Ariel Gagliardi

First Debate

9/29/2010

Federalists and Anti-federalists both have very convincing arguments when it comes to topics such as human nature, scale of political life, role of the representatives within the government, the separation of powers, the purpose of the government, and change. Some issues were argued strongly by the Federalists while I happened to agree with the Anti-federalists, as well as vice versa. Through the reading and during the debate, I was able to gain a different perspective and form a more concrete knowledge of each party s ideas. The Federalists had a very strict idea of how a government should work. On the issue of human nature, Federalists believed many people were basically selfish. Federalists felt that elites would be more suitable to hold office in a large republic because they would hold true to the wants and needs of the masses. The debate in-class brought attention to the fact that any person, be it a citizen or an elite, would be relatively selfish coming to that type of power. This may be true; however, the Federalists believed that the elites would protect the rights of the citizens without developing a greedy persona. They felt that the risk of an elite developing negative qualities was worth the risk, since allowing the masses to do so would eventually cause irreparable damage. The Anti-federalists, however, believed the exact opposite. They believed that the masses would look out for the interests of themselves as a whole, while the elites posed a threat to the wants and needs of the majority. They believed the people were capable of making worthy decision that would benefit everyone, despite the beliefs of the Federalists. The Anti-federalists felt that elites had their own interests at heart, and their ambitions were purely selfish. Anti-federalist writers believed that ordinary individuals would look out for the comfort and decency of the lives of the common masses. While they held this view, they also believed that the Federalists would take advantage of the power they held and only benefit among themselves. They felt that as the gap between the elites and the individuals grew, the ability for corruption to develop also grew.

Ariel Gagliardi

First Debate

9/29/2010

As I briefly mentioned before, Federalists favored a large republic. They felt that a small republic would cause factions to form, which would ultimately suppress the voice of minorities. In a large republic, however, this could not happen. The diverse makeup of the people in the republic would prevent the formation of an unjust political group. Anti-federalists saw a small republic as an opportunity for citizens to be closer to their government representatives, which would benefit everyone. They would be allowed to form relationships with said representatives, and in turn trust them more, as well as be able to hold them accountable for any mistakes or wrongdoings. They saw a large republic as a threat, since Anti-federalists mostly mistrusted the elites leading it. The debate brought this topic to light several times, ultimately favoring the Anti-federalist side. Representation was another topic of debate between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. Federalists believed that good representation would be able to refine the views of ordinary people and see to it that the people got what they wanted. They felt that ordinary people as a whole were largely unsure of their positions and therefore would cause chaos when demanding a want or need. A representative would act as a middleman, weeding out the true interests of the common people. The elites were also believed to be least likely to sacrifice the welfare of the people for their own sake. Anti-federalists disagreed with everything on this topic. They felt that representatives were not to be held as superiors. The hopes and goals of the people should be mirrored through the representatives, not summed up . The Anti-federalists felt that the representatives should seek everything they re asked of, not to decide what s best for the people themselves. Separation of powers and the idea of checks and balances were actually a topic that Federalists and Anti-federalists somewhat agreed upon. Federalists were aware, as were the Anti-federalists, that power could be abused very easily. That being said, they developed the separation of powers, which separated the government into three branches. The Federalists agreed to allow all branches the ability to check on the others. While the Anti-federalists agreed with all of that, they believed the focus was

Ariel Gagliardi

First Debate

9/29/2010

on the wrong branch. While Federalists believed the representatives needed the close watching, the Anti-federalists focused more on the elite branches, still weary of the damage they felt the elite could do. The purpose of the government was another not-so-controversial subject between the two. While Federalists and Anti-federalists agreed on the fact that the government was there to protect and promote the liberty of the people, they disagreed on the meaning of liberty. Federalists, as conveyed through James Madison s Federalist No 10, believed liberty was a private possession, such as things like property or beliefs, which needed protection from people who would take properties or force a certain belief upon people. This way, individuals would succeed or fail depending on themselves, not the factor of others. Anti-federalists believed liberty was in fact defined the way the Federalists conveyed above, but also focused on the political rights of the people. If the American population focused only on getting rich, the general welfare and public good would be sorely neglected. They also worried that if they had a strong military, it might someday be used against them by their own rulers. Instead of wanting to conform to the governments found in Europe, they wanted to preserve the original democratic government brought about in 1776. Federalists believed that change was a good thing, as long as they were guided by intelligent, knowledgeable elites. During the aftermath of the American Revolution, people sought stability in their government. James Madison stated that the Constitution would eventually become the foundation of American politics without question, as long as it proved to be a strong, stable basis. Anti-federalists, however, saw the stability of the Federalists as a danger to them, such as political corruption and eventually the decay of the entire foundation. At this time, they were worried less about the people becoming chaotic, but rather focused on the fact that people would eventually become uncaring and ignore public affairs. They feared that corruption would spread among the elites, and ordinary people would become distracted with the promises of wealth and riches.

Ariel Gagliardi

First Debate

9/29/2010

I can t say that I am in complete agreement with either the Federalists or the Anti-federalists. I can, however, agree mostly with the Anti-federalists. I, too, believe that ordinary people are capable of deciding what s best for themselves, without elites making decisions for them. Small governments do give citizens a better chance at being heard, and provide the ability to become involved in the government, making it likely that they ll trust their leaders more. Instead of refining the views of the general public, the Anti-federalists make a good point that representatives should look out for the best interest of all the people in their specific area, not just the majority. I don t, however, agree with the Anti-federalists on the checks and balances. I don t believe the president needs any more scrutiny than he already receives. The president does keep the best interests of his country at heart, and there are too many people around him to provide the opportunity for wrongdoings. I also agree with the Federalists on the topic of the Constitution, and what it represents. After all these years, we still follow the Constitution, so it must have great stability. Very few changes have been made to it, while very few people agree with the ideas of the American Revolution. As I said before, the Federalists and the Anti-federalists both make very good arguments for their cases. The debate in-class provided me with more of an understanding of the topics than the book did, though. I was able to listen to both sides list positive and negative qualities about each idea, and from that gain a better perspective of both parties.