Recent orders
The Background to the Debate over the Ratification of the Constitution
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
The Background to the Debate over the Ratification of the Constitution
The transition to the United States Constitution from the Articles of Confederation was not always seamless. Fixing the issues of the Articles of Confederation needed a series of long debates during and after the convention took place. The one that was certain was that changes had to be made. Fifty-five delegates convened in 1878 at the Constitutional Convention to assess the best ways to rectify existing documents. Some of the weakness of the articles was that they lacked a national court system, every state was allocated a single vote regardless of size, and lack of an executive branch to enforce acts that Congress passed. Another weakness is that congress lacked the mandate to tax or regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Also, laws need a nine out of thirteen majority to be passed in Congress and amendments of the articles needed a unanimous vote. These loopholes brought a great deal of conflicts between states, something that delegates tried to resolve by drafting the Constitution. However, when the Founding Fathers finished signing the constitution, under the Articles, it required ratification from nine states before going into effect, which was not easy. The push for ratification sparked a seemingly endless barrage of articles, documents and pamphlets opposing and supporting it.
There were two sides to this debate: Antifederalists and Federalists. The Federalists were pushing for the ratification of the Constitution, while Anti-Federalists were against it. One of the significant issues that the two parties were not conflicting about was the inclusion of the bill of rights. To the Federalists, the addition was not necessary as they believed that as is the Constitution stood for limited government rather than the people. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand were of the opinion that the Constitution provided the central government excessive power and people would be exposed without the Bull of Rights.
The Split of Government between Federalists and Anti-Federalists
The Federalists who were led by Alexander Hamilton, although secretly were the first political party to form in the United States. Federalists supported the Constitution and tried to convince the States into ratifying the document. Alexander Hamilton alongside James Madison and John Jay, published a series of essays anonymously under the pseudonym “Publius” that were regarded as Federalists Papers (Gilbertson, 255). Madison and Hamilton argued that the Constitution did not need a Bill of Rights as it would cause a parchment barrier that would limit people’s rights rather than protecting them. However, the two eventually formed a concession and announced their interest to take up the issue of the series of amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights. Without such compromise, the Constitution might never have gotten ratified by States. It is surprising that it was James Madison, a Federalist that eventually showcased the Bill of Rights to Congress irrespective of his former position on the matter.
In the great debate concerning the ratification of the constitution, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the new system as it did not protect individual rights and threatened liberties. While the anti-federalists were not always united, they involved various elements. One section did not support the Constitution as they thought that more powerful governments had threatened the sovereignty of sports. Others opined that a new central government would possess the traits of the despotism of Great Britain they had strived hard to separate themselves from. Others were still afraid of the new government threatening personal liberties. In the push for ratification, majority of the articles that were in opposition were given pseudonyms such as “Centinel,” “Brutus,” and “Federal Farmer” however renowned revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the constitution. Although the Anti-Federalists were not successful in keeping the Constitution from being adopted, their efforts were responsible for the development and implementation of the bill of rights.
Jefferson and Hamilton’s Debate over the Role of the Federal Government versus the State
Following months of compromises and battles, the United States Constitution was eventually sent to Congress by the Convection on September 1787. Throughout the first decade and the ratification process in the first decade of the new government, the American society was at the center of a heated argument about exactly the way governments would function and the kind of powers they could have. Political parties started developing soon afterwards as people argued about the direction in which the discussion was headed. Alexander Hamilton soon became the leading voice for the Federalists who strongly opined that the federal governments were supposed to be strong. On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson who was a Republican argued that trusting the federal government would cause tyranny. A clause in Article 1 of the constitution gave Congress the power to make provisions and laws which would not be categorized as enumerated powers. Jefferson and Hamilton debated numerous times about what ‘necessary and proper’ would mean. Hamilton adopted a more liberal reading of the clause and pined that Congress thought do what they deemed necessary for national responsibilities, Jefferson, in the other hand, maintained that the clause indicated that Congress should only take actions they deemed absolutely necessary and nothing more (Mikhail, 507). Hamilton proposed the US charter should have a national bank to cater to the Revolutionary War debt, stimulate the economy, and develop a single currency. Jefferson on the other hand argued that the development of a national bank was not proper and necessary. After presenting both arguments to Washington, he agreed with Hamilton’s viewpoints.
Works Cited
Gilbertson, Nils. “Return of the Skeptics: The Growing Role of the Anti-Federalists in Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence.” Geo. JL & Pub. Pol’y 16 (2018): 255.
Mikhail, John. “Fixing Implied Constitutional Powers in the Founding Era.” (2019): 507.
Culture and Industry
Culture and Industry
Student’s Name
Institution
Culture and Industry
Introduction
This paper gives a critical analysis of Max and Ardono’s article. It does this by comparing it to the works of Michelle Hilmes and Tuttle Howard. It gives an in-depth analysis of the theory of these scholars on the use of mass media and social culture. As they explain, mass media can be used both for the good of the entire society or advance individual goals. However, it is better if a right decision is made to ensure that rational solutions are chosen. The paper aims to define the use of mass media in the classical and contemporary times and the way it can be used to promote good and bad ideologies which can affect the society in different ways.
Explanation
According to Adorno and Max, the contemporary mass media should be condemned because of the way it is being used to advance selfish agendas of individual institutions of or groups of people. Instead of using it for the benefit of all the people in the society, mass media is now used by the state to sell cultural propaganda and ideologies. This is what many governments have been doing in the world today. For instance, as they explain, the autocratic regimes of Adolf Hitler used newspapers, magazines, radios and films so as to spread their political ideologies to the people of Germany. At the same time, the government of Stalin used media to promote communism in the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR). Moreover, mass media industry was used in the United States of America (USA) in which the state took advantage of the Hollywood films to promote its capitalist ideologies (Tuttle, H.N., 2007) The same trend has persisted up to date because a lot of governments still manipulate the media to enable them consolidate their political powers. However, this should not happen because it promotes the misleading of the public in governmental policies and records development, the information which every citizen is entitled to. Instead of manipulating the mass media to mislead the public, the state should know that this is a very bad thing to do. Media is so influential because it is trusted by everybody in the society. It should be used so cautiously, so as to benefit all the people regardless of their social class.
One more argument noted is that mass media has been used as a tool for domination. As these authors argue, the media industry has been used to brainwash the masses and dominate over them. This has been done because its role is now perceived as an instrument of control. The same sentiments have been echoed by Tuttle Howard who argues that mass media no longer executes its duties. Instead, it has become a subject of manipulation which is used by the top authorities to assemble all the people. As a result, it has put them into general categories so as to deny personal identity. Meaning, individuals have gradually lost their identities because this can no longer be recognized since it has no significant role to play in their lives, as far as the top authorities are concerned. In this regard, Max refers to the media as an “organization from above” Meaning, the ordinary citizens have no enough strength to determine how it should be used to satisfy the diverse interest of each and everyone in the society. He goes further to say, “In culture industry the individual is an illusion not merely because of the standardization of the means of production. He is tolerated only so long as his complete identification with the generality is unquestioned”. This paper accepts that it is true to make such an argument because the media has been used to propagate general ideas. They portray society as an entity which constitutes all, as it shuns away from individualistic ideas which advance the ideas of people as individual persons.
As a result of the standardization by the media industry, the spirit of homogeneity has been advanced. Basically, it has become apparent that individual identity has become a matter of the past. It has no important contribution to make in the society any more. In its replacement came the production of a human being as a creature for consumption. The role of a man has been limited to use. A human has lost his or her identity because of the influences of the mass media which has placed as a sub-set of the entire grouping to which an individual belongs. This argument is vague because the media has made human beings to be identified by others and the existence of mass media has placed individuals only to exist because of others. Their identity is received from the larger society. This paper agrees with the philosophies of these scholars because they gave an assertion which depicts the real picture in life. As Tuttle Howard says, individuals are treated as labels. A person is identified with a particular group he belongs to. Individual identity has been replaced by a broader category which states that people inherit traits of their groups. It is the label which is used to categorize people today. Although individualism reins, the fact is that a group identity, which has been promoted by the mass media, still has a great influence on the society.
This paper agrees with the assertion that mass media should be condemned for demolishing the initially significant aesthetic value of art. Unlike prominent it was before, art was exclusively used to promote the aesthetic beauty of life in totality. This was done by appreciating the role of individual contributions into the society. In other words, people were not viewed as cliques, but as individual entities with diverse worldviews and contributions which they could make into the society. However, as these scholars argue, this has ceased since then because of the numerous changes in the contemporary art. Unlike the classical art which emphasized on intellectual productions, the contemporary art is merely aiming at entertaining people. In fact, the only important thing to them is to please the viewers by provoking laughter. As Max and Ardono explain, “Happiness has now been reduced to laughter”. Art is no longer used for educating people. Instead, it is only used for making people laugh. This explains why they claim that, “In the false society laughter is a disease which has attacked happiness and is drawing it into its worthless totality”. The major players in the arts industry are not ashamed of their acts. They have altered the industry to serve as a center for downgrading societal values. For instance, they have downtrodden the role of love to romance. It is true to argue like this, since the mass media is now used to disseminate pornographic materials which do not add any value to the society. Instead, they only corrupt the minds of the younger generations who are the major consumers of the contemporary art.
In his explanation of philosophy, Ardono insists that philosophy should be used I the pursuit of knowledge. In this regard, he recommends that it should be properly and extensively used in the provision of answers to major questions surrounding life. This paper supports this argument because it is true that a proper interpretation of life involves critical thinking coupled with reason. In fact, this commitment was indicated in their work when they decided to incorporate the philosophical ideologies of Fredrick W. Hegel who emphasized the role of rationalism and idealism as the chief sources of knowledge. It is right to say that these are most paramount qualities in accomplishing individual consciousness. As Hegel argues, consciousness is essential in realizing freedom. It is futile for one to lack freedom and harmonious relations in his mind, body and soul. Otherwise, there will be a conflict which may be difficult to tame. This is an informed stance, since it can enable one to make sound decisions. Likewise, it can be a teaching to the mass media to be rational in their decisions. They should know that art is supposed to be used for the benefit of the society. Meaning, the producers of mass media should be rational to ensure that they become utilitarian in their productions. This is the only way through which they can benefit people. Otherwise, they will make art continue losing its aesthetic value.
It is true that capitalism is one of the worst ideologies which should not be propagated by the media. As Michelle Hilmes claims, capitalism been used since time immemorial as a tool for expressing dominance of the advantaged groups and suppression of the vulnerable groups. As Karl Marx states, materialism is not good because it brings division into the society and during the classical periods people used to exchange the value of their labor to get material benefit. However, the owners of production had a full control of the means of production. On the other hand, laborers could only provide their services at cheaper prices, but had no say on how it would be used to create wealth. Later, there was rivalry and each of these factions stated to view one another as an enemy. From the above explanation, it appears that capitalism is not a good thing because it advances oppression. With the modern development people have become great consumers. Likewise, there has been mass production which is the only way to satisfy the demands of consumers. The media and art should not be used to advance capitalist ideologies as it used to be done by Hollywood industry in the USA, it should not be manipulated by the state so as to spread capitalist regimes which can be so detrimental in the society. These authors are right when emphasizing the role of the mass media in promoting unity. The mass media should be left free to operate without any limitation. Otherwise, it will align to one section of the society so as to advance its ideas. They say, “Under monopoly, all mass culture is identical and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through”. Meaning, the mass media should not be monopolized. If it happens, it will pretend to promote one culture which will be in a contravention of the spirit of tolerance and diversity. Capitalism is bad because it “dehumanizes the society”. It should be rejected since it leads to dominance and oppression. There should be equality because it can lead to unity and harmony in the society.
The other ideology advanced by these authors is about the role of consciousness in the interpretation of the part the mass media plays. In order to shed more light on this issue, the scholars opted to allude to Sigmund Freud’s human development psychoanalytic theory. In his work he recognized the role of childhood experiences in the development of one’s character. Freud said that the kind of life led by an individual during his or her childhood influences greatly their future development during adulthood. On the other hand, Sigmund argued on the role of unconscious mind in the shaping of characters of people. Concerning this, it is important for the mass media to ensure that they impart the right information on people. The information given should keep on changing depending on time. It can have a very great influence on the kind of culture adopted by people in a given society. As Max argues, it does not mean that the character of a child is determined by the family alone. However, it should be known that a child’s immediate environment extends to anyone it interacts with in its everyday experiences. Thus, it is upon the media to ensure that they provide information which reflects the culture of the people. Media has a very great influence on people. Hence, one should be conscious of the type of the message to deliver to the people for their consumption. Culture qualifies to determine the kind of lifestyle adopted by people.
Conclusively, the ideas put by these scholars are quite relevant and help in understanding the contribution of mass media in shaping the culture of people in the society. As they explain, every culture has origin and is subject to transformation. Hence, media and art should not be monopolized. Instead, they should be left to freely operate as they strive to sensitize people on the information relevant to their environmental context. Otherwise, it will be misused and ends up by dehumanizing the society. The industry can only enable people to retain the natural meaning of life if it is properly used. Otherwise, it will have to be destroyed.
Reference List
Tuttle, H.N. The Crowd is Untruth: The Existential Critique of Mass Society in the Thought of
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Ortega y Gassett. American University Studies:
Ser. 5, Philosophy; Vol. 176) New York: Peter Lang. 2007 Print.
Tensions Emerging within the Argentine Society in the Closing of the 19th Century
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Tensions Emerging within the Argentine Society in the Closing of the 19th Century
Located in the southernmost part of South America, having a variety of climates from the warmest tropical jungles to the frigid Antarctic, is a country that was once a source of hope for many Europeans, namely Argentina. From traditionally having an economy based on the exportation of beef, wool, hides, and corn, in the closing half of the century, Argentina transformed towards industrialization and openness to prosperity and progress. In the process of consolidation and forming an identity as a nation, liberals promoted and fostered European immigration as a way to attain civilization and progress in the nineteenth century. This essay discusses the tensions pertaining to immigration and popular classes in Argentina in the closing of the nineteenth century.
Intellectuals in Argentina in the nineteenth century found a justification for immigration citing that it would bring modernization and progress as a country. Predictions were that the Europeans would shake Argentina and Chile out of their traditional mold and make them dynamic, powerful, and civilized. The foreign population would promote economic, cultural progress and economic development. Advocates of liberal social philosophy laid down ideologies which would give the immigration phenomenon a scientific justification. They opined that society could be studied scientifically like other natural sciences, an observation that was likely to bring about social laws which would be applied universally.
The positivist ideas brought about race concerns around Argentina. At the time, Argentina population was divided into upper and lower classes. Many thinkers subscribed to the arguments of biological determinists that non-whites are inferior and condemned mixed races. Similarly, the upper-class and intellectuals in Argentina viewed dark skinned individuals are being culturally inferior to their white counterparts. The idea was that the natives would never bring progress or order to the nation. Whitening the population through intermarriage with Europeans was one of the many reasons for immigration. Even with intellectuals claiming that immigration was the best way to attain population growth, immigration remained to be the best option for attaining population growth required for economic and cultural progress. Ironically, foreigners were always considered as outsiders and despite dwelling there for good and raising families on Argentian soil.
Alberdi was a member of the ’37 generation that drafted the constitutional proposal to the federal in 1853 that set the foundation for modern-day Argentina. Alberdi’s most significant ideas revolved around the concern he had for this race and population. Juan Alberdi was renowned for his infamous dictum “Governar es poblar,” which translates to “to govern is to populate.” By asserting that to govern is to populate, Alberdi gives broad meaning to the term populate-one that embraces economic development, immigration, and moral and cultural improvement. In the mid-1800s, Argentina practiced liberal ideas hence promoting unrestricted immigration that provides cheap labor for the nation’s prosperity and growth. Alberdi did not favor the native Argentineans in populating his nation, but instead his hope was to boost population density using people of better quality from the race that were most civilized. Alberta believed immigration was a way of progressing and culturing Americans. Sarmiento, like Alberdi favored European arts, immigration, education, culture, and architecture. He was a great diplomat, educator, and president of Argentina (Alberdi, 36). His slogan was “to govern is to educate.” He tried to attain social, economic, and political freedom as well as prosperity and progress for the American people.
References
Alberdi, Juan Bautista. “Immigration as a Means of Progress.” The Argentina Reader. Duke University Press, 2002. 95-102.