Although taught as being diametrically opposed to one another, Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (both of whom shall be referred to as Tom and Jim, respectively, for the remainder of this essay) both shared a common goal in their philosophy of Government. That the will of a rightful majority should hold political power and legislate to promote the public good. The two even share similar principles in regards to the delegation of powers between the different levels of government in Federal state structures as well as fearful stances on human nature.
However, the two diverge in all other respects, most importantly in regards to the scope a good government should encompass as well as how to protect against unjust majorities. …show more content…
This is starkly contrasted by the small, bite-sized units of governance that Tom argues for which indicates that Tom believe that people of relative desires, such as the conservative city of Mobile and the liberal city of Los Angeles, are the only groups that are able to engage in meaningful discourse, a much more pessimistic but, honest view of human …show more content…
To illustrate this, let’s consider that the city of Mobile has to decide on the issue of Civil Rights for African Americans. In this case the “public good is disregarded” by the overwhelming Conservative faction who will pass legislation to block Civil Rights and in turn oppress the rights of its minority faction, African Americans.
This is contrary to Tom who in a sense acknowledges that unjust majorities exist however, under his rationality he thinks education is the simple fix to Jim’s small city conundrum which simply isn’t the case as Jim argues that “as long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love… the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves” essentially arguing that even the most educated of individuals will be heavily influenced by their own passions and have an insurmountable bias against what the individual perceives as ideas contrary to their own
However, the two diverge in all other respects, most importantly in regards to the scope a good government should encompass as well as how to protect against unjust majorities. …show more content…
This is starkly contrasted by the small, bite-sized units of governance that Tom argues for which indicates that Tom believe that people of relative desires, such as the conservative city of Mobile and the liberal city of Los Angeles, are the only groups that are able to engage in meaningful discourse, a much more pessimistic but, honest view of human …show more content…
To illustrate this, let’s consider that the city of Mobile has to decide on the issue of Civil Rights for African Americans. In this case the “public good is disregarded” by the overwhelming Conservative faction who will pass legislation to block Civil Rights and in turn oppress the rights of its minority faction, African Americans.
This is contrary to Tom who in a sense acknowledges that unjust majorities exist however, under his rationality he thinks education is the simple fix to Jim’s small city conundrum which simply isn’t the case as Jim argues that “as long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love… the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves” essentially arguing that even the most educated of individuals will be heavily influenced by their own passions and have an insurmountable bias against what the individual perceives as ideas contrary to their own