Am i a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

The title Anti-Federalism often carries negative connotations because it is equated to simply disagreeing with the Constitution. I believe Anti-Federalism has been given a bad name, and Anti-Federalists and are proponents of simplifying and changing laws for the public to engage in politics, they're not simply against or anti the federal government. I support a strong yet flexible and progressive Congress, but I believe that a big government under one president is too easily corrupted, and makes it too difficult for citizens to participate in the law. One president in control of all branches of the government creates an excessively nationalistic government and distracts from the rights of the people.

Brutus argues that in a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar…if not, there will be a constant clashing of opinions and the representatives of one part will be constantly striving against the other. (Brutus 1) I agree with this argument of Brutus, a republic should be made up of a small group of like-minded people but diversity of opinion beneficial to the success of a federal government, when these differing opinions are utilized properly. Brutus pondered the concept of the federal government overriding state laws for purposes of promoting the general welfare of the nation. Again, this concept leaves much too much room for the abuse of power unto the citizens, and strips the autonomy from the states, especially regarding the protection of individual rights.

Brutus No. 1 directly responds to the 10th Federalist Paper, written by James Madison. Madison begins the Federalist Paper No. 10 by asserting that the strongest argument in favor of the constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. (Madison 1) Factions are defined as groups of people who gather together to protect their similar economic and political interests. He believes that these factions disagree, they all have a similar goal of working against the public's interest and infringing on the rights of non-faction people.

I believe that factions are inevitable. People will always hold differing opinions, have different walks of life, and will continue to best work with people that are most similar to them. Factions are good and necessary for society except when they are based upon inequality. Factions based on landowners separate from the poor will not help a society, these examples are an abuse of the idea of a faction. State governments must work to protect the conflicting interests of property owners, but also must alleviate conflicts of those with and without property. I again disagree with Madison on this issue, because a state government possesses the proximity to properly solve these inequalities in a much more concise way. Madison believes that the only ways to control a faction are to remove its causes and to control its effects. (Madison 4) To remove the causes of a faction is impossible, to do this is to destroy liberty and to force opinions unto citizens. Factions are part of the nature of people and we need to accept them.

I assert myself as an Anti-Federalist, not simply as an excuse to disagree with the Constitution, but on a basis of morals and an appreciation for independence. This country is extremely diverse and thrives on the experiences of people from many different backgrounds. Because of this, I believe in the strength and autonomy of state governments and independent factions to concisely focus on the rights of its citizens in a way that the federal government cannot.

Cite this page