers, I am so glad that I got the chance to dig deeper and analyze Aristotle and Confucius as men and philosophers. Aristotle and Confucius truly cared about doing what is right for each other as well as in the world itself. Between Aristotle’s ethics and Confucius’s great teachings, these two philosophers also had a great focus on friendship as well, which really hit me because I feel that life and friendship tie into many of the things that we have learned about these two men and their views on obligation and freedom.
These two men, who lived approximately two centuries apart from each other, had many similarities and differences but all in all they were both “equally as concerned with the moral character of individuals and the application of ethics in political life.” (Mealing; 2008) These two did have some contrasts with one another such as views on impartialism of utilitarianism and Kantianism; Whereas for Confucius the state is the family writ large, Yu contends that for Aristotle the family is subordinate to the state, since the state's aim is 'the highest of all."(Gier; 2007) Looking at Aristotle and Confucius and comparing and contrasting these two men was a great learning for me because I used to think politics was just that – politics: presidents and voting, debates and so on. Politics has a completely new meaning to me.



























REFERENCES

Aristotle (2004) “Definition of Happiness” Pursuit of Happiness; Retrieved from: http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/

Aristotle (2013) “Synopsis” The Biography Channel website; Retrieved from:          

Confucius (n.d) “Quotations by Author” The Quotations Page; Retrieved from:             http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Confucius/

Critchley, Peter Dr (1995) “Aristotle and the Public Good” Academia; Retrieved from:             http://www.academia.edu/705315/Aristotle_and_the_Public_Good

Eberlein, Xujun (2008) “Political Confucianism as State Ideology” Global Voices Online; Retrieved from: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/02/05/china-the-coming-of-age-of-          political-confucianism/

Fukuyama, Francis (1995) “Confucianism and Democracy” John Hopkins University Press;                      Retrieved from: http://www.unc.edu/~wangc/Francis%20Fukuyama%20-        %20Confucianism%20and%20Democracy%20%20Journal%20of%20Democracy%2062.        htm

Gier, Nicholas (2007) “Review of Jiyuan Yu’s The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of   Virtue” University of Idaho; Retrieved from:       http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/yureview.htm

Mealing, Paul (2008) “Aristotle, Confucius, Ethics and Happiness” Journeyman Philosopher        Blog Spot; Retrieved from: http://journeymanphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/05/aristotle-        confucius-ethics-and.html

Velasquez, Manuel (2012) “The Common Good” Santa Clara University; Retrieved from:             http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html

Yu, Jiyuan (2007)The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue” Notre Dame           Philosophical Reviews; Retrieved from: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23423-the-ethics-of-      confucius-and-aristotle-mirrors-of-virtue/