Political Philosophy And American Political Thought

Chapter one of The American Political Tradition by Richard Hofstadter is centered on the Founding Fathers. The very beginning of the chapter says that the Constitutional Convention was trying to create a government that would pay debts and avoid currency inflation. The Democratic ideas that the Founding Fathers were so against appealed mostly to less privileged classes, and not at all to the higher classes. This chapter says that the Founding Fathers thought that if no constitutional balance were achieved, one specific class or would take over others. Three advantages of a good constitutional government were listed in this chapter as well. One: keep order against majority rule. Two: a representative government. Three: aristocracy and democracy

Richard Hofstadter examines the political beliefs of the founding fathers in the first chapter of the American Political Tradition. Ideas thought about by most Americans to be the center of our organization, our founders viewed liberty, democracy, and property, as evil. The composition can be depicted to be vicious as well, because liberty, democracy, and property are linked to the United States Constitution.

The idea of political culture is found within the state’s history. The history of the state is impacted by the people settled in the region, religious backgrounds, and geography. The history of the state influences the attitudes and beliefs that people hold regarding their political system. Daniel Elazar theorized a connection between the states’ history and attitude towards government by explaining differences in government between states. Every state is different with some common ground. Elazar’s theory divides states into three types: moralistic, traditionalistic and individualistic. The state’s constitution defines the powers of government with political culture bias. Because of the state constitution, the political culture

The concept of property has long been one of the most crucial aspects for the U.S. citizens, as it is a major part of the Constitutional, and, therefore, human rights. Although the perception and understanding of “property” have been considerably changed, especially in terms of political and philosophical vision, it still has a particular meaning for the Americans. In general, the idea of property is the question of the political thought and conceptualized thinking common for the United States. In most cases, its transformations are connected to the introduction of capitalism and related governmental decision in politics. Therefore, as any other topic, the value of property has undergone harsh debates. In particular, such important figures as James Fenimore Cooper, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walt Whitman have developed a fundamental scope of analyses with regard to the property rights in America.

The danger of politics lead to the principal factor of checks and balances, within the government and Founding Fathers, throughout the “most crucial and consequential [decade] in American history” (27). Politics were also what lead to the quarrel between John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Today, politics vary drastically from what our Founding Fathers precedented in the genesis of the United States. September 19, marks the 208 anniversary of Washington’s Farewell Address, whether bad or for worse, George Washington’s insight is still relevant in today’s political stage of a dominant two political party platform. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, then former president Washington, states the possible weaknesses to unfold as a republic. The ideology of a political party with definite beliefs alters the opinions and pride held for the United States for the domination of one party. History within itself, has had multiple political parties for varying causes, however the split between the Democrats and Republicans, although

Living in the United States some people may forget how closely our political perspectives are to each other relative to those of foreign countries. While there are many political views and stances that an individual might take on any given topic, generally people in the United States fall into one of three categories: liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Keep in mind that most people will not support all of the ideals of their advocated faction, but they must support the vast majority of them.

The purpose of this paper is intended to summarize my views on what has influenced my understanding of politics and government prior to taking this class, and how my understanding is now since completing this course.

Imagine our government without the structure and aspects of our modern day. Well, this wouldn’t have emerged without the differing ideas from the brilliant minds of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. They were both strong political leaders who shaped the country, Revolutionary War heroes, lawyers, and served in the Continental Congress.However,from the beginning, the two men harbored opposing visions of the nation’s path. In George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796, the president warned that the creation of political parties, “sharpened by the spirit of revenge,” would certainly lead to “formal and permanent despotism.” Despite Washington’s words, he didn’t know two of his closest advisors and cabinet members, would ultimately help form the dual party system of the U.S. Furthermore, contrasting the two is not difficult, simply because of their stark differences concerning each of the men’s visions for America.

Throughout history, many political figures have had contrasting opinions between each other. Even though these disagreements may bring about conflicts, they are essential to a balanced and fair government. The dispute between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson was one of the earliest conflicts between political figures in America. Their relationship pertained of many contrasting ideas, which lead to problems in the early American government. Despite these problems, it enabled the representation of all citizens, even those whose views differed greatly. The contrasting views between political figures allows for the representation of the majority of citizen’s opinions in the government.

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

The last half of the 18th century was very important for the United States. During this era, the nation was founded following the Declaration of Independence and drafting and ratification of the Constitution a decade later. The 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate was very important in the making of the US Constitution. The dynamics, antagonism, considerations, process and the eventual consensus regarding the Constitution can be explained by discrete theories in political discourses. However, there are theories that fit best within this historical context and help better explain the process of the constitutional convention and ratification. This paper will talk about pluralist theory as a theoretical perspective that best explains the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification debate, as opposed to power elite theory. This will be achieved by looking at the premises of pluralist theoretical perspective, and the workings of the 1787 constitutional convention and ratification and then show how pluralist theory best captures the workings.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

The American Political System The American political system is a federal system, which consists of