Recent orders
Similarities and Differences between Federals and Republicans
Student’s Name
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Similarities and Differences between Federals and Republicans
In this paper, I aim to discuss the similarities and differences between the social, economic, and political philosophies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists on the one hand and Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans on the other. I also talk over why these political factions emerged, the way each viewed each other, the segments of society that each faction draws its support, and how each faction viewed slavery. The Federalists were the supporters of the rectification of the United States Constitution. In contrast, the Republicans or Anti-federalists were the opponents of the United States Constitution’s ratification and a strong central government. The debate between the Alexander Hamilton of the Federalist and Thomas Jefferson of the Republicans shaped the political system of the U.S. It shaped the spirit of revenge, which would most definitely result in permanent and formal despotism. The two aided create the factions that resulted in the two party system whereby the U.S. operates nowadays. Jefferson and Hamilton came to represent the parts that formed the antique national political landscape. Alexander Hamilton was the secretary of the funds and the vibrant dynamism in the Presidency of George Washington. Had a vision of a strong national economy and national government. He created a multifaceted program to attain that objective and concurrently solved the debt issues for most of the states. The Anti-federalist under Thomas Jefferson opposed the federalists.
The similarities between the social, economic, and political philosophies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists on the one hand and Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans (Anti-Federalists) on the other hand are not many since both of them had different ideas for the U.S. However, both of them were part of President George Washington’s cabinet. All of them believed in American independence and freedom. According to both of them, the government was supposed to wield a lot of strength and be powerful. The two men were influential leaders of their time who had clear and contrasting visions for the future of the U.S. The two influential leaders shared a belief that the American system of government was worth protecting. Both Alexander and Jefferson are considered members of the funding father’s generation, and they all had superior intellects.
The economic, social, and political viewpoints of Alexander Hamilton and that of Thomas Jefferson differed in several ways. From the start, they had an opposing vision of the nation’s path. Hamilton’s financial strategy hinged on the support of commerce and manufacturers. Jefferson had faith that America’s achievement lay in its agricultural tradition. Whereas Hamilton disbelieved popular willpower and supposed that the centralized government ought to exercise considerable supremacy to have a prosperous progression, Jefferson positioned his faith in the individuals as governors. Possibly because of their dissimilarities of perceptions, Washington made them his closest advice-givers. Hamilton believed in creating a central bank in a way that favored the establishment of the Bank of North America. On the other hand, Jefferson strongly disagreed and opposed the giving out of debts which Hamilton supposed as a national blessing if not excessive. Giving a speech to those who believed in the states’ rights, Jefferson disputed that the constitution clearly reckons all the powers that the federal government has and that it reserves all other authorities to the states. Hamilton saw Jefferson as devious and hypocritical, an individual with wild drive who was best at concealing it. On the other hand, Jefferson saw Hamilton as an enthusiastically determined fierce canine who would strike his way into attaining what he desired.
Hamilton’s financial strategy for the United States comprised of legislating safeguarding tariffs and government grants to promote American productions, consolidating the states’ arrears under the centralized regime, and creating a national bank like that in England to uphold public credit. All these actions reinforced the federal government’s supremacy at the expense of the states. Jefferson and his political associates conflicted Hamilton’s developments. Jefferson had a fear that the Bank of the United States epitomized a lot of English influence, and he disputed that the Constitution did not empower Congress to create a bank. Jefferson did not accept as true that supporting productions was as significant as promoting the already created agrarian base. Jefferson thought “those who labor in the earth” the “chosen people of God….whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” He advocated for a decentralized agrarian republic. He acknowledged the importance of a robust central administration in foreign affairs, but he didn’t want it robust in other respects. The Federalists’ great purpose was a more effective group, while Jefferson on one occasion alleged, “I am not a friend to a very energetic government.” Hamilton was afraid of disorder and supposed in terms of the order; Jefferson was afraid of autocracy and supposed in terms of liberty.
There were reasons why these political factions emerged. The Federalist political party emerged because Hamilton and his allies, commonly businessmen and urban bankers, formed this faction to promote their shared political ideas. They had faith in a federal nationwide government with strong economic foundations and felt that the Constitution was open for interpretation. On the other hand, the Republicans or Anti-federalist most fundamental political certainty was an entire agreement in the majority’s decisions. Stemming from his profound optimism in human intention, Jefferson supposed that the individuals’ willpower, demonstrated through elections, gave the most suitable direction for guiding their course. The Federalist faction members draw their support from the big property possessors in the North, wealthy merchants, and conventional small farmers and businessmen. Geologically, they were more in New England, with a strong section in the Middle Atlantic States. The Federalists got their support from businessmen and urban bankers.
The Federalists viewed slavery in a way that slaves were not free citizens. They were considered just properties by their masters. After long consideration, Madison came to a settlement that counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. On the other hand, the Republicans viewed slavery in a way that they were more concerned about slavery. Southerners showed their fears that under the Constitution the eight northern states could team up on the five southern states, approving bill which would damage their slave-based economies.
Works Cited
Alexander Hamilton Publius | October 27, 1787 Federalist No. 1
Brutus | October 18, 1787. Brutus I
James Madison | June 8, 1789 Speech on Amendments to the Constitution
Leibiger, Stuart. “James Madison and Amendments to the Constitution, 1787-1789:” Parchment Barriers”.” The Journal of Southern History 59, no. 3 (1993): 441-468.
Gender and the Workplace
Gender and the Workplace
The problem of workplace gender disparities is one that seemingly refuses to go away. This despite continued efforts and educationists who significantly try to improve female enrollment in education. In a way, most feminists argue that this lack of progress is in part as a result of glass ceilings, organizational structure (Acker, 1990), ceilings coming about due to a lack of sufficient promotion and advancement amongst female managers as captured by Cohen and Huffman (2007), and poor attitudes on the part of the women themselves, who somehow believe that they are to blame for the situations they find themselves in (Webber & Williams 2008).
Acker (1990) argues that the very structure of organizations, serves to discriminate against women, as it seemingly puts them at a significant disadvantage. Acker proceeds to posit that although organizations usually put structures and job descriptions in place meant for the universal worker “This worker is actually a man” (139). This prevailing situation is therefore, responsible for the marginalization of women, hence the maintenance of the status quo. Acker in essence, seems to be claiming that the prevailing situation in most work places serve as impediments to the growth of women in the work place, as in most cases, the work places are designed to suit the universal worker: a man. I do agree with these assertions, as to date, certain work places are still considered the preserve of the male gender; for instance law enforcement and the armed forces. Despite the best efforts of feminists and most women, the odds are significantly already stacked against the female gender curtailing their chances of career development.
Webber and Williams (2008) though agreeing with Acker to an extent, seem to suggest that the problem is more attitudinal than physical. They argue that although in most cases the environments created by organizations curtail the development of the female gender, the victims usually apportion the blame to the wrong quarters. Women workers mostly blame themselves for their predicament, instead believing that their choices are responsible for where they find themselves, absolving the organizations from blame. The fact that women do not realize that the organizations are putting them at a disadvantage, serves to perpetuate the situation, as organizations are not forced to change their structure. This is therefore, an area that most feminists must focus on, in order to achieve a breach of the imaginary glass ceiling that women seem to have also put on themselves, in addition to those that organizations and society have put.
The findings by Cohen and Huffman (2007), that promotion of female managers, more so to positions of high status serves to reduce the gender wage gap, seemingly suggests that women in high status positions are relatively few. Furthermore, is also seems to reaffirm the belief that the problem is seemingly inherent, as most women are yet to be convinced that they are capable of competing against men at the same level. Seeing one of their own in a position of high status or of management, one could argue, gives them a sense of belief, sufficient to propel them towards achievement.
All in all, the gender wage gap that currently exists, as well as the disadvantaged position that women find themselves in, is as a result of both organizational structures that put women at a disadvantage, as well as poor attitudes and conceptions of self worth and ability by women. Key to addressing these challenges would therefore, not only be structural changes, but also the targeting of attitudinal changes on the part of women to enhance self belief as well as the sense of self worth and ability.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Heirarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender andSociety 4(2), 139-158.
Cohen, P., & Huffman, M. (2007). Working for the Woman? Female Managers and the GenderWage Gap. American Sociological Review 72, 681-704.
Webber, G., & Williams, C. (2008). Mothers in “Good” and “Bad” Part-time Jobs DifferentProblems, Same Results. Gender and Society, 22(6), 752-777.
Gender and society
Name
Course
Professor
Date of submission
Gender And Society
I don’t agree with Madonna that a woman’s place is to be stylish, sexual and self involved. There is so much happening in a woman’s life but her multitasking skills allow her to be able to do all that. It is too unfortunate that literary sexism has been wrecking havoc women’s self esteem for some time now even in the recent times. Nowadays it has become the norm that people are openly dismissing the notions that gender inequality and brand complainants have become privileged whingers(Jane). It is still too unfortunate that women have to work twice as hard for them to get noticed. Even before they get noticed they will have been criticized so much and only the ones that have developed a hard skin will survive the turmoil. As far as I am concerned, there is no time for being sexual, self absorbed and all that because there is still so much to be done especially when the woman is a wife, a mother and is a career woman. There is so much that is expected of the woman and the woman and the fact that the society does not recognize all her efforts make it all hard for her. When the children turn out all rebellious and all, the first culprit is the woman forgetting the fact that woman has so much in her hands.
A woman is never on the safe side because whether she is working or not there is still something she will be blamed for. If she is a stay at home mum, she is said to be boring and sometimes she becomes the laughing stock of the society because they think she is dump and all that. The career woman on the other hand is said to neglect her children never mind she might be the only breadwinner in the family(Marian). Juggling all these duties while trying to stay sane is one of the hardest jobs in the whole world because at times there is no one to support her. The husband might also be working and by the time each one is going home, they are both tired to have time for each other. And as I said earlier, when things go wrong, the woman is the first to be blamed, it is like she is the only parent to their children.
The new’ momism’ tries to insinuate that no woman is safe from criticism. The ones that do not have children are either jeered or laughed at and at the same time one who has many children and sometimes from different fathers also becomes the laughing stock and the butt of bad jokes. The new momism has been romanticized but at the end of the day, the women are still labeled failures in one way or the other. Being self involved does not include driving in the middle of the night to pick or drop your teenager from the latest jig in town so that they don’t miss out on the same ( Susan and Meredith). It is not even about sleeping past 3 a.m. as you make your children Halloween costumes, it is about being who you are; it’s about bringing up children in the right ways according to what the mother believes is right. There is nothing like a super or a perfect mum if you ask me. The super mum as seen by the society might be the most horrible mother to her children and maybe they even hate her guts.
Bringing up children to be morally upright is all about family values and what the mother thinks is best for her children. American mums have been accused of smothering their sons so much that instead of the sons becoming strong and important people in the society, they end up as weaklings who are tied to their mother’s apron straps. These men cannot even fight for their country; they have been turned into dysfunctional maternal slaves who cannot even stand on their own two feet. The new ideas on mothering not only do they promulgate standards of perfection but they are also out of reach (Labaton, Vivien, and Dawn). They might seem right from the outside but at the end of the day they are so hard to achieve thus making women look like the worst failures when it comes to their children. The new momism is still good because it has allowed women to make choices on whether they want to stay at home without being forced and they can still work and raise their children without the help of their women. Therefore the new momism is not so bad after all. The other good thing about the new momism is that women do not have to be subservient to their men if they are not willing to. They can decide to be sexual and self absorbed if they want to, it is all about the choices that the women will make. The only decision that woman will make and one is a real woman and a decent worthy one is becoming a mother. The child rearing of such a woman will involve the characteristics of Donna Shalala and Mother Teresa all rounded up into one.
This new womanhood cum momism draws and repudiates the idea of momism. Why I think women do not have the time to be all sexual, stylish and self absorbed is the fact that motherhood has become an Olympic of some sorts(Marian). Parents are always competing with their neighbors to see who is better than the other. It is a case of everyone watching you as you watch yourself with other mothers while still watching ourselves as we watch ourselves, a tongue twister, huh? Its living like the Joneses which is never the best way to live one’s life, it becomes draining and frustrating at times because at one point you will not be able to keep up with them. Mothers have to be on the lookout for the other mothers so that they don’t end up in the child welfare offices for child neglect of some sort. Nowadays motherhood is considered a psychological police state and it can be an ugly case at times.
Well, in the midst of all this hustle and bustle of life there are still some women who have come out successfully and still managed to remain stylish and sexual at the same time. These women are the likes of Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton not to mention Condoleezza Rice. These women have managed to have an effect in the society and their families especially their children have grown up to be well behaved and without the bad publicity that is always associated with children of women in high offices. As we are talking, I bet Michelle Obama is the most celebrated woman in America and in the whole world; so far, no bad publicity has been associated with her children. And to say that she is stylish is an understatement; she still has time to look good for herself, her husband and the society at large.
Works Cited
Jane Sullivan. A Woman’s Place. The Age Entertainment. Web. http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/a-womans-place-20120113-1pyoa.html. Accessed on June 17, 2013. 2012. Internet Material.
Susan J D. and Meredith W.M. The New Momism. The Mommy Myth: The Idealizatio Of Motherhood And How It Has Undermined Women. Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group. 2004. Print.
Meyers, Marian. Mediated Women: Representations in Popular Culture. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1999. Print
Labaton, Vivien, and Dawn L. Martin. The Fire This Time: Young Activists and the New Feminism. New York: Anchor Books, 2004. Print