Madison and the other Framers erected a Federal Republic organized to control populist movements and preserve the interests of the greatest stakeholders, while offering the "most liberty imaginable" in 1788. In 2016, a populist movement ascended to the commanding heights of power. How did it happen and what are the consequences when a faction comes to power? Is it a defect of the modern structure of American government? Has the U.S. Constitution reached a place where it is no longer functional? Or can Madison's Republic continue to work against popular factions rising in a common passion fired by fear and hatred? In tackling these questions, this article suggests that the U.S. Constitutional Framers did not know in 1788 what exiting the aristocratic and feudal world would mean and what kind of state and society the Republic would become. I argue Madison's contributions to The Federalist are exemplars of the engineer showing how each part of the machine fits together to achieve a comprehensive and effective whole. The national populism of the kind circulating around the Western world in 2016 has posed real challenges to that machinery.
The rise of populist leaders like Trump certainly raises issues of leadership and effectiveness. The current populist moment may be one of “Cultural Backlash,” but there is also merit in resurrecting and assessing the work of Niccolò Machiavelli in evaluating Trump’s leadership and success. Would Machiavelli, with his emphasis on a “success ethic” and a studied moral indifference, rate Trump to be a “great prince?” This article analyzes Machiavelli’s role and contemporary relevance as well as what he might say about a leader like Donald Trump. Machiavelli offers one insight into a style of leader that exposes the dangers of ignorance allied with self-interest in a nationalist pose. Also, we can visualize (with Machiavelli’s help) a modern reconsideration of the dimensions of love, hate, and fear in 21st century leadership—especially among national populist leaders. This matters politically to us all.
A critical opportunity for the abolition of capital punishment was passed in the 1970s in America. Evidence indicates that the reasons for the return of executions was not simply based on Supreme Court decisions, but propelled by a fearful reaction in American political culture to the changes wrought by the Civil Rights Movement and the turbulence of the Vietnam Era Anti-War movement. Americans demanded a visible response to their security fears as regards crime and punishment. Americans wanted more frequent and more severe punishments of those identified as perpetrator of violent crime. A second opportunity to abolish capital punishment may be emerging in the 21 st century, but will the United States make the next steps in overcoming the failure of "moral arguments" over time? Critical questions regarding the application of public ethics in America can be understood in an examination of capital punishment.
This article is part of an ongoing project of the authors to systematically compare the policy-making influence of courts in nations with disparate political systems, levels of economic development, and legal traditions. Presented herein is a two-nation comparative case study of the policy influence of the highest courts in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of India. The general research strategy begins with the premise that judicial decisions are not self-executing and therefore implementation requires the cooperation of others. Courts are forced to rely on other political actors to translate policy decisions into action. From this premise the authors reason that the degree of judicial influence in the policy process of any nation can be roughly gauged by examining the reaction of other actors who, as part of the political environment, are themselves subject to a wide range of political pressures. Using the judicial impact model of Charles A. Johnson, the authors analyze the impact of the courts on university admission policy in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the industrial disputes machinery in the Republic of India.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.