Thomas Gordon argued against this because he thought that if anyone would know how the government worked, it would be the private men. They would be the people who were directly impacted by the laws enacted and executed by the government. All people, therefore, should have the opportunity to have a say in what goes on in the government. The second concern for the Founders was to what extent the people should be involved in the government. Although the people had a right to be involved in the government, the author of Caesar No.
Locke and Montesquieu believed that limited government (government has limits and every person has rights) was best. Montesquieu thought that governments such as monarchies and despots caused conflict between the people and the government. Limiting the government’s power over the people would take away the chances of a monarchy or despotism forming, and the best way to do that would be to divide the government into three different branches. Dividing the government into three branches will make sure one branch is not becoming more powerful than another, eliminating the chances of it becoming ruled by a monarch or despot. Locke believed that the government should never even be given such a great amount of power.
At the highest level, the democratic government was formed by the founding fathers to have an explicit social contract with the people of the United States to carry forward the public best interest. This is the fundamental nature of a democratic government: there is an inherent, clear mechanism whereby those in authority can be removed if they are found in violation of the social contract to which they have agreed. This differs from monarchies and other systems of government where the social contract is less in favor of the people and has no built-in mechanism for removing those in power. The people of the United States agree to give up some of their rights in order to have the rest preserved through this contract, and the elected government in turn must maintain their end of that contract. Individual political parties sprang up from the demand to be able to compare and classify competing politicians based on their views; it become important to know, for example, which early politicians favored a strong central government (Federalists) or a more distributed government (Jeffersonian Republicans).
“The Rebirth of Patronage: Have We Come Full Circle” Feeney and Kingsley (2008) states,“Patronage can be narrowly defined as the power to make appointments and distribute government jobs, especially for political advantage, but its social implications are much broader” (p. 167). Patronage can be used as an advantage for politicians who are running for any political office in order to win potential votes for their campaign. Most politicians are knownfor using different tactics like offering jobs, health care, and other issues that appeal to citizens. Will patronage divide or unite the United States? Patronage can have positive or negative effects on the United States while the merit system is against patronage and the spoils system is in
Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function. This way no one branch has too much authority. This also increased the protection and preservation of mankind’s private property. In conclusion Locke's work he explains that the concepts of government power cannot possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. He also states that it was the joint power of every member of the society.
A political model that that fits the book’s political beliefs would be majoritarianism. Majoritarians believe that decisions should be made by a numerical majority of its members, in other words, decisions in the US should be made by the whole country, not the few in Congress and the House that decide what laws are passed and who are influenced by monetary bonuses from outside sources. This would be the most efficient way to handle our politics, that way everyone has a say, instead of the rich doing what’s right for the rich and leaving the middle and lower social class struggling. The pluralist model does not relate to the book at all. Pluralists believe that that politics and decision making is located within the government and outside sources have no influence on the government, which is a lie since interest groups an election fundraising exists.
Anything that goes against what the corporate powers that be is demonized and twisted into a different form through their media outlets to create something that the ill-informed will swallow it no questions asked. Anyone that speaks out against what is obviously wrong with the system is turned into an enemy, while the one’s violating our rights and freedoms are treated like benevolent kings. Recently there have been many successful efforts to subjugate the poorer voters in this country. These measures have passed and it will become difficult for poorer and elderly people to vote in this country. The reason for this is simple, poor people and minorities are more likely to vote for Obama in the coming election and they have more numbers than those that will not.
As a result, the deeper biases reflected in sensationalism often leave citizens confused about issues which forces them to deconstruct this alternately managed and frenzied news in order to make sound judgements about their society and government. Without question, money necessitates an effective campaign and election, and a lot of it. The amount of money that can be raised and spent dominates and facilitates campaigns and elections. Affirmative advantages of possessing an abundance of money can enable an otherwise unknown candidate heard and seen. Money buys name recognition and organizational support, hence the reason that so much money is spent by candidates and their parties on media related campaigning.
The endorsement groups offer bribes and ask for unnecessary promises to the politicians running for office. The temptation of falling into these traps is monstrous. According to Obama, these politicians feel that if they do not accept these bribes or arguments then they will lose out on endorsement deals as well as votes. Taking endorsements are not bad in anyway. However, a company endorses a certain individual for reasons such as political similarities or to help promote their product.
Not all press is good and totally honest. Sometimes stories, even the positive ones, are a little stretched from the truth. Instead of getting the facts of a story we could be given opinions from the writer. Or we could even be given totally false information just because they wanted to make news. For example, the tabloids put out crazy stories of made up things just to get people interested enough to buy their paper.