At the heart of America's main two ideologies lies a disagreement over the proper role of government in our lives. It has its roots in two of our distinguished founding fathers: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Read how this disagreement continues to manifest itself in some of the hottest debates in Washington.
Them versus us
I would agree with the author, as many of us have, because he insists that the fear of power is preventing action. Going back to unit 1, the decision to limit majority rule and decentralization of power is preventing action on pressing issues. The beginning of this confusion comes with the differences in political ideologies and how they impact decision making. Because the majority of Americans are moderates, each with different situations where he or she feels more liberal or conservative, coming to a consensus on a pressing issue only prolongs action and, inevitably makes the decision harder; this vicious cycle can lead to rash decisions or no decision at all, both of which are poor for political and social development. So, one is lead to believe that there should be a change in government power to allow for the ability to deal with life-altering complications concerning the lives of all Americans.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Hamilton, Period 2
I agree with the author on national government having more power. We need to be able to fix national problems before it gets any worse then it is now and allowing the national government to take action is the best thing. Allowing them to take power would make us a stronger country
ReplyDeletealexis solario
per. 3
I completely agree with the author's stance that our national government needs more power. Although it is understandable why our history has made us fear a strong powerful government, we live in a modern age and face many issues that our states cannot handle on their own. Our government is capable of helping our problems, if only we gave it the power to do so. The national government needs to be able to intervene, as this fear of giving the national government power is preventing us from moving forward.
ReplyDeleteDarian Kuhn, period 3
I agree with the author in saying that there has been a deep seeded battle on whether we should entrust the government enough to lend it powers. I don't think it's much news that this debate is what is stumping our growth as a country when conservatives and liberals are dancing together to different tunes. I recognize the american fear of strong government control. In my experience with Americans, they like to reference strict tyrannical governments all of the time when trying to outline their greatness. In its inception, the U.S was born out of hate for the strict Great Britain. More recently people would reference Communist Soviet Union as if to say "see that's what happens when we give the government to much power". Nowadays, it won't take too long on the internet to see some angry person pointing to something like North Korea and saying "this is what Obama wants for us". However, I think that in pointing the finger at government, Americans have lost sight of who is oppressing them. We glorify the individual so much in America that we end up enslaving ourselves. If our government can't tyrannize us, someone will. We live in a country where people condemn tyranny by the government and then turn around and say "corporations are people". We have gone so far on this "them vs us" mentality that "them" has no ability to do their job and it has become an "us vs. us" battle. The U.S government has not the power to stop the greedy banks from ruining our economy nor the power to tell corporations to stop polluting the earth. Nevermind that the U.S doesn't have universal health care yet. It's why I find it so ironic that people blame the government for the biggest of issues like the Recession when it was lax loans that caused the burst of the real estate bubble.
ReplyDeletejason guerrero
Period 2
I completely agree with the author of the article in the sense that the national government needs more power to protect the people from modern problems. It is true that in Jefferson's era a stronger central government was feared because of historical evidence. However, times have changed and for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be guaranteed to the people we need a stronger national government, but the central government can not over power the states' sovereignty.
ReplyDelete-Alejandro Martinez Per. 2
I concur with the author's viewpoint on the national government. There will be citizens who do not agree with granting too much power to the government, although they must take notice that this is a constantly changing country with problems that the people cannot handle by themselves. The government generally means no harm and looks out for its citizens, ensuring them that power rests safely in its hands. Those who disagree must realize that this form of government has lasted for two centuries with undeniable success, and in order for this country to keep functioning, it must manage and adapt to society as we progress.
ReplyDeleteAnnelise Lee, Period 2
I agree with the author of this article in terms that the national government needs to secure more control and ability. The conflict between federalists and anti-federalists should be one of the past given that we are facing modern-day problems such as health care and environmental issues. The conservative citizens do not see these issues as a problem and still do not want to put their trust in the national government. Nonetheless, these are the citizens that must realize that we are a progressive country and we currently are and will be faced with matters that cannot be taken lightly. Altogether, these citizens need to become aware that the national government is not meant to harm its citizens but maintain control.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to this was rather interesting. Upon finishing this article, the idea popped into my head that America is very similar to any kind of basic organism.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, it was very small and simple, it had about an equal if not greater chance of being obliterated as it did of having success when it was first created by the founding fathers.
Over the years however, like any self-preserving being would, it evolved and expanded. We know America now as a nation of 50 states, with the title of being a world-wide superpower.
Although, for this story to continue, America must continue to evolve by taking anything from small steps to giant leaps and bounds. The only means of doing so is if Americans can collectively agree that the government sometimes handles things much more effectively than we can.
Despite our country being conjured up from a fear of a strong national government, Time has found it ironically humorous that such a thing is now necessary for our country's survival in the both near and distant future.
-Gavin DeGuzman (Period 2)
I somewhat agree with the author's argument for a strong national government due to a changing world. With issues emerging such as environmental and economical, it should not be left up to us, but to the national government. As the author stated, these issues should be solved with the federal government as a representative of our collective interests. There is evidence that without government regulation, we would be in a worse position. Without government intervention in the breaking of trusts and labor laws, there would be monopolies and harsh working conditions. However, this should not mean that we should just leave the Jeffersonian viewpoint forever. When the national government does pass a law, we should still make sure that it is not a clear violation of the constitution. It should only be possible for the national government to pass laws that are in the best interest and protection of the people, but that is not always the case. It is important that we don't let the federal regulate every aspect of our lives and do challenge the federal government's authority sometimes such as in the case of Obama Care.
ReplyDelete-Ethan Groenow
Period 3
As the article claim the people do hope the best when it comes to policy that we really don't have much our opinion on. But that's why we have representatives because they are the ones who have to make a decision where it protects our liberty and pursuit of happiness ( to some sadly they don't really have happiness). As for now our century as society we bring so much conflicts when it comes to race, environmental, of even health. Especially for the environment that the conflict is that carbon dioxide is really having a negative affect that's why we are now trying to reduce. Not many citizens are really involved with the environment that's why national power takes place more because since the people don't really are aware the national later see the situations it causes and take action. Yes national have more authority but I believe in certain situation its really necessary.
ReplyDeleteHilary Velasquez p.2
I agree with the Author's conclusion that a strong national government is needed because of a changing country. Some citizens will not agree with putting more power into the hands of the government, but they need to adapt to the changing environment just as the government has done for centuries. The United State's government has lasted for so long because of its ability to flow with the every changing tide of public, national, and international opinion. In order for the US to keep its success it must change once again.
ReplyDelete-Katelynn DeVille p.2
I agree with the author that in the 21st century we do need a strong national government to keep our country functioning smoothly. However, the national government should not have too much power unless the issue at hand is having a negative impact on the country as a whole. We need to find a right balance between being pro national government and anti national government.
ReplyDelete- Mostofa Ahmed
Per. 2
I agree with the author that the national government needs more power so many problems in the nation can be solved. The author gives examples of many issues involving in usa and it can solve easily by the national government, but instead it was "ruled out of order at the start of the debate". Since we do not want a tyranny in our nation, we push away the national government, but allowing them to have at least a extent of power, can make a stronger country.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Napitupulu per. 3
I agree with the author of the idea about them versus us. I can agree that the national goverment has the right to take more contro and more action to resolve a lot of our political disagreements. However I also agree that as the U.S. grows as a nation, some of the view of the forunding fathers can be anachronisti, but in times like in the 20th century it was neccesary for government ot take action to regulate and protect. I do think that the government has grown a little too far of the Jeffersond views that are now essential. The author states "But with the end of the frontier and the shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy, the expanding role of government in protecting and assuring our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" has become utterly essential" Therefore I think the govermetn need to take the control now to enforce these idea but at the same time intervene to solve or many issues today.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Cabrera
Period 3
A strong national government has always been feared due to how the British treated us. But with our system of separation of powers along with checks and balances amongst said powers, it is safe to say that the current national government deserve a little more power.
ReplyDeleteWe, as a nation, are only going to progress forward if we allow the national government to have the power to solve a few more issues. But not as much to create tyranny.
Mikayla Connell
Period 2
I agree with the author that the government should be having more power to protect its individuals. I feel as if people of our country are righteously cautious of any kind of majority power, but they underestimate and censure the government. Like the author states with the example of the debt and the banks, the government is crucial in keeping order and prosperity to our society and identity, therefore I do believe that the government should be the one tilting in the power struggle. However, I believe this to a certain extent that do not disturb the states rights too much to cause disorder in fractions.
ReplyDeleteChenney Kang
P. 3
I agree with the author of this article on his argument that our national government needs more stability and power even if it is feared because of this country's past. I think that argument should be exactly that; the past and we should focus on fixing present national issues. The states aren't capable of running the country all on their own. A strong national government is needed to retain our reputation of being a strong First World country. Like George Washington stated, "We are either a united people, or we are not.".
ReplyDeleteCynthia Mora per. 3
I agree with the author (along with almost everyone else) we need the national government, much more than many people realize or like to believe. The states would constantly be having issues with each other and possibly end up having wars with each other if they were able to make all their own rules and do as they please, we need a strong national to set boundaries and keep order and if it wasn't strong it would be abused by states and states would have too much power. The national government needs to be powerful enough that it can set laws and regulations that will stop tyranny of the majority and certain states from becoming to powerful or too weak. National gov. -----> Balance
ReplyDeleteRyan Cooper
per.2
I agree with the author that the National Government has appropriately expanded over time to adjust to the changing climate of American politics. As a country grows in population and climbs its way to become a world power, it’s issues multiply, which is the consequence of being so influential. And when it takes so long to politically decide about an issue, the public gets irritated because they’ve taken their own personal stance on the issue long ago, or they are completely unaware and are enraged when a decision that they don’t agree with is made. Because they become frustrated, they disassociate themselves from the government and refer to it as “them” even though the people are technically the sovereign ones who give the government that power. I believe part of the problem is due to these political ideology conflicts. A majority of citizens identify as being moderate on the spectrum and they feel that they have no choice but to vote for a left wing or right wing candidate who is much more conservative/liberal than they are. The opposing party then feels ignored when their representative doesn’t win, and the winner forces these ideas that are significantly different than theirs upon them. Understandably, the public only wants to refer to the government as an “us” mentality when their beliefs are being upheld and distance their association with the government and it becomes a “them” mentality.
ReplyDelete-Nick Knowles P. 2
I can agree with the article that due to the fact that the country is constantly changing, we are in need of a strong central government. Citizens need to take into consideration that the fact that the country is changing, means that new problems will emerge onto the surface.It is understandable that citizens are afraid of a strong central government but they need to understand that the states can not handle or solve every single problem that comes up on their own.
ReplyDeleteAnani Sandoval per.2
I agree with the author that it’s time to start letting the national government handle some of the major problems that need to be dealt with. The kinds of problems we are facing are evolving and so is our need for the national government to use their power to regulate economic and environmental issues. Our fear of the national government gaining too much power has just resulted in unresolved problems. In the past, in order to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, we have restrained the national government to our best abilities so that our rights are safely ensured but now the time has come where we must entrust power to the national government so that our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteJoanne Park//Period 2
I agree with the authors argument that our national government needs to have a more stable input in todays problems, the states are focusing on the past and what happened then but they're not realizing that they can't do this on their own and that they need a strong sense of government to bring us together and keep us up and running. The author talks about the debt of the banks and the healthcare debate and I agree that if the states just realized that the national government could actually fix something, some those things could be avoided. We are suppose to be a nation but we can't be one without a national government who can actually do something without the threat of tyranny.
ReplyDelete-Chloe Ennis P.3
Success is in large part derived from the ability to adapt to adversities in order to overcome them. In relevance to the evolving social climate of America, this statement is very conclusive. I agree with the argument of this article that states that a strong national government creates the best climate in which allows it to be able to govern the people. The more conservative view of this argument would lean towards a weaker national government but with our country's growing social and economic problems, it is only logical to adapt to these changes.
ReplyDeleteJordana Cruz
p. 3
I agree with the author that the government should be able to help fix our mistakes that we have made as a country in past years. Though people understandably fear the possibilities of what could happen if the national government gains too much power, there are only so many things that states can do before its time to ask for help. It is time for us as a nation to adapt to these changes and move forward as a country.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Gutierrez, Period 3
I give a solid nod of approval to the author in his position that a strong national government is needed in order to provide for the better "general welfare of the people." Especially since our nation is growing immensely both as an ethnic society and as an industrialized nation, we need our national government to step in and make our country a place where someone would want to stay. Without the national government stepping in to help "the people", our country would be in a chaotic and disorganized state slowly shifting into poverty. The national government is becoming our backbone. Without it, we can't move forward, and instead, move down. They help make decisions that are "representative of our collective interests as a people and a nation" and continually help to either amend or end our problems. We just have to hope that they really are/will make decisions that really are "for the people".
ReplyDelete-David Lee
P. 3
I agree with the author in the sense that the federal government needs more power to keep the nation unified as one force. Because with separate independent thoughts, it creates a week minded nation as one. Issues such as global warming and economics will not be fixed due to an ineffective system. But this is not our generations fault. Our nation has ingrained a fear of a strong power. And like the author says, certain issues will not be settled until a stronger central government is made.
ReplyDeleteChris Martin
P.3
In out day day and age, a strong national government is needed to fix many problems. The author proves this in his article, giving examples. The fear of national government made sense in the past but that changed once the US switched to an industrial economy. Many issues could be on their way to being fixed if the national government could, but most ideas from the national government are ignored.Immigration is one issues that can be fixed with the national government stepping up. They can follow an example like California, helping the country become better. However, now the states must deal with it on their own and go through the consequences of a poorly made decision. The US should become united once again to make a country that actually is for the people.
ReplyDeleteSophia Landaverde
Period 3
I agree with the author’s conclusion that the national government has changed over time and adapted to the current views of American politics, and a strong central government is in fact necessary for our system to run efficiently and unified. Many people often fear that a strong national government is putting too much power in one place, yet if states were to have more power they would constantly have issues because each states believes in a different policy and chooses to run the state different from others. The author mentions issues such as healthcare, debt, and banking all of which the national government could solve and it would be in the countries best interest if the national government solved these issue to create a policy that applies to all states and thus rule as the “United States of America.”
ReplyDelete-Alejandra Casillas p. 2
I agree with the author in terms that the national government should reserve more power to interfere and regulate with problems such mentioned in the article. With the "us against the government" mentality of some Americans, our nation will suffer and be further suppressed with issues not regulated and solved by the federal government. A strong government is meant to keep order and balance within our country and if Americans cannot recognize this, we will only suffer.
ReplyDelete-Auntaneshia Howard
P.2
Everything in moderation. The national government does need to regulate issues that the states cannot handle themselves but they shouldn't have full control. The government needs its finger in some things to maintain balance and even create it in some places, like with the issue of banks. Without the regulation there are wounds in banks due to immense debt that ‘financial wizards’ are still trying to clean up. Overall it is obvious that in our time now, the government needs to establish a healthy amount of power without stepping on the toes of states’ rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author. We need to stop living in the past and move on with the future. Yeah, or national government has messed up in the past to where there are trust issues present. But now we are almost forced to give the national government more power in order to ensure the people's right are being protected. Obviously, passed decision has led the nation to believe that the national government should have restricted power, but if there is a situation that the states cannot necessarily "correct" in sense, then the national government needs to be appointed with a bit more power to where our situations are being addressed in the proper manner but still does not allow the national government to be overly powerful.
ReplyDeleteKourtney Mills
Period 3
I completely agree with the author that we definitely do need a strong national government due to a changing world. Many of the problems we've had as a nation in the past have been caused simply because the national government didn't have enough power. I believe giving the national government more power would make us a stronger country, but giving the national government too much power could also become problematic as well.
ReplyDeleteMadhumitha Pudukottai
Period 2
I agree with the author that our country could greatly benefit from allowing the national government to be more active in certain issues, like healthcare and banking. Because of the British experience in colonial times, it has been ingrained into our nation's history that increasing governmental power can only be negative. This has led to these ongoing issues in our country that have seeming clear, obvious solutions. Because of America's intrinsic fear of tyrannical government, in combination with the growing public mistrust in government, these issues remain unsolved. Many Americans fail to recognize that these deep-seated anxieties about "big government" are, for the most part, outdated. As long as power and control are given in moderation (as intended through separation of powers and federalism), allowing the government to act on these issues will do more good than harm, which is well worth the results.
ReplyDeleteSarah King
Period 2
I do, for the most part, agree with the author's claim that we do need a stronger national government with more powers in order to control new emerging issues. However, because there are so many clashing views and ideologies, decisions are never reached and even if they are reached, a large chunk of the nation is unsatisfied. People need to realize that the individual cannot have all the power and needs some form of higher control. I think that is the hardest part for people to understand is that some form of higher rule needs to be in place in order for a country to run more properly and we cannot leave total say up to the individual.
ReplyDeleteAriana Martinez
Period 2
I agree with the author in that the government should be given more power, and that the old "Jeffersonian" ideas that government is not important, as times have changed over the years. However, I do believe measures, such as Obamacare, are regulations that are too radical for the government, and that the government should be given powers of regulation gradually. It should be allowed to regulate trade (once industry outweighed agriculture), and keep regulation on banks to make sure that another recession is averted. States should still have individual rights, but many new policies to regulate actions should be implemented.
ReplyDeleteBlake Perchez
Period 3
I felt the author's example on a government- run healthcare system embodied the main idea of this entire article. He says "But instead of replacing it with the kind of single-payer government-run system adopted by most of the developed countries on the planet, that option is ruled out of order at the start of the debate. As a result, the best we can hope for is modest reform of an inherently flawed and expensive system." This shows how the conflicting opinions on what government should and shouldn't do impede progress. These conflicting opinions often prevent us from enacting solutions to our problems that may be great, and settling with solutions that may be mediocre-just to keep opposing sides happy. I feel that opinion should be suppressed at times and the greater good for our country should be enacted.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Salib
Period 2
I agree that a strong national government is needed as the country evolves. The ever-changing society and views has forced the government to adapt to the people to ensure unity and harmony. It is a fear that the national government could gain too much power but sometimes it is necessary to ensure the stability of the country. With the growing number of problems, the national government must take the reigns and resume control to avoid any more problems from arising.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Marella
Period 2
Them versus us. Well lets go back to the creation of the government, the government was created to mediate the people’s ideas not mirror the people’s ideas otherwise the framers would have created a government that follows the purest form of democracy. So if we look at this topic and call the government “them and the people “us” we created “them” to help “us.”
ReplyDeleteThe government needs the power to regulate certain things, for example if the government did not regulate business to an extent then we could have companies like Apple monopolizing the technology industry and charging sky high prices because they are the only company producing those goods because of the monopoly they have created. Government needs to have just a tad more power than the people because our governmental system is meant to balance power and do what is best for the country or what is best for the majority of the people but our government officials are also educated this battle of Them versus us will be forever ongoing but I think our government understands that they need more power to keep our country alive but I also firmly believe that our government understands that too much national power can cause a tyrannical rule.
Cristian Zuniga Period 2
I agree with the author in which the national government should be able to intervene on some things to help the nation's mistakes that we single-handedly caused. With the help of the national government, we will be able to more effectively solve problems. Many are afraid of the national government taking over completely but maybe if we put into place laws that would still regulate them but still give them the power to help us, it will benefit us in the long run.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Jimenez
period 3
I agree with the idea of having a stronger national government in order to take care of its political issues problems, like immigration for example. If we have let countless groups of Mexican, central american, and southern Americans take advantage of our system as they come across our borders how is American suppose to intervene in other countries political affairs if we cant even help ourselves first.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe that the role of government and the powers in which it is able to manipulate is constantly and rightly subject to change over the generations. As stated in the article, Jefferson himself believed that his ideologies would soon become irrelevant once the economy and society grew out of its agricultural society. The problems that the government faced during agricultural America versus the problems that the government are faced with in current day industrial America are vastly different and their roles were subject to appropriate configuration in order to successfully deal with each problem. Current day issues are of a nationwide-scale, which surely cannot be resolved without a leadership figure or faction in charge of expressing and ascertaining action with the best interests of the people in mind.
ReplyDelete-Julian Dela Cruz
P3
I fully agree with the author's argument in this article. The Jeffersonian ideology of not trusting the national government has been growing since the colony's experiences with Britain. In modern day, this ideology has affected progress in certain aspects. I believe that the government should be given more power than what people are currently willing to give them in order to fix the problems that we do have. The idea of distrusting national government has negatively effected the issues that we have. However, this power and trust should also be balanced. But the current ideology is plaguing this nation and needs to evolve.
ReplyDelete-Peter Sandhu
Period 3
This argument is once again a very in-depth topic and should be treated as so. I do think the view of "them" versus "us" is flawed because, as we all know, both levels of government, in essence, should benefit the people. So to say that nat'l gov as a whole is a negative entity, is simply not the case. For it is this nat'l goverment that has the authority to control states from breaking the binds of the constitution. In other words the national government should be seen as a great regulator.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, as Spiderman's uncle Ben once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." In this responsibility Nat'l government can not be given to much power regardless of regulation of time era. Nat'l government should never cease to be questioned for it is this doubt and "checking" of government that guarantees Liberty. Ex. ObamaCare in which a mass regulation was passed infecting this liberty. To disregard the Jeffersonian Ideology simply because "thing are changing" would be to disregard the US constitution because it was written so long ago. The same principles that structure Jefferson's mentality are complimentary to those that structure the Constitution.
I guess one can say that the middle spot in this topic is the sweet spot. Enough regulation to overcome pressing manners, but yet enough restraint on nat'l gov to prevent an intrusion on certain rights.
-Christopher Plascencia p.2
As a nation we should not fear the power of the national government, for they (in most cases) are trying to help us in the long run. The main reason people are "anti-government" is due to the recently popularized mentality that our government is watching us. U.S. Citizens are acting as if we are living in the fictional society described in the novel "1984." When people in our country stop blowing things out of proportion and actually gets educated on the true function of the national government, our country will then (still with some opposition) be ready to stop worrying about unrealistic conspiracies and actually dig deeper into the true reason for our nation's national government.
ReplyDelete-JUSTIN ACUNA, PERIOD 2
The fear of a strong national government has always been with us starting with Jefferson vs
ReplyDeleteHamilton. I agree with the author that we need to overcome that and allow the national government to be more active. The author brings up issues on healthcare, and the banking crisis and goes on to say that future issues like global warming could be fixed if a strong national government was provided. I know past events have lead us to believe that giving more power to the government could result in tyranny, but times are changing and if the government could help these issues then why shouldn't we let them? Even Jefferson realized that his anti-government would become irrelevant.
-Adriana albanez period 2
The author of Them vs. Us touches on two points of view that were contested as far back as the liberation of our own country. Over two centuries later, we find our leaders, families, coworkers, friends, and even married couples still as divided and passionate about the issue of government's role as the men who drafted our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The author brings key points to the table such as the difference between the society and the economy of today compared to that of the days in which our Founding Fathers lived. I agree that the ideals are swaying in the direction of a need for more oversight and protection due to the fact that the size and scope of the largest corporations today are at an extremely higher ratio than that during the days of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. I would go further to point out that the issues of today he discusses are a direct result of the gradual deregulation that took place during the 1960's 70's and 80's! After the Great Depression, regulations were increased to protect citizens from such irresponsible behavior of banks and companies that led to the worst economic crisis in U.S. History. After two generations passed and the affects were gradually forgotten, the regulations set in place to protect everyday Americans were eased and eventually removed. This led to the recent economic downturn which many feel is not yet over with. I feel that our country is in dire need of newer and stronger regulations to help protect our investments, our health, and the health of the earth which we inhabit from the interests of the hungry beast that deregulation helped create!
ReplyDeleteRhiannon Mergaert
Period 2
I feel that in order to be a successful nation in this modern society that we live in today we should give the government more power in order for it to do its job properly. For example, for the healthcare debate, if we allowed the government to run the system we would have a much better health care system, and one that would not be so heavy on our wallets. Such a system like the one they use in Canada. Sure taxes are higher but the government stands for the citizens of its nation by providing free health care. If such a system was implemented in the US we would be able to have a smoother system where the average american would benefit a great deal. All in all if we got over our fear that the government would begin a start of a tyrannical rule we might be able to resolve many pressing matters we are facing as a nation.
ReplyDelete-Saim Tayyab p2
I believe that due to our ever-changing society, the national government needs to play a role in certain issues such as banking, health care, global warming, etc,because there should be a healthy balance between states and national power. Ever since the birth of this country, we have feared a strong national government due to Britain, but a strong national government could help make certain decisions for the states. The national government has different issues that they can mediate in order to keep the country united. Overall, certain issues are meant for states government attention and certain issues that are taken out of hand, in the power of the states, must have national government attention in order to keep a balance in today's society.
ReplyDeletePeyton Geyser
Period 3
I agree with the author of this article halfheartedly because our national government is already pretty strong when it needs to be. Our government doesn't provide "over the limit" generosity in regards to funding, however they do give the head starts for many programs and places like welfare and food stamps that do provide many services we couldn't do on our own. However regulation will be necessary to prevent our government from gaining to much of this power.
ReplyDeleteKameron Valrz
Period 3
Fear of the federal government abusing their power has pushed citizens into a state of distrust and paranoia. However, we must learn to get over that and look at the big picture. There are serious issues that our country is faced with (EPA, global warming, healthcare) so the federal government needs to make themselves useful and intervene. They should work together to reach a consensus. However, they must be careful to not cross the thin line between helpfulness and tyrannical abuse of power.
ReplyDeleteKayleigh McWilliams
Period two
I also believe that since we are scared of tyranny we should discuss the balance and division between states and the national government. I believe that the government broadens clauses exceedingly and is encouraging national supremacy. So instead we of the government making their own rules we should give them more power to fix and repair the damaged in this country and do their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
ReplyDeleteTazari p. 3
I personally agree with the author of the article that the U.S. needs a strong national government, specifically in today's times. The article mentions that Jefferson himself predicted his anti-government views would become out-dated as economy shifted from agrarian to industrial. The anti-government view doesn't work in such a large government in the way that it did on a smaller scale. A strong national government is needed to truly unite the states together or the states are essentially just flatmates. Of course we still need checks on power towards the national government so that state governments aren't just there to simply exist; but the more complex our government becomes, the more need there will be for a strong or even stronger national government to maintain stability among such a diverse country like the United States.
ReplyDeleteDylan Riggio
Period 2
I do agree with what the author of this article about the idea of having the national government have more power, but truly sticking to the interest of the people and not just them and their families. Why I said that last part is because that's where i believe things can go wrong, but all in all the national government has become better since the time of Jefferson vs. Hamilton. One of the reasons the author does touch upon and has me on their said is when they mentioned the idea that since we have moved away from an agricultural society into a much more industrial society makes a huge difference and calls for reform on the government. At the end when he quotes George Washington, it gives light to an even more important issue that today we face as a nation. George Washington says that we as a nation must be united and with what has been happening in today society, we really need to look at what our first president said and ask ourselves are we truly a union or just pretending? In conclusion on my opinion, I do believe that national government needs to have more trust in it and more power, but always have the people interests in mind.
ReplyDeleteEmma Kuhn
Period 3
The author of the opinion piece makes several fallacious moves in authoring the article in this particular manner, the most prominent being the fallacy of conjunction. The author assumes that Hamilton's prediction, the outcome that a near hyper-involved government is the best suited to govern in today's day and age, is more probable simply because it satisfies multiple examples, as opposed to Jefferson's argument which satisfies fewer examples. As per the definition of the conjunction fallacy, a conclusion satisfying multiple, specific conditions is not necessarily more probable than an outcome satisfying a single, general condition. Furthermore, Jefferson's "general" condition is this, America was created from the unprecedented ideology of a people's government disaffiliating from an intrusive, utilitarian government; to make a move that begins to resemble the very government we attempted to leave is to chip away at the cornerstones of the democracy we have fought so hard to preserve and distinguish. While the author's argument is clearly persuasive to anyone who is easily swayed by a bombardment of quick, tid-bit supporting examples, let it be noted that the debate is a much more two-sided issue that deserves to be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteJason Plascencia
Period 2
I agree with the author, the national government could help take care of problems that the states cant. It would eliminate many problems that we honestly should not have to worry about. I also understand that to much power for the national government is something that the framers wanted to avoid, but with the country changing so much it would cripple this country to not allow the national government take a stronger role.
ReplyDeleteArturo Limon
p3
I agree with the authors assessment that a stronger national government is necessary today. As the author points out, A stronger national government is sometimes needed to protect the weak and the things that cannot protect themselves, such as the environment, even at the cost of personal liberty.
ReplyDeleteHeath Isley
Period 2
The topic of government being a separate source of power that is being forced onto us is a misconstrued one. Some may view the government as distant group known as “them” and that we each must stay in our own circles. Even though this Jeffersonian position may have prospered for us in the past, we are no longer an agriculture-based society; we need a government to represent our ideas and desires to be a successful country. Therefore I agree with the author that power should be put into the hands of the national government. There should be no “them” and “us” but there should be a “we” because it shouldn’t be the government running a tyranny on the people but the people also shouldn’t be walking all over the government. The nation issues’ can be best dealt with by its people and government working together.
ReplyDeleteChristina Dang
Period 3
For sure a stronger national government is needed in order to solve issues that have been long argued. However, ideas from the 1700's-1800's shouldn't be the main thought in the government's mind while deciding these decisions. In order for this to work it must listen to the people; know what's best for the people. Like gay marriage, things on a national level can get done more quickly while state issues take a longer time to process or may be seen as unfair.
ReplyDeleteAnnette C.
I do agree with the author, we should have a strong national government. The Jeffersonian idea might have helped us in the past but in today's day in age we need a government that is going to represent our ideas and protect our rights. We need to find a balance where we don't have the government walking over people and where the people are not ignoring the government. We should be able to work together so we can form a "we" and not a "them vs. us" idea. Also, having a national government can help the states deal with issues that are beyond their control.
ReplyDeleteSandy Lule
P.3
I disagree with the need for the government to be involved as much as they are today. Yes, we need certain regulations on businesses, but it isn't the industrial revolution anymore. The people who are in high places in the work force are there because they worked for it and don't deserve to be punished. In this day and age, people know people have rights and should be treated fairly. I do believe that the national government needs to be strong, as the AOC showed us we need a strong national government, but you give an inch and they take a foot. Since the Constitution was so broad, the Feds took as much as they could. The question isn't if the things the government passes as laws morally right, which they are, but the question is if it is Constitutional that they can do this. I'm not against people having medical insurance, or having a retirement; I am against the government saying no matter what, I will get this. Is that Constitutional?
ReplyDeleteJoey Mendoza
Period 3
I agree that the power of the national government has the will to help our nation. Although the national government does hold a great amount of power, it can also threaten the individual rights of Americans and with that, many people are fearful of letting the national government come to action. The topics we've learned in class such as TOM (tyranny of majority) can put an effect into this issue, but decentralizing power can aid with the paranoia of excessive power. I also think that the national government needs a bit more tweaking in order for it to suffice the trust of Americans. And as Americans, we need to put a portion of trust into our national government for it to help our nation.
ReplyDeleteRandal Manago P.2
To regulate or not to regulate, that is the question. Whether it is nobler...No! That’s no question at all! Of course government should be given the authority necessary to regulate the actions of its country. The framers of the United States Constitution created split systems- such as Federalism and Bicameralism- to ensure that political power would be equitably distributed and thus make it extremely difficult for a faction to rise up and compromise the rights of the minority. This fear of tyranny demonstrates the framers’ belief that, when given the chance, human nature will lead to corruption, inequality, and other negative consequences for those involved. Human nature remains absolute and has thus persisted in this postmodern age. Government regulation is absolutely necessary to ensure that human corruptibility does not prevail and the public’s best interest is upheld.
ReplyDeleteOver the course of American history, the government has progressively moved towards greater regulation. After Upton Sinclair’s groundbreaking exposé, The Jungle, in which he unveiled the atrocities of the meat industry, the government was persuaded to begin regulating the food industry through the creation of the FDA. Clara Barton’s Silent Spring revealed the disastrous effects of DDT and led to stricter government regulation of the environment. Individual companies have repeatedly demonstrated their lust for profits, even at the expense of the consumer and/or the environment. Yet, time and time again the government has prevailed and successfully imposed sanctions to protect the interests of the public. America has been on this beneficial course for more than a century, and it remains necessary to continue down this progressive trail. Many people have proposed the idea that the government should regulate healthcare, the banking industry, and even big business. These industries have been responsible for the high infant mortality rate of the U.S., the 2008 financial crisis, and rampant social inequality. The past demonstrates that the government should definitely increase regulations in order to ensure that these institutions remain in check and thus maintain order in society.
Michael Yoakam P.3
like many other people have stated before, this national government we have today is strong enough to do anything they want even they want in america, be it help or not, but today i feel that today the government is starting to grasp they hold of power a little too much against the people. Sure the government has the supremacy clause to battle us in state power however knowing that today our voice and thoughts today will never suffice to do anything for the government, such as to make a major government decision would only be made from another person, not from any specific one of us . Thus this thought alone haunts me to think that it is really us vs them as have not overall power to really show accept the powers given to us by this constitution
ReplyDelete-jaron tamayo
per. 2
I agree with the author that our government is struggling to balance the "them" versus "us" perspective and how it is lending it's hand in making our issue solving ineffective today. I believe our government needs to be given control on some aspects of our lives, such as the example with the economy and large corporations and how the government needed to intervene in order to regulate the "swings of the marketplace"; however it shouldn't take too much control. The latter, I think, lends it's hand in the "them" perspective of government which I perceive to be negative as we as a country have had our fair share of experiences with a government that has had too much control, making us see the government as a "them" separate from us, the People. On the other hand, if our government takes too much control, as with the banking crisis noted in the article and how the stock market may take the government's intervention as "socialist", it could be detrimental to our prosperity and growth. So, I agree with the author on the effects on the "us" versus "them" perspective and like the quote at the end of the article said, we need to throw off "the dead hand of the past", and potentially change and let the government do its part in developing our country's success.
ReplyDeleteMark Yu
Period 3
Our national government power has grown so much in the last couple decades. It has begun to put all control into its hands and has began making choices for the people. But also what our government does for our country they believe its whats best for our nation they don't try to hurt the economy or attaxk a certain class they try to accommodate everyone which is truly hard. There may be problems and there may be some goods but all in all we need to let the government control our country and not let the people control it.
ReplyDeletenoah Gentry
Period 3
It is undoubtedly true that, given more power, the federal government could and would enact solutions to some of the issues that plague our nation today. However, I do not necessarily support doing such because handing over that much assertive power will create new problems that can't be solved because the group that can solve them (federal government) simply don't want to. As the saying goes, it's six on one and half a dozen on the other. This being said, the common American can do a much better job being educated and proactive towards solving our social issues. Unfortunately the tragedy of the commons is all too familiar, with the majority of Americans in a sense passing on their public and political duties to the government. All in all, the national government could help America if given more responsibility, but could just as easily morph into an unwanted fulcrum of tyrannical dictatorship
ReplyDeleteJoel Bolton period 3
The role in government has been a constant debate throughout American history. Government has the ability to help and assist the nation in improving conflict. However, the government is not given the power that they necessarily need to perform the actions because the nation as a whole is in fear of a tyrannical government. I personally do not believe the government today should be given anymore power than they are already given because in doing so more conflict will arise in the midst of it. Having the end result become less of a benefit and more of a set back.Therefore, since Americans would rather have a role in government and have a say in how the government will eventually help our nation they need to their part in the politics side of the matter.
ReplyDeleteLauren Casillas p.2
I agree with the author that there is conflict and debate between how the government should regulate issues. There has also been shifts in how much power the government receives as before industrialization there was a popular hostility against it but due to corrupt business practices started the road for more and more government regulation. I think that government though since the 40s and the establishment of social programs has become too expansive in its power and that in response of social programs it has caused our economy to be in debt since a lot of people on programs don't pay back the government.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Wellendorf P3
I agree with the author in accepting that we aren't in a Jeffersonian government anymore. I think we are more reliant with our government to solve problems for "us". Jefferson's view was alright until the industrial age. Now the government regulates parts of the economy like with wages in order to help regulate the marketplace. Even though I do think government should have a role in the marketplace, I don't think that they should be dominate. I agree with what Mark said that to much could ruin how we grow and do business in America.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Maly P2
From the beginning of developing a Constitution, America had always manifested stigma towards the federal government and its power; stained by their British experience, America became paranoid with the idea of one source holding excessive power. Arguably, this paranoia led to detriments like ones of Grant's presidential term where government refused to regulate corrupt, big businesses, and even contained fraud within their own system. Lack of regulation led to social issues in regards to the poor vs. trusts. So... can we assure big businesses and monopolies to act upon moral rather than profit? In all honesty... I doubt it. It must be difficult to look out for all employers in a fair way, when profit is a predominant priority. However, too much power in government is also detrimental towards America... the purpose of the federal government is to actively protect our liberties, and there just must be a happy balance between the ideologies of where a government should stand.
ReplyDeleteEunice Choi p. 2
The author of this article makes some relevant points regarding the ability of our government in making decisions concerning the economy, the environment, etc. It would seem like a good idea to allow our national government with more authority to solve our dilemmas. But lots of people, such as some conservatives, believe that our national government should stay out of our business as much as they can and that they already have enough involvement. On the contrary, I do believe that issues dealing with our economy and our environment can only be resolved if our national government plays a larger role because without that happening, then our problems could never get settle because of conflicting views among our states. At least some or maybe most of the issues will never be solved without the assistance and control of our national government.
ReplyDeleteSammie Soto
Period 3
If the government were to continue to disregard their power in today’s affairs, how would we get anything fulfilled? Along the lines of a Hamiltonian perspective of the role of government, I believe our new generation calls for development that simply cannot be accomplished by the people especially in fields that rely on more well-versed individuals. Although the government may have made faulty decisions in its past, their trial and error process does benefit our nation. As cliche as it sounds, we do learn from our past mistakes, so if we continue to live in our own fear of a more expansive government, how are we supposed to move forward? Issues involving the economy, welfare, environment, etc., is left in the power of the government for various reasons, but when people continue to resist, the nation may revert back to old habits or do nothing at all. For example, the “ongoing” banking crisis represents the results of withdrawn government regulatory action in which the major banks took it upon themselves to “assume toxic investments” and take on huge amounts of debt. I am not saying power in the hands of the government is superior, but we should consider that there are situations in which it is necessary for more government intervention especially with the place we are in now. The whole "them" and "us" issue just needs to find a balance, but the people do need to realize with time, comes change.
ReplyDeleteBritney Koh P.3
I completely agree with the article. Although the Jeffersonian view worked effectively to check on the national government's power during the agricultural era, we must move on from the past and adjust to the present. Jeffersonian views are no longer effective in today's circumstances. Presently, the national government is vital in solving the issues of this nation. As discussed in the article, the national government is desperately needed to resolve conflicts regarding healthcare, the banking crisis, and global warming, but its efforts to improve on these issues are constantly being blocked by those with ongoing Jeffersonian views. If we continue to prevent the national government from acting on our best interests, nothing will ever be accomplished. Our national problems will grow larger and tougher to deal with. It is time that we unite as one nation and place our trust in our federal government to resolve our national issues and do what is best for the nation as a whole. Together, we are stronger.
ReplyDelete-Susi Le, P.2
I do agree with the author of the article in the sense that the national government should be able to gain more power to control and fix problems in the nation. The main problem with this statement is, how much power is too much power? Many people struggle with this question and it has led to different ideologies: liberals (federalists) and conservatives (anti-federalists). The debate between these two groups began many years ago and it is still going on to this day.
ReplyDeleteThere are many issues that cannot be solved by the people, such as the "swings in market place". The national government needs to fix these nation wide problems in order for us to continue being a world power. I believe that the amount of power that the government should be given should adjust to the issue and time period. A balance needs to be found in order for the United States to continue being powerful.
Sahar Yazouri P.2
As the Jeffersonian government has become outdated, I believe the national governemnt will be able to help our nation. For example, banks needed a tempoaray nationalization to purge them from bad debts. As the author argues, it is essential for governemnt to protect our rights to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." A balance of "them" and "us" should be found accomodating the change in our government; eventhough some consevatives belive otherwise a moderate regualtion from the national government is neccessary.
ReplyDeleteBianca Alonso P2
I agree with the author's point that the nation needs to move away from a Jeffersonian idea of government. Like the article points out, even Jefferson himself admitted that his ideal government would be rendered obsolete as we progressed out of the agricultural era- which we obviously have. The United States has become such a huge amalgamate of different kinds of people that a Jeffersonian government is no longer a rational choice for the nation. Our Constitution and our republic were built with many safeguards against majority, or mob, rule. If we were to allow a government to be completely and directly ruled by the people, then it would devolve into exactly what we've worked so hard to prevent; majorities would almost certainly drown out the views of minorities, and mob rule would be a distinct possibility. Whether people want to believe it or not, this is a very ineffective way to run a country. The government runs much more smoothly with the few standing in as representatives for the many.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the government needs to take into account the "them" verses "us" argument and find a way to satisfy both sides; representatives are the ones making the decisions, but they still need to take into account the opinions of those that they are representing. If this doesn't happen, then the nation might never fully trust its government, and in turn, it will never fully move away from outdated lingering Jeffersonian ideals.
-Adrienne Sanchez, p.2
The government has grown much since the signing of the Constitution. And such, the government has used a lot of power to improve society as a while. Even so, many of the people would agree that the government has used up too much of its powers. While the government is trying to balance its use of power, many issues have yet to be solved due to the people not agreeing on a goal. The nation should be as one to solve major problems that have been plaguing the United States. Whether one is liberal or conservative, each must make adjustments for the greater good of the people. Whether it is states or national, both must work as one to solve many problems regarding the future of America.
ReplyDeleteRonald Law P.3
I believe that a balance must be found among them and us. Moderate regulation is somewhat necessary to keep big business in control. But there must be an element of free market left in our economy to push innovation and prophets. The bans need a brief but temporary take over by the government to regulate and set standards and also to relieve the debt that they have accumulated as a result of these bad business practices. The government should aslo be inclined and required to protect our natural rights from outside and internal forces.
ReplyDeleteDaniel ENriquez P.2
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs learned in class, Americans have been steadily losing faith in our government. They feel that our government is ineffective in dealing with today's issues, yet refuse to give our federal government more power. However, I think our federal government has already created a good solution for this issue: grants. These grants allow our government to focus on issues of national importance, and arguably give them even more power than any amendment would. Furthermore, I believe that, if we give our federal government more power directly, that they would see no use of grants, and stop funding states. This would result in either bankrupt states or higher taxes, both which could have catastrophic results. While I agree that our current government isn't the most efficient at times, I believe that it is for the best that we leave our federal government as it is.
ReplyDelete-Austin Yuan P2
The role of the government has been questioned since the beginning of our government. It will always be split between those who favor that the government is bigger and has more control with the liberals and the states righters with the more conservative outlook. With this being said I completely agree that if the national government had more control that some of the bigger problems in the nation would most likely be solved. However, while I agree with this outlook, I do not believe that this should be put into effect for the reason being the nation might be split up even more. Giving the national government more power would have the people believe that they are being intruded on, which even though may help the nation in a whole with problems, would turn the people against the government once again. A lot of people would not be very happy at this movement towards a stronger national government. While the author is right on his argument, I do not believe the nation as a whole would react to it in a good fashion.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard p.3
I agree with the author's conclusion that we need a strong national government that is able to adapt to the changing nation. This is necessary because of the larger population, more diversity, and the big business domination of the economy. The U.S. is very different today from when the Framers drafted the Constitution. However, it is reasonable to fear that if the government acquires too much power, the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could be violated. The national governments needs more power than it did when it was created; but with a balance distribution of power between nation, state, and personal levels.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Latham p.2
Government / economic intervention is a controversial topic, which bleeds into the "us" versus "them" debate. In the provided article there are reasons as to why it was necessary for the government to intervene. However, I am afraid the more we, the people, allow government to intervene, the less it may morally uphold law and protect individual liberties. Also, when the government chooses to intervene and bailout banks it may cause harm (banks would be less likely to avoid bankruptcy because "hey, the government will help me out of this one!"). Clearly, this is an issue. While I am unsure of a solution, I surely believe the government, often fueled by political pressures and inefficiency, should have limited powers of regulation and should preserve our individual, inalienable rights.
ReplyDeleteTanner Rouse (Period 3)
The author makes a very sound argument. Overall I agree with the author, the government is being held back by the Jeffersonian small government view. The constitution is there for a reason, to act as a possible safeguard against a government who is infringing upon the rights of the people, this is not happening though and we should allow the government to exercise more power over these key issues, and apply checks and balances if necessary, so that we would be actively attempting to solve these key issues instead of arguing over whether an outdated system of government is still viable.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Noyola
P.2
DeleteI agree with the article that there needs to be a strong National government that does have some power. It is shown that we need a strong National government through the banks. When the governments regulation on banks is taken away it allows for banks to go into huge debt. It is also shown through the care of our environment. If our government regulations were taken away that stop bad chemicals from entering our environment it would hurts us, our Earth would be destroyed. Since our country is continually growing and our population is increasing and ethnicity is increasing we need a strong National government to regulate our country. However, I do believe that the power of the National government should be limited because if it is not then our citizens would loose their rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
ReplyDeleteShannan Martinez P.3
I agree with the author’s argument that America needs to shift from a government constructed on Jeffersonian ideals. Debate over the role of the federal government has been present ever since the writing of the Constitution revolving around whether it ensures individual liberties. Jefferson’s belief of a national government prioritizing the individuals was contemporary towards the beginning of the 1800s since the Unites States wanted to prevent tyrannical rule similar to their treatment from Great Britain. However, the Framers drafted the Constitution with awareness of possible detriments of majority rule in the hands of the people and thus decided to establish a representative government. However, these representatives need to govern with good intentions for society overall. Without this proper national regulation of social and economic affairs, America would cease to properly ensure individual rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This was evident during the Gilded Age towards the end of the 1800s when the national government rarely intervened with economic affairs, creating wider gaps of tension, wealth, poverty, and overall inequality between different social classes. Not all people with affluence during this era prioritized society. This shows that if the national government does not regulate these affairs, then certain demographics would suffer at the hands of others who are benefitting and thus limit the degree of equality in our unalienable rights. America needs to shift from a minimalistic government in order to protect individual rights. A Jeffersonian ideal may have been effective a couple of centuries ago in guaranteeing these rights, but as America gradually grows, the national government must adapt to continue to ensure these rights.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Martinez P.2
For the longest time in America the government was run using Jefferson's point of view. Jefferson's point of view was where the government didn't intervene with state businesses. However, in the 20th century things in America have changed to were his method does not work. Instead we started to adapt Hamilton's point of view on the whole government in business thing. His view was that the government should intervene with businesses. I feel like the government should find a way to equally use "them" and "us". The government can tell business what they expect to go on inside the business, and like how they can't discriminate against employees. However, that's about as far as the government should go. Everything else should be left up to the states and what the business wants to do.
ReplyDeleteTyla Jones P.3
I do agree with the author that in some aspects like the economy and the healthcare system that we need a strong national government to step in and help. Between Jefferson and Hamilton's perspectives, it would be beneficial to get a blend of these two opposites but that would be very difficult. Before we had feared the government having a strong control because of our past experience with the British, but America has had many significant changes since then and does not have the same problems because of our now diverse and immense state. Though some may fear the government intruding on citizen's rights by gaining more control, we cannot continue to let the problems mentioned in the article like in our economy, healthcare system, environment, etc to continue to grow without a proper solution or method to help lessen them.
ReplyDeleteEmberly Reyes Per. 3
I side with the author of this article as he makes a solid point of the ongoing issues, especially since our nation is growing immensely both as an ethnic society and as an industrialized nation. The role of the national government has been up for debate for as long as the US has been formed, creating many of the issues we face today. The national government must step in and end many circumstances the nation faces. In order to better the nation, we need to be unified so that our issues can be resolved. Without the national government stepping in to help "the people", the country would be in a chaotic state. By allowing the national government to intervene with our problems, many of our present-day issues would no longer exist. They help make decisions that are "representative of our collective interests as a people and a nation" and continually help to amend/end our problems. We just have to hope that they really are making decisions "for the people".
ReplyDeleteAngie Perez P3
I come in consensus with the argument of the author. I believe that there should be nation government intervention when necessary in order to ensure the greater good, but to an extent. A hands off government, seen during the industrial era and the rise of big businesses resulted in poor work places, lengthy work hours,and poor working conditions. The progressive era was a result of human nature taking over. Because of the government intervention, regulation ensued for the betterment of the common man. We must remember that the purpose of a business is to make profit and maximize profit no matter what so it is only logical that workers wouldn't benefit from it. For these reasons government intervention is necessary.
ReplyDeleteChika Ezeh period 2
Our government is capable of helping our nation and fixing the problems in it. We need some sort of balance among regulating large businesses and allowing free market in order to keep the US strong. The Jeffersonian view of government did work well in the agricultural era; however, the US needs to use means of government that are effective in today's society. I do believe that the government should play a role in issues like Medicare, Social Security, and protecting our environment because it is too difficult for "us" to do it all on our own. If we continue to have a Jeffersonian view on the issues that should be resolved by our government and not try something else, chances are our problems won't be resolved and will just get worse. There are times when the federal government should be in charge of certain issues in order for the US to move forward.
ReplyDeleteMary Saba P2
In order to provide for the better "general welfare of the people," I agree with the author in that some major problems should be left to the government. We have been built around Jeffersonian ideals, due to fear of a unitary takeover. But this was in the past, and now we're in need of change. Even more so due to our diverse, growing nation.This is because the problems we now face have evolved and so has our need for the government to regulate issues. Without the national government stepping in, our country would be in a difficult position and gradually shifting towards unrest. As a nation, we have become dependent on the government because they make decisions that help to amend or put an end to our problems. However, we can only hope that their decisions really are "for the people".
ReplyDeleteJohanna Oen P.2
Although I would generally say that the government needs to take a more hands off approach, I would have to agree with the author of the article here. I partially agree that we need some governmental regulation/ intervention on issues such as finances. I am one who likes the government to intervene when it is the undisputed best case for the people of this nation. social issues are where my hands off idea is more present, but in a time of struggling national finance where many people have the potential to have their worlds be turned upside down, is when the govt. needs to step in. America is a very prosperous and much larger nation than the framers would have imagined, and that is partially due to the government's intervention and assistance.
ReplyDeleteGrant Sipos P.3
I agree with the author if we let the National Government do it's job we can solve so many problems that we face today. Some people fear a strong national government but I think that is what we need.
ReplyDeleteTayari Venable
per.2
I think that the government should focus more on being an "us" type of figure than a "them." While a distanced government is very important to an extent that it is not infringing on any significant personal liberties, I do believe the government should be allowed to play a role in regulating business and other aspects of our society. For example, we've seen the detrimental results and human-rights abuses that occur when businesses are given free reign during periods of laissez-faire, and I don't think that the impoverished have close to an equal chance of rising in wealth than the middle-class/rich do. I do believe that the government should allow for much of the process to regulate itself, as I don't feel comfortable with the government heavily regulating peoples' lives or forcing everyone to be equal such as in an idealistic communist society. However, I can't agree completely with those that think that everyone has an equal opportunity through hard work in this nation when so many are stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.
ReplyDelete-Adam Witkowski P.3
I agree that the authors examples of the bank, healthcare and other current events are shifting away from jeffersonian form of government to a stronger form of national government. i believe that the national government should control such things because it creates equality throughout the states and control as well.The thought process is changing because as time goes by thoughts on certain issues tend to change and shift to a whole new concept and outlooks on certain issues.
ReplyDeleteViktoria Kuladzhyan p. 2
From the start of our nation, there has been a everlasting debate between the involvement of government in our society. Our national belief started with a complete hands off approach on our society, proving ineffective with the articles of confederation. Still to today, the debate of how involved our government should be is still debated today between minimal government involvement and high government involvement, as shown between our two parties of opposing sides splitting our nation in half. Its a marvel that after almost 300 years, we as a nation still have not come to a common ground on what is best for society.
ReplyDelete-Issa A. Sweis; per. 2
The Jeffersonian theory on limited national government and greater states rights has served us well for many years. It kept the national government in "check" from turning into the tyrannical rule of European countries before it. But as time has passed and the country has aged, this core dispute seems dated. It feels like an obstacle in the way of getting this done. Even if a policy is widely favored amongst the public and even the politicians themselves, this idea of one side getting to much power gets in the way. This results in either bad compromises like Obamacare. A system that should've been easy to implement, (multiple of western countries have done it for years) turned into this mess of limitations and just a bad system. Or policies will get scratched completely like many global warming initiatives. We need action in our country. And a bloated system fighting for power doesn't allow that. Now don't get me wrong we need states rights for things. But both sides on the political spectrum can't deny the grid lock. How are we suppose to come up with plans for key issues if we cant even make a budget. The government doesn't have to be scary, it can be helpful and simple.
ReplyDeleteEshawn Singh P.3
I agree with the author's argument in that we need a stronger central government. In the beginning he mentioned the Jeffersonian Era which pretty much kept national government out of state affairs, but that only worked in certain instances and the present is not a time period where that ideology would work. There are some times when the government needs to be involved in the economy and what we can't decide is how much should they be involved. We can decide when their involvement is too much without becoming attached to their services. However, all opinions are changing and although some people consider governmental interference an attack on personal liberties, I think for the most part it's for the best for our country.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Martinez P.3
I agree with the author in his referral of the government as "the chosen representatives of our collective interests". We as a people need to stop looking at the government as this "them vs. us" and look at it more as a "we". With the former view point, our society allows our fear of a tyrannical government to overshadow our efficiency. The author shed light on several issues that should have been easily solved, had this fear of tyranny not been ingrained into our brains. Included in this are issues such as global warming, healthcare, and big banks to name a few. Therefore, we as a country must look at the government as an extension of a cohesive team, rather than a rival.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hidayat p.2
More national restriction is necessary. The hands- off Laissez-faire approach has proven to fail twice in our history before. Along with this, our ever changing society SHOULD come with ever-changing policy. The unalienable rights and amendments promised to the people must be upheld, and with changing times and current culture, sociatal, and religious changes (to name a few), the national government should be able to restrict whatever they find necessary to up keep these rights.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Urbina P. 2
I agree that we DO need a much stronger central government, but we do need states to have power, as well. The more the states show what they want, the more the national government will understand the wants and needs of its country. At times, the government just needs to take charge and say "we are doing this this way, so suck it up", but many times the government also needs to hear what it's people want, so the states and national government work together, rather than against each other.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Fejeran
Period 2
I agree with the author that our country could greatly benefit from allowing the national government to be more active in certain issues,because many of the problems we've had as a nation in the past have been caused simply because the national government didn't have enough power. Obviously, passed decision has led the nation to believe that the national government should have restricted power, and many people often fear that a strong national government is putting too much power in one place, yet if states were to have more power they would constantly have issues because each states believes in a different policy and chooses to run the state different from others.The structure of our government restricts a single faction for abusing their power completely, so giving the national government more power will only benefit our system, maintaining personal liberties.
ReplyDeleteJacob Ortega
p.3
Regarding George Washington's quote, "We are either a united people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation. ... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it", I believe that the United States should act as a united nation when dealing with current issues, such as the banking crisis and global warming that were mentioned in the article. The American people should allow the government to interfere and take action in order to solve problems instead of relying on individuals or the citizens to take care of the issues themselves, which has not proved to be successful. Government regulations are necessary to protect the people's liberties especially in our modern industrial economy in which greed and profit are the primary motives of many citizens. If there is no government interference, certain people can trample on the rights of others. Therefore, I agree with the author that Hamilton's view of the national government as the supreme power is more reasonable for today's times than Jefferson's view of states' rights if any problems are to be solved in this nation.
ReplyDelete-Susu Le P.2
Obviously the role of government has been a debate since the Framers drafted the constitution. Does the government just sit back hands off and let the American people do them? Or do they take the bull by the horn's and make us do what they think is best? I think there needa to be a balance between the two but, It's such a hard balance to find. When America was industrializing we tried the whole hands off approach, right? It lead to monopolies and inequality across the board. That didn't work. Then the government start intervening and then it caused problems among the people. Take healthcare for example. The wealthy pay for healthcare through taxes and then the poor get healthcare, which is goo for the poor. But then the wealthy are unhappy because the money that they worked hard for is being taken from them. It's not like it's not for the greater good but doesnt that take away from their personal liberty? So what's the right choice here? Keep doing as the government demand that we do and have conflict, or allow us to decide leading to no more health care for the poor because they can't afford it also causing conflict. Clearly it's a debate that's probably never going to end. On another note, global warming is a huge deal. You would think the idea that the world is dying would morivate us to ban together to cease the threat, but it hasn't. Personally I feel like on this matter the government and the people really aren't doing much. What's that going to look like for the US in 100 years? How bad is the atmosphere going to be then and what are going to be the repercussions of that? Debate debate debate, America. The author makes a good point that we either need to ban together as a nation or not, but between population and ethnic diversity there's too many different passions for us to honestly band together on the same view of a matter. I believe a strong government is the only way things are going to get done but in reality is that even the correct way to go? Who knows? I don't.
ReplyDelete~Micaela Fiedler p.2
I agree the national government really do need more power there are still to many problems going on in the nation. In the article the author gives us examples that are easy to solve, but instead it was "ruled out of order at the start of the debate". We push away the national government and allow them to have power which can make a stronger nation
ReplyDeleteTyree Baker per2
The whole article was basically and old view of government that's needs to evolve to match our evolving country. It started off saying may people aren't satisfied with the government because there is no true compromise there is only Republican or Democrat. Since this is happening it makes people feel like that mentality of them vs us when in reality they are one in the same. Next it talked about the policies differences from the very being with Hamilton and Jefferson. That moment right started the them vs us mentality but due to an evolving country with lots of diversity and it's position as a super power we have had to change along with the times.
ReplyDeleteJason Jones p.3
I agree that the central government should become more hands-on rather than letting states handle different tasks on their own. The Jeffersonian form of government worked when we had 13 colonies, but now with 50 states we need a strong government to control things such as healthcare and banking. The stronger control of central government would also benefit Americans with more equality rather than more liberty, which is something that needs to be regulated.
ReplyDelete-Jacinda Clay P. 2
As the country evolves, I agree with the author that a strong national government is in need. The many different views and the changes in society affects the government in forcing them to adapt to the people in order to achieve unity. The fear for the government to gain too much power as it has happened before, makes it essential for the government to try to ensure the stability of power in the country. In the title of the article, "them vs. us" is the reason as to why many of the problems, such as big banks and healthcare, that yet to be solved are from the people not being consensus. The number of problems will continue to grow and for these to be prevented is by the national government resuming their balance of power in solidarity instead of straying from coherence.
ReplyDeleteAnnalyn Arevalo p.3
I agree with the author that there are times of which the national government needs to step in and regulate things that will be harmful to people currently living and to future generations. The national government has been increasing its regulations lately, however they are not enough to handle problems such as climate change. Issues like this needs stronger regulations or else the nation will find itself facing against an enormous challenge.
ReplyDeleteAlejandro Martinez p.2
Although I am usually for a smaller national government, there are many cases where a job is too big for state's to handle. The Jeffersonian ideology made sense when our country was still fairly small. However, times have changed, our country has grown, and we face many more complicated issues. There needs to be a balance, though. A government that is too strong is risky and may turn its back on the American people.
ReplyDeleteChris Weiland P. 3
Without a doubt the government needs to be more involved with us. Back in the day it was necessary for the government to not have as many powers ,however, Jefferson said himself it would be time to move on from his ideals after America was no longer an agricultural country. To add on, its not like the government is this big bad wolf out to get us, the author give instances where national government intervention was the key to solving many problems. It is time to get over this "them vs us" idea and accept the government as a body that is trying to help us and this great country.
ReplyDeleteColton Lynch P.3
I have to side with the author of this article to an extend. They bring up a very good point on the on going differences in public opinion regarding our government. Too many problems exist with both government intervention and no government intervention. Without government involvement in businesses this causes business owners to cut corners and not exactly follow regulations just as child labor, lengthy hours, and low pay. Problems also exist when there's too much government involvement such as the suffocating of businesses and not allowing room to grow or make their own decisions. We've obviously struggled to find a happy medium between the two but unfortunately without government regulation within businesses, could we really trust those to do the right things or make the right decisions? Monopolies and all that jazz obviously didn't work out well in the past and of course theres that big 'L' word...Liberty or a similar term...Freedom. People will argue the government is threatening liberty but SOMETIMES they're actually just trying to protect it. We can't fix these problems persisting in our government unless we ban together as a nation, get off our butts, and do something about it cause obviously sitting down and watching it all go down won't help at all. The problem won't fix itself and we can't trust others to fix it for us. So whats our decision?...well see in the future.
ReplyDeleteChloe Pena P. 2
Just as many above stated, the author takes an approach within the article that also coincides with my beliefs. Our national government serves as our balance between anarchy and order. Government action and involvement in some affairs is necessary, such as with our financial state and environment. Without the enforcement of laws since Roosevelt's era we would have driven species to extinction, destroyed our environment, and hurt ourselves in the process. Since our conception as a country, we have feared a strong government taking complete control. The Articles of Confederation can serve as testament to that, where states rights were far more powerful than the national government's.
ReplyDelete-Joseph Slmani
P 2
It's no secret that the industrialization of the United States brought about situations where the government needed to step in and help to solve certain problems that were prominent in that time period. Now that times have obviously changed, the problems we face as a nation have therefore changed as well. I definitely agree with the author in regards to the necessity of government interference in problems such as healthcare, banks, and climate change. However, we must be careful not to give too much power to the national government otherwise we run the risk of having our government develop into a tyrannical one. Ultimately, we have to be sure to find a good balance where the government can regulate issues that would result in the general good of everyone but will not be given too much power to where they can abuse it.
ReplyDeleteAbby Salmon P. 2
I feel as though for as long as I've been able to comprehend the government and its duties I've had the ideal mentioned in the article, the more Hamiltonian one, which is that sometimes there are problems big enough concerning the nation that we need to unite ourselves and act as a nation in order to solve them, not just act as a nation of individuals. Sure, the Jeffersonian perspective has served us in many ways and continues to prevail but I feel that as a nation we've outgrown that ideal; we aren't the same country that we were in the 19th century therefore it's only logical that a different ideal would dominate right now or at least needs to, that being the Hamiltonian one. Although, I don't mean to completely throw away the Jeffersonian one either, just put more emphasis on Hamilton's for right now.
ReplyDeleteScarlett Alvarez P.3
Just as many above stated, the author takes an approach within the article that also coincides with my beliefs. Our national government serves as our balance between anarchy and order. Government action and involvement in some affairs is necessary, such as with our financial state and environment. Without the enforcement of laws since Roosevelt's era we would have driven species to extinction, destroyed our environment, and hurt ourselves in the process. Since our conception as a country, we have feared a strong government taking complete control. The Articles of Confederation can serve as testament to that, where states rights were far more powerful than the national government's.
ReplyDelete-Joseph Slmani
P 2
Our national government is needed to be able to set standard laws for states but if taken too much the states will not be able to handle the laws of the national causing conflict because not all states have the same problems and some may have to change to comandate a law that does't effect them that much. When this occurs the national and the states aren't working together and they struggle to succeed in working together the author is right at parts but doesn't understand both arguments made for both sides in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAntonis P. C.
per. 2
Regarding the government, my ideals reflect those that refer to the government as “them”. A strong national government was constructed to protect the liberties of the ruled not to limit them. I am in complete opposition of the government possessing more power in order to “fix mistakes”. If more power is granted, the cycle will continue as more and more power is obtained. I do not fear tyranny, I feel as though our constitution is strong enough to prevent that issue, however I am slightly fearful of a government with holding too much power over the governed. Despite any intentions, whether pure or not, a power increasing government will undoubtedly do more harm than good. I also understand that a weak national government has been proven inefficient. Therefore, I believe it is fair to say a strong balance must be maintained.
ReplyDelete-Myana (period 3)
To maintain a successful nation, there must be power and authority given to a governing group in order to maintain structure and order. During the Gilded Age when a minimalist, uninvolved government practiced laissez-faire, the people believed that allowing corporations and the states rule themselves would benefit the nation and show the national government how trivial its role was. This mentality brought chaos to the Union and rapidly brought our country into a massive depression. On the other hand, the government cannot be limitless and able to abuse its authority and the people. We as citizens need to feel comfortable with our government and be able to trust that it will protect the liberties and opportunities of the people. We need to feel connected with our government rather than seeing it as an opposing force. Hamilton's view that the government should be referred to as "us" rather than "them" depicts the level of unity we need to reach to be able to find the outlet to a more perfect nation.
ReplyDeleteKristina Heisser period 3
From this article and my prior knowledge, I can say that I agree with the author to an extent. I understand the Jeffersonian ideals and principles and I do believe that they function in supporting the nation, but like many others I feel as though America has changed drastically since its creation, so certain changes to the government must follow suit. I am a big fan of the Hamiltonian approach. I do think that sometimes there may be too much government intervention, but in our day and age, especially since the Great Depression, America has relied on a larger, more powerful national government. Without a strong national government there would be anarchy and chaos, so government intervention is not a problem to us in the modern era.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Murad p. 2
I agree with the author in regards to a strong federal government, which has the responsibility of keeping the nation strong and together as one. Once the US changed to an industrial economy, the fear of a tyrannical government has declined and a strong government has been pushed. Our government has changed and adapted over time and states holding too much power would cause conflict between each other. This could be because of different policies that have been developed and the clashing of these policies. Of course, the national governments power should always have its limits, but I still believe it should work to make us a stronger country by being the strong core that we can build and thrive upon.
ReplyDeleteMarina Leyvas-Bruce
per. 2
Between America's two main ideologies is an ongoing debate over the necessary and proper role of government in our lives, stemming from our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson's stance on the matter is either too idealistic or too apathetic to the plight of people. It promotes a dog-eat-dog mentality and social Darwinism which holds a society back. Hamilton's support for a more active government is far more beneficial for our country as time has shown us that government power is necessary to regulate the swoonish swings of the marketplace, provide a safety net for the poor and the elderly, and protect the environment. If we work towards Hamilton's goal of viewing the government as "us" rather than "them" we will be more likely to reach a certain level of unity.
ReplyDeleteTasmia Hussain P3
since the country is so diverse theres going to be different opinions about certain issues. So I agree in having a national government to keep order, and unity . Its their job to seek and do whats best for the country as a whole.Without a national government and their interference the country will divide in opinion, so as a country we should solve our problems together.
ReplyDelete-anarika camba per2
I agree with the Hamilton way for the most part. If we want issues to be solved now, it is our best bet to go. If we keep sitting on our feet with hot issues dealing with our environment at hand, we are not ever going to get things done. We will always be waiting for the right moment to assert this national power, without stepping on anybody's toes. Although I agree with a stronger and more assertive national government, I also can see the benefits to Jefferson type of rule as well. It encourages competition, and drive. This more induvidual type approach sustains the drive for more, it supports this oh so American type determination to get ahead in the game. Although it does result in a few stepped on heads, it's a driving factor that will help push out nations limits to something greater. However if everyone is worried about themselves getting ahead, who's going to think about how us as a nation will get ahead as well? Yes this is the governments job, but for the government to really work it also needs the people to help carry out its law. The Hamilton approach, I feel, is what our nation needs at the moment. Issues such as the environment debate and the banking could be solved, but they aren't because of fear of stepping out of bounds or people thinking that, at least.
ReplyDeleteAshley Abalos per 2
I do agree that the national government be given more power, however there are many factors to worry about. Some of which include, how the people feel/think, how much power the government be given, fear of tyranny, when acts are constitutional ect. There needs to be a balance. The people cant expect the government to do everything, and the government cant just take control of everything or else the people can presume the gov't is corrupt.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lam P. 2
I do agree with the author we should have a strong national gov. The Jeffersonian idea worked in the past but today we need a gov that is going to represent and protect our people. There must be a balance in the system that keeps the gov in check. Absolute power corrupts so in short don't give all the power to the gov make sure the people of America give the power to the gov not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteDiante Lowe
P.3
I agree with the author because today is the 21st Century. We need a government that is willing to stand for us when power is given to them. We have a system of checks and balances in effect do that no one faction obtains more power than the other. Also, bicameralism is also there for a reason.
ReplyDeleteGregory Pullon
Period 5
I would agree with the author because he insists that the fear of power is preventing action. And looking back to unit 1 majority rule and decentralization of power is preventing proper actions to be taken on pressing issues. Some do believe that we need to give the government more power to take care of those pressing issues. But In Jefferson's era a stronger central government was feared because of historical evidence. If do give the government any more power than it has we could turn the United States into a unitary government. However, times have changed to a point where we have to take action and just hope that we do not give too much power to the wrong government officials. people.
ReplyDeleteImran jalal
Per. 3
PS sorry for posting it so late. I just got home 3 hours ago and I had a lot of Homework.
ReplyDeleteImran Jalal
Per. 3