Federalist No. 10

Madison makes it clear that the purposes of the federal government, or the union, the union of all the states is beneficial because it will best control the effects of "factions."  Today we call the "special interests" but the meaning is the same.

What Madison is stating is that having an organized government with separation of power, a system of checks and balances, on all major decisions makes for equality.  No one group has all the power.  It makes it harder for factions to dominate.  There are less chances for people with a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.

I chose this passage because I believe that separation of power is the best way to go.  Some people may have hidden agendas.  Not all people with power has everyone's best interest at heart.  Checks and balances works. Certain issues need to be debated amongst different individuals before making a final decision.

Federalist No. 51

The diversity of society will reduce the influence of factions.  This is called "Pluralism."  Whilst all authority in it will be derived from the dependent on society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interest, and classes of citizens, that the rights of the individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

Madison is stating that because officials are elected into office by citizens of different states, from all class of people, with different interest provides for more diversity.  There is no one common goal.  This allows for individual to have fair rights.  The minority will not be out weighed by the common interest of the majority.

I chose this passage because I believe there is so much diversity in the world and the only way for everyone to have a voice is to be involved somehow. The idea of having diversity in government, I too feel will allow for individuals a better chance at equal rights.

What is America?

Let me begin my American impressions with two impressions I had before I went to America.  One was an incident and the other an idea; and when taken together they illustrate the attitude I mean.  The first principle is that nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing funny because it is foreign; the second is that he should be ashamed of thinking it wrong because it is funny.  The reaction of his senses and superficial habits of mind against something new, and to him abnormal, is a perfectly healthy reaction.  But the mind which imagines that mere unfamiliarity can possibly prove anything about inferiority is a very inadequate mind.


The passage is stating that many people are different in so many ways.  People around the world have different nationalities, cultures, traditions, religious belief  and different ways of living.  Unfamiliarity is okay.  Sometimes things that are unfamiliar can even appear to be funny or abnormal when it's not what your accustom too.  Having this type of reaction wouldn't be unhealthy.  However, it is inadequate to judge or criticize what you are unfamiliar with. Nor should one feel what is not the norm for them less important or inferior to how they feel things should be.  What may be the norm for some, may not be the norm for others.   And, who are setting these so call standards?  This  passage also emphasis the point that you have the right to make a joke and have a good laugh at what seem to be strange or unfamiliar but while  doing so  you should also try to understand and respect what's happening.  It could be the explanation of the joke.


I chose this passage because I agree that in today's society there are people from all over the world living amongst each other.  We all come with different backgrounds, cultures, traditions and beliefs.  No one group is superior or inferior of the next.  What may be the norm for me, is not necessarily the norm for the next person.  There is no right or wrong.  Okay be amused, have that chuckle if need be but at least try to learn or maybe understand and respect the difference.

Power

Dahl looks at choices that people make in a political setting that sets limits on choices or decisions that can be made.  What is called "Agenda Setting".

The passage is stating that people of political power chooses what issues they feel is important in society that need a corrective action.  They then influence the outcome on how the issue will be resolved by selecting choices to choose from that they are in favor of.

I chose this passage because I feel it's unfair for society to be limited to choices they have over issues.  Choices that are given by people of political power who feel that their way is the appropriate way.  By doing this people with political power stay in control.  They lead you to believe you have a say in the matter.  However, you really don't.  They have already manipulated the situation.  When issues arise, there should be different views taken into consideration with everyone having some input.  This would make the outcome not so one sided.  I don't believe you can ever please everyone in today's society.  However, decisions and/or outcomes of issue of the world should not solely be left up to people with political power who think their way is the appropriate way.