Blog Post #6

Many of the points made in Federalist Papers #10 and 51 remain applicable to our modern system of government with only minor changes made in name and standards. In Madison and Hamilton's day, the conversation of governance was only accessible to white males. This lack of inclusion within the sphere of politics prevented any form of discussion on privilege, race, and gender to come to fruition. During their time, civil liberties were a question of federal vs. state rights, not of minority rights, immigration reform, or the abolishment of slavery and later segregation. 

Social media has brought more complex issues to the forefront of our discussions in daily life and politics. Contributing to these critical conversations has become more commonplace with the advancement of social media. Apps such as Twitter and Reddit allow individuals to advocate for their beliefs and often debate with those of differing opinions. Social media enables individuals from all racial, sexual, and socioeconomic backgrounds to voice their opinions. In terms of political engagement, social media has created a more intimate relationship between politicians and their constituents. Updates are given in real-time, allowing politicians to publicize their work and more often in today's political climate, come to odds with those they don't agree with. This instant connection to political figures and ideas often offers authority figures the opportunity to manipulate mass numbers of people within seconds. Trump, for example, can whip his fanbase into a frenzy a minute after something critical is said of him on CNN or MSNBC. These deceptive qualities of social media often play to the corrupt system that is warned against in the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton argued the necessity of checks and balances to ensure a legitimate government, as they recognized that man is inherently greedy and corrupt. This system they advocated for hundreds of years ago remains intact today, but the growth of social media has more often damaged it then helped it. A lot of my argument stems from political issues of the past three years as a particular administration has taken full advantage of social media to push policy. Trump's use of Twitter often breaks the boundaries set by the checks and balances system. His tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has consisted of using social media to pressure fellow Republicans to fall in with the party line. Polarization of partisan politics (or factions) has become commonplace, and the corruption so advocated against in the Federalist Papers is the new norm. For example, during the Kavanaugh hearings, Trump made use of his social media platform and power over delegates to ensure that popular opinion remained on his side. Using social media to manipulate the balance of power in politics is one of Trump's main tactics, as he knows how to appeal to his voter base. Public perception within social media is a significant determinant in today's political climate. In doing so, Trump is able to further his agenda through this now corrupt system and place a frankly disgusting candidate on the Supreme Court roster. 

Obviously, Madison and Hamilton could not have predicted or accounted for the rise of technology and the later creation of social media. They were raised in the age of newspapers and bar debates being the main form of political and social discussions. Participation required that you be a white male, and any other individual's opinion was disregarded. When discussing the applicability of the Federalist Papers today, it is essential to bring into the context with which it was written. During that time, African Americans were considered a piece of property, and women were primarily relegated to housemaids. In today's society,  members of minority groups can voice their opinion and work to better our political systems. The federalist papers are, for the most part, applicable to today's society, but would need to be re-evaluated in the context of factionalism. Factions still exist today, but they do not follow the same rules of early American history. While they follow the polarization pattern set by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, they are based on entirely different sets of issues and participants.