Hamilton's Questions Regarding Public Opinion

The behavior of voters has great importance to politics as the people decide mainly who wins. The study of the behavior of the electorate has increased as politicians seek to appeal to the voters and find ways to gain followers and most importantly votes. The two articles Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory and The Responsible Electorate discuss the behavior of voters in the United States, and the importance of the electorate.

In American politics, public opinion is mostly a latent force that typically has no important bearing on national decision making unless citizens become unusually attentive to politics. Many citizens are uninformed, which leads to inconsistent opinions. In Tides of Consent, there are many factors that shift public opinion. Some changes are fast and responsive, such as spikes in presidential approval, and some changes are slow, and occur in increments that may be overlooked. Public opinion in American politics is meaningless individually, but aggregately, public opinion is meaningful.

The balance between the duty of the government, both on a state and federal scale, and the citizens’ view of freedoms has been a continuous struggle throughout the readings. Although many members of America’s youth believe that their participation in politics is aimless, public opinion and voting are very important aspects of shaping the government. Without certain civil rights being granted by the government, these important rights of expression and suffrage would not exist.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were both great leaders in the shaping of America, they just had two completely different views. Hamilton was a firm believer in the strong national government and was thought to have wanted to implement a similar system to the British system back in England. Jefferson believed the government should follow the constitution strictly by not having anyone become too powerful in position. Their differences caused a change from the people being united in beliefs to having conflicts about form of government, who should be in charge, and worrying too much about little things that did not matter. ! !

On September 19, 1796, George Washington began his Farewell Address. The Father of America was retiring, but he gave a crucial piece of advice before leaving. He warned the people not to create political parties since factions would split the nation and promote absolutism. Unfortunately, his own two advisors failed to follow his advice. Not long after Washington retired, American politics revolved around Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson represented the Jeffersonian Republicans while Hamilton was a federalist. Some people state that the Jeffersonians Republican Presidents Jefferson and Madison had beliefs and policies that often time reflected those of Hamilton's. This statement is accurate to a very little extent.

Politics: just the sound of this single word induces a variety of thoughts and facial expressions. Some embrace the inner workings of politics, while others leave the room immediately after hearing anything relating to it. Like it or not, politics is an integral part of the United States and affects our daily lives. Trying to avoid politics is like a stranded person in the desert swimming their way out of sand. Whether interesting or not, esteemed or despised, politics has become an especially frequent topic around the proverbial dinner table due to the recent presidential election. Among the most heated debates in the political scene arising from November’s election is whether the Electoral College should be abolished. Critics of the Electoral College contend the system is not a truly democratic tool and does not always reflect people’s will. However, others believe the Electoral College has performed sufficiently thus far. The Electoral College’s current format should be maintained because the Electoral College protects the nation from electing a president who appeals to only one region, ensures minority interests are still heard, and proposed alternatives for electing a president hold as many or more defects as the current Electoral College.

A president should view the constitution with a strict interpretation, due to multiple reasons. To illustrate this point, one can use Alexander Hamilton and his national bank situation. This idea created conflict in the whole government, as the democratic – republicans thought it shouldn’t be allowed, and the federalist thought it should. George Washington, the current president at the time, ended up creating a bank, relenting to the Federalist’s wishes, and it ended up becoming a large success. For instance, they were able to pay off the war debts and raise government revenues. If they had used a strict interpretation,

Power can corrupt people, especially the people that hold it. Hamilton and Jefferson, two founding fathers of the country with very different ideas. The two were friends, but politics got in the way. Hamilton wanted an industrial and urbanized society while Jefferson wanted a rural and agricultural one. So the question is, whose views were better?

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.

Hamilton emphasizes the necessities for balancing the power among the branches by claiming the two points that are important to implement.

On May 12, 1784, the state legislature passed a law depriving most loyalists of the vote for the next two years. For Hamilton, it was a horrifying breach of the peace treaty and boded ill for America's domestic harmony and relations abroad. But he was not intimidated into silence. The feisty Hamilton always reacted with to controversy with stubborn grit and a certain perverse delight in his own iconoclasm. He never shrank from a good fight (197).

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

Another notable piece of evidence of Hamilton’s involvement in getting these infamous laws to the president’s signing is his response to a fellow politician’s letter regarding the topic of the Alien and Sedition Acts, further driving the point home that perhaps Adams isn’t the one who deserves full responsibility for these disgusting laws being passed,  “Hamilton’s surviving reply signaled his specific approval of the immigration measure, ‘I agree that the President ought to have the power to send out of the country suspected foreigners,’ he answered Dayton, noting only that the law should provide an exception for ‘merchants who have six months by Treaty.’ Hamilton further consented that ‘the suspension of the naturalization act will also be prudent’-a reference to the existing five-year residency requirement that the Federalists wished to extend to fourteen years. ‘I always wished that our naturalization acts had been distinguished between the right to hold property and political privileges,’ he added,” (Magness, 12). This to me is undeniable proof that Hamilton indefinitely supported these acts, and that he is the exact opposite of what a symbol for equality and justice should be in this day and age.

Public participation in political decision-making has been regarded as the foundation stone of the democratic process since the time of Aristotle and Plato’s archaic Greece. It is thinking that has transcended the ages: 18th-century political thinker Jeremy Bentham argued that government must make their deliberations publicly known so ordinary people are “placed in a situation to form an enlightened opinion and the course of the opinion is easily marked” while John Stuart Mill held that public involvement in democratic institutions strengthened ‘civic virtues’ through education on public matters, deepening politician’s understanding of citizen’s opinion and building trust with the people (Ginsborg, 2008 p.60). A more recent position held by political theorist Francis Fukuyama believes that in order for power between political actors to be balanced, democracy requires for "personal interest [to be] corrected by the widest publicity" (2012 p.325). To do otherwise, as contemporary political thinker Robert Dahl posits, will likely see unchecked governments “blunder, sometimes disastrously” (2006 p.5).

How much does your vote really count? As a voter, does your choice really matter? How much influence does the media have on your vote? How many choices does the media actually make when it comes to our nation's leadership? These are questions pondered by both political scientists and the average American citizen each year as the second Tuesday in November approaches. Though we know that the framers founded this nation on the principles of representing it's citizens, and on the ideals of a nation for the people and by the people; it is obvious that the people feel that their vote doesn't always count. In this paper I plan to expand on these questions and the justifications behind asking them, and I plan to follow up with a specific