Electoral College PoV

My position on the Electoral College is it should remain as is, because it has provide stability and validity to our election process over 200 years as our founders intended under Article II, Section1, of the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended that the states , not the people, select the president and vice president. According to James Madison's Federalist Paper No.10 our government is created as a republic and not as direct or pure democracy. The Electoral College represents and maintains a federal system of government by representing both the U.S. Citizens at large and the states. (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 74-75, 702-705, 2010)

It has become interesting how some people feel their one-vote is not being acknowledge or accounted for due to the Electoral College and that the nationwide popular vote would be a fairer method to determine the election of a president. If so, then why do we need Senators and so on to represent us. If we enjoy chipping away at our constitution, are we not chipping away at our republic form of government? Is this why James Madison and other Founders feared might happen with “pure democracy” the unchecked will of the people, that could possibly cause danger to the republic? May be not if there is an amendment to the Constitution for a change and ratified by ¾ of the states; however, our founders provided a constitutional limited republic that precisely protects our fundamental liberties from whims of the masses and excesses of democracy. (USelectionatlas, 2010), (Schulman, M., 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(American Government and Politics Today, pp. 8-9, 9-10, 704-705, 2010)

The constitution has put checks on a national level on political power, the three branches of government and on the will of the people. It also has divided the power between states and the national government in order to preserve the rights of the people. The Founders took great strides to separate powers in order to prevent popular majorities. Direct elections for a presidential election sounds more like an unchecked “majority rule” concept. How will this change in the one-person-one-vote affect the states' participation in the election of the president? (American Government and Politics Today, pp. 704-705, 2010)( Jacoby, J., 2008)(Heritage.org, 2004)

The Electoral College electors provide representation to both the states and their citizens. The number of electors is proportion to the state's population which is equal to the state's members in the House plus two Senators. Will the abolishing of the Electoral College also rid the Senate and its representation? With direct elections, then how will we address fraudulent activity in the voting process that sometimes shows up or situation where a recount of votes is needed or where there is a close/tie election? The Electoral College is capable in taking steps in order to correct and monitor these problems that may arrive. For any fraudulent activity, the response of the electoral college is to confine the problem and take action on a particular state or handful of states where the fraudulent or questionable activity has happened such as the case in Florida in the 2000 election. In case of a close popular election, it is possible that the candidate may not be elected due to the weight of dispersing of the electoral votes for the other candidate. This depends on the candidate's popularity is condensed to a few states verses a variety of states in both popular and electoral votes. Steps taken by the electoral college is as such, if one candidate has a substantial range of popular votes on the whole, this usually means a given win; a close vote between two candidates, the election defaults will usually go to the candidate with the widely distributed majority of electoral votes. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority than the election defaults to the US House of Representatives, then the winning President-Elect must have enough supportive popular votes and sufficient elective votes. (Ross, T., 2004), (Jacoby, J., 2008), (USelectionatlas.org, 2010)

The Electoral Colleges has already integrated steps to maintain integrity to the presidential elections per William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration which are the following: contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, enhances the status of minority interest because the belief is even small number of minorities in a state can be influential in the outcome of the State's electoral votes in the difference in winning or not, contributes to political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and maintains a federal system of government and representation. (Kimberling, W.C., 2010)

I believe 270 of the 538 electoral votes is an excellent way to win the oval office. The Electoral College has held its position for over 200+ years in this diverse social, ethnic, complex nation of ours. According to Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 68, “. . . if the manner is not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (Constitution, 2010)


References
Anonymous. (2010). The Pro's and Con's of the Electoral College System
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from USelectionatlas website
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Schulman, M. (2010). Why Was the Electoral College Created?
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Historycentral website
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Jacoby, J. (2008, July 16). The Brilliance of the Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Boston website
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/07/16/the_brilliance_of_the_electoral_college/

Kimberling, W.C. (2010). The Electoral College
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Heritage Foundation website
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/fecmemo.asp

Anonymous. (2010). Federalist Paper 68: The Mode of Electing the President
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

Ross, T. (2004, November 1). Executive Summary: The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy
Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Constitution website
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/11/Executive-SummaryThe-Electoral-College-Enlightened-Democracy

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Direct Democracy as a Model"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp 8-9) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Dangers of Direct Democracy"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 9-10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "A Democratic Republic"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pg 10) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Majoritarianism"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 11-12) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Working Toward Final Agreement"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 50) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Article II - Executive Branch"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 74-75) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "The Electoral College"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 336-339) USA:
Course Technology.

Schmidt, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Bardes, B.A. (Ed.). (2010). "Federalist Papers No. 10"
American Government and Politics Today 2010 Edition. (pp. 702-705) USA:
Course Technology.

Tea Party

Our First Amendment has given United States' citizens the right to a 'peaceful assembly' and 'freedom' to speak out about issues in our government, society, laws, etc. in order to promote change or support. One influential group that will be reviewed in this paper is a newly formed group call the Tea Party. In the following paragraphs I well address the Tea Party's goals, their strategies in reaching their goals, and conclude if they have been successful or not in meeting those goals. (American Government and Politics Today, 124,136-43, 2010)

The tea party is a decentralized grass-roots group of people who didn't like what was going on in Washington. These people come from all walks of life, every race, every religion, every political view, such as Democratic, Republican, libertarian or Independent and are scattered throughout the 50 states of America. All these Americans that make-up the tea parties are like-minded and believe that our government should be fiscally responsible, Constitutionally limited, and favor that our economy rely on the free market concept (see exhibit A and B in the Ref pg.). The Tea Party is structurally composed of five separate national groups extending into local level Tea Parties. These groups network with each other and stand together to form a movement to save the republic. At present, there are five national groups which are the following: 9-12 project, Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Express, and Freedom Works. Along with the local Tea Parties, they are all non-partisan organizations, who are supporters of the Constitution, use peaceful endeavors and are non-racial. Anyone who promotes racism or violence is immediately denounced and asked to leave the organization. (9-12 Project, 2010) (GeorgiaTeaPartyPatriots, 2010)

Tea parties have penetrated America by using many communicational vehicles. They promote their likeminded message through word of mouth, the Internet, local newspapers, Fox News, some local and national news organizations and press, message boards, conventions, conservative radio talk hosts, and gatherings. There are some tea parties that develop a caravan and go state-to-state to rally. There seems to be a never-ending flow of exposure and the use of multiple avenues to express their message of fiscally responsible government that is constitutionally limited and the belief of economic growth through the free market. Some of the public who are also discontented with the government, like their message and also believe “We the people'' have a voice and want change, but without government intrusiveness on their 'Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'. (libertarian party, 2010)

The big question is how successful have the Tea Parties been in meeting their goals. Time, perseverance and patience is working for them. At the present time, it is unknown in how successful they will be in their endeavors. The Tea Party have receive the attention of Senator Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who now acts as chairman for the Tea Party caucus. This is a good start that someone in government is listening to them and is used as a conduit for the flow of information from the Tea Party to congress. The Tea Parties are an educated group of people who read, study and learn about the constitution and our founders and continue to enrich their data bank through further resources about government in general. This provides them with armor to promote their cause. Membership is growing. According to DesertConservative.com, Tea Party News on 07/15/2010, an article states per Winston Group polling (april 1, 2010) that there are 49 million active members in the Tea Party movement. Per a Rasmussen polling (June 2, 2010), 149 + million people believe that the Tea Party movement is a good thing for America. (.msnbc.msn.com, 2010)(Foxnews, 2010)( Desertconservative, 2010)

To agree or disagree with the Tea Party ideology, I can only conclude that the Tea Parties are making their mark as an influential political interest group. So far, the midterm elections have nominated four candidates backed by the Tea Parties, who are the following: Rand Paul

Kentucky GOP Senate candidate, Sharon Angle Nevada's Republican Senate candidate, Mike Lee Utah Republican Senate nomination, and South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Sharon Angle. How much impact they will have in the future, only time will tell, perhaps sooner than later, the November 2, 2010 elections may give some insight. (abcgo.com, 2010)

References
Anonymous. (2010, August, 15). Tea Party News
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Desertconservative website
http://www.desertconservative.com/2010/07/15/tea-party-news-7152010/
Anonymous. (2010, August, 15). Georgia Tea Party Patriots
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Georgeteapartypatroits website
http://georgiateapartypatriots.com/wordpress/
Russert, L. (2010, July, 20). Bachmann chaired tea party caucus
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from MSN website
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/20/4717296-bachmann-chaired-tea-party-caucus-holds-first-meeting-tomorrow
Pergram, C. (2010, July, 19). House Gives Bachmann okay to form tea party caucus
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Fox News website
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/house-gives-bachmann-okay-form-tea-party-caucus/
Tymann, J. (2009, March 28). Guest Commentary Tea Parties are only Beginning
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Naplesnews website
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/mar/28/guest-commentary-tea-parties-are-only-beginning-na/
Anonymous. (2010). The 9-12 Project
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Fox News website
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/

Anonymous. (2010). Libertarian Party, Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from Libertarian Party website
http://lp.org
Khan, H. (2010, July, 15). Tea Party Influence November mid-term elections
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from ABCNews website
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-time-influence-november-mid-term-elections/story?id=11165237
Bardes, B.A., Shelley, M.C., Schmidt, S.W. (Ed.). (2010). "Chapter 4"
American Politics in Government, 2010 Edition. (pp. 124, 136-43) USA:
Course Technology.

Jeffersonian democracy

Dear Thomas Jefferson,

I want to thank you on the Jeffersonian democracy, because you really put a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. I support your ideal vision of governing in a lightly and promoting self-reliance and virtue. You said there must be a representative democracy to help the state, yet resist corruption. The federal government can't violate the rights of individuals or rights of the states. I think the freedom of speech and the freedom of press was a good method to keep the government in check. Alien and Sedition Acts was one act where you denounced it as a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights which deals with free speech. You also used the Tenth Amendment to argued that the federal government has overstepped it's bounds by exerting it's undedicated power. This federalist act became a thorn to its own party; whereby, you defeated the federalists and became the 3rd President of the United States. Your pardon to those people who fell victims under the Aliens and Sedition Acts was justly and honorable. (ourdocuments.com, 2010)(wordpress, 2010)(answers.com, 2010)

Your belief that an economic system should give people the right to work. Since your presidency of March 4, 1801, I am impressed with your endeavors to create peace, equality, and individual freedom. You restored the freedom of press, and gave the aliens opportunity to become citizens after five years of nationalization. Your efforts to reduce the debt by abolishing all internal taxation including the liquor tax. Best of all, you promoted fiscal responsibility by reducing governmental powers. I thank you for your service in the House of Burgesses. I thank you for your written paper " A Summary View of the Rights of British America," explaining that Great Britain couldn't legislate America. The King of England taxed the heck out of Americans and severely handicapping citizen rights. Your way ended the Federalist party rule, integrated it into the United States creating federal government, and split the Republicans from the Democrat-Republican. I thank you for heading the purchase of Louisiana. I liked how even when the Federalist John Adams was defeated, you peacefully transferred power of the oval office. You made great strides on how to maintain Congress with insurgencies from the Federalist Party. You did a great job revising the Virginia Constitution. Sadly, you had to give order to American ships which were in the middle of the Napoleon Wars to retreat. Thank you for avoiding the 1798 XYZ affair with France so US didn't bankrupt itself going to war at that time. (monticello, 2010)(answers.com)(USMilitaryHistoryCompanion, 2010 [answers])

You supported the Lewis and Clark expedition into the west in 1803. I thank you with trying to maintain United States neutrality in the Napoleon Wars in before 1812. I believe the Library of Congress thanks you for the collection of books that you donated in your last 17 years. I thank you for designing the University of Virginia buildings, doing the buildings. I thank you for drafting the Declaration of Independence. (notablebiographies,2010)

You will always be remembered for the Declaration of Independence and A Summary View of the Rights of British America.

judicial branch

It is an exciting time to be studying government and politics. Since the writing of the Constitution in 1787, our government has been divided in 3 separate branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Our fore fathers developed these 3 separate branches in order to maintain a strong and fair national government while protecting the individual freedoms and to prevent the government from abusing its powers. In other words, to maintain check and balances in the government. For the purpose of this paper, I will be narrowing-in on the judicial branch which I consider a very essential and interesting part of the government.

Judges of the judicial branch are appointed only by the president and confirmed by the senate. This is unlike members of the executive and legislative branch who are elected by the people. The judicial branch is established under Article III of the Constitution; whereby, the structure of the judicial branch is formed by the Congress of the United States. The Constitution does not include the number supreme court justices, the number of justices is only specified by Congress. At present there are eight associate justices and one chief justice. The members of the Supreme Court and federal court have no term limits. They adjudicate until they retire, or die, or have a conviction by the Senate. This designated term is to protect the justices from the liability of political views and whims of the day and also allows them to interpret laws only according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and all their decisions are final and cannot be overturned by lower courts. The lower courts are 12 Courts of Appeals, 94 district courts in 50 states and federal courts that are located in larger cities. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

Federal courts take cases that involve the federal government and its officials or cases where state courts are inappropriate, such as bankruptcy cases. Federal courts may also hear cases where the citizens of the United States are affected by foreign relations or cases that involve laws created by the Constitution, Congress, treaties, and navigational waters depending on the case. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

Although the Supreme Court reviews a small number of cases each year, their main purpose is to oversee the United States court system. The supreme court interprets the law and decides if the law is relevant or not to a particular case; in which case, the supreme court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional or whether or not something is permitted under the Constitution. Again, as previously mentioned, the Supreme Court ruling is final. As far as check and balances, if Congress does not like a Supreme Court decision, they can introduce a new piece of legislation; whereby, the process may start all over again. If a law that has been passed by Congress and people have considered it unfair, they may test it through the court system in order to rectify the law. (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)

The Supreme Court truly has a role in our government of the United States and guardian to our Constitution . It's been 223 years to be exact since our constitution has been written for the purpose of maintaining our fundamental values of liberty, order, equality , property, security, and freedom for all. It just like the pledge I spoke when I was young: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag / of the United States of America, / and to the Republic for which it stands, / one Nation under God, indivisible, / With Liberty and Justice for all." (lectlaw, 2010)(factmonster, 2010)(Cornell, 2010)



References

Anonymous. (2010). Article III Courts

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from Lectlaw website

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a149.htm

Anonymous. (2010). Checks and Balances

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from factmonster website

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0777009.html

Anonymous. (2010). Three Branches of Government

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from factmonster website

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774837.html

Anonymous. (2010). Current US Supreme Court Justices

Retrieved July 11, 2010, from Cornell University website

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/fullcourt.html

Aristotle vs. Confucius

Aristotle and Confucius are two very great philosophers. This paper will analyze how each of them balances freedom and obligation in a political state. Even though Aristotle and Confucius are different philosophers, their viewpoints are very important and both are valued because there is not one right balance regarding freedom and obligation in the political state. Aristotle and Confucius are both great philosophers who offered valuable insight and each of them balanced freedom and obligation in the political state in different (but very useful) ways.

Before we dig into the political state specifically, it is important to recognize how Aristotle and Confucius were not only as philosophers, but as men and general human beings in the world around them. Confucius was a great philosopher who believed that humans are superior and cherish that desire to be good and perfect. Confucius says many things in passages and is inspirational yet today. How many times have you heard the term “Confucius says” in quotes? They are all over the place. One example of this as stated by Confucius (n.d) is:

                The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in   a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does            not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and        all their clans are preserved.  

It is important to look at how these two great philosophers compare and contrast with one another. A big aspect in philosophy is virtue. When one has virtue, they show that they have high standards in their morals that they carry with them. It’s very important to have good morals and ethics in everything we do, everyday. People look at us based upon these; they remember us based on how we carry ourselves and how we treat others. You will see in this research that a lot of what Aristotle and Confucius focus on are relationships. This is one area that Aristotle and Confucius agree on. “Taking Aristotelian and Confucian ethics as mirrors for each other leads us to reflect upon the traditional roots of both ethics, to examine their otherwise unexamined presuppositions, and to generate alternative perspectives to determine why each side proceeds in the way it does.” (Yu; 2007)

Aristotle, one of my favorites, was also a great man and philosopher. His quotes have lived on every day in inspiration and motivation. The reason why Aristotle is my favorite is because he was very straightforward. He claimed that everything we do has an end – but isn’t it true? This doesn’t necessarily mean for an actual end, but rather for a purpose. Everything we do in life has a purpose; I really believe that, as did Aristotle. One of his main focuses was logic. His objective was to “come up with a universal process of reasoning that would allow man to learn every conceivable thing about reality.” (Aristotle; 2004) The initial process involved describing objects based on their characteristics, states of being and actions. Aristotle had a major influence on Western thought and social sciences. His teacher, Plato (also widely known) had a big influence on him as well.

The way that Aristotle and Confucius balanced freedom in a political state says a lot about the two philosophers. Aristotle’s balance of freedom in a public state is quite inspirational. He’s got a wide range of respect to the public life. Aristotle believed that the public life was needed to balance common good of the world. He believed humans need to flourish upon others and be free with the world. He was very much concerned with the common good of the whole rather than just one in particular thing. Aristotle defined the human being as a “zoon politikon,

a social animal, requiring a politikon bion or public life so that each individual realizes his or her existence to its full meaning by fully functioning within the public community.” (Critchley; 1995) Looking at this definition from Aristotle, we can begin to understand because our community around is the foundation in which we survive and interact with others. If we as humans didn’t have this in our everyday lives, what would happen? We would be lonely, confined individuals with no social lives.

Confucius had a conservative view on the world and the social relationships of freedom. Perhaps what he thought is that the social interactions and behaviors of humans were their own pathways to freedom and that human actions and self awareness played an important factor. Confucius in regards to politics has a lot of ties with the Chinese culture in that he played a large part with Chinese scholars such as Jiang Qing. Qing was a leading scholar in China and worked for a restoration of Confucianism as the state ideology.  Eberlein (2008) stated the following:

Democracy is Westernized and imperfect in nature, Jiang Qing points out. If applied to       China, a western style democratic system would have only one legitimacy – popular will,        or civil legitimacy. Such uni-legitimacy operates on the quantity of votes, regardless of           the moral implications of decisions taken. Since human desire is selfish by nature, those            decisions can be self serving for a particular majority's interest. Because of this, Jiang             Qing argues, civil legitimacy alone is not sufficient to build or keep a constructive social      order.

The reason why I used this excerpt is because it tells so much about Confucius’s background with the Chinese scholar and the mindset of human decisions and desire. Another way that Confucius embraces freedom in political thought is through nature. Freedom is often times seen as the expression of nature, thus leading us to human nature.

When it comes to balancing obligation in a political state, this is where it gets tricky with Aristotle. It may not be a secret that he questions the obligation in politics and that there are many issues behind it. Aristotle didn’t focus as much on obligation, which Confucius believed that we all had obligation to do something, to be something – every human had their own duties. Aristotle looks at political self authority and obligation as two in them- selves. When referring to obligation, we think of something that someone has to do, right? Aristotle has a lot to do with the common good which I think is important to mention here, not just about what it is, but how it has a big place in the role of our society today. This concept was developed by Aristotle, Plato and Ciero but more recently is defined as conditions that are equally to everyone’s advantage. This sounds nice, doesn’t it? Another concept that Aristotle focused on was the Golden Mean. Since Aristotle didn’t focus much on obligations, he focused more on development and character. A couple examples in the way that he portrayed this are: “justice is a mean between getting or giving too much and getting or giving too little. Benevolence is a mean between giving to people who don’t deserve it and not giving to anyone at all. Aristotle is not recommending that one should be moderate in all things, since one should at all times exercise the virtues.”

When thinking of obligation in the world, the concept of common good seems refreshing. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include “an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning.” (Velasquex; 2012)

Confucius looked at obligation in the political state widely and it seemed as though there was a bigger weight on obligations of the ruled, rather than the obligations of the ruler himself. Confucianism on one end accepts all values of behavior in human relationships and interactions, which involved certain roles and obligations. What this means is that each person should know what their role is, everyone has a part to play and that is their personal obligation. Confucianism can even go as far obligation in the society in interacting with strangers… meaning that one should do right just because we are all human beings. You can begin to see how Confucius thought of obligations in the political state because everyone must do their part and fulfill their own duties.

Some have even argued that Confucianism was never political to begin with. Perhaps it was just an extremely intense thought that should take place over all other social relations. Fukuyama (1995) states:

Confucianism builds a well-ordered society from the ground up rather than the top down,   stressing the moral obligations of family life as the basic building block of society.          Beyond the traditional Chinese family, or jia, are lineages and larger kinship groups; the          state and other political authorities are seen as a kind of family of families that unites all Chinese into a single social entity.

This is all very interesting because when looking at obligation in political thought, everything that you come upon is about family, relationships, social interactions, etc. It is very evident that Confucius basis his thoughts around this important structure of society.

As we can see, Aristotle and Confucius were very, very inspirational and smart philosophers. Not just philosophically speaking, but they were great men beyond that as we can see in research. Even though Aristotle and Confucius are different philosophers, their viewpoints are very important and both are valued because there is not one right balance regarding freedom and obligation in the political state. The way that they felt on freedom and obligation in a political state is different than it is today. Today, people like to blame things on others and make it not be their problem. There are so many times in our days where people don’t want to get in trouble so they would rather get others in trouble by “passing the buck” so they call it.

I feel that people think they can pass their obligations on to others and it is okay. Perhaps they haven’t learned nearly enough about the thought processes of great philosophers such as Aristotle and Confucius, including many others, who believe that human beings and social interaction and doing the right thing are amongst the most beneficial aspects of life. Of course we believe in freedom but there are still people who try to take that from others.

Although I have read about many philosophers, I am so glad that I got the chance to dig deeper and analyze Aristotle and Confucius as men and philosophers. Aristotle and Confucius truly cared about doing what is right for each other as well as in the world itself. Between Aristotle’s ethics and Confucius’s great teachings, these two philosophers also had a great focus on friendship as well, which really hit me because I feel that life and friendship tie into many of the things that we have learned about these two men and their views on obligation and freedom.

These two men, who lived approximately two centuries apart from each other, had many similarities and differences but all in all they were both “equally as concerned with the moral character of individuals and the application of ethics in political life.” (Mealing; 2008) These two did have some contrasts with one another such as views on impartialism of utilitarianism and Kantianism; Whereas for Confucius the state is the family writ large, Yu contends that for Aristotle the family is subordinate to the state, since the state's aim is 'the highest of all."(Gier; 2007) Looking at Aristotle and Confucius and comparing and contrasting these two men was a great learning for me because I used to think politics was just that – politics: presidents and voting, debates and so on. Politics has a completely new meaning to me.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (2004) “Definition of Happiness” Pursuit of Happiness; Retrieved from: http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/

Aristotle (2013) “Synopsis” The Biography Channel website; Retrieved from:          

            http://www.biography.com/people/aristotle-9188415?page=1

Confucius (n.d) “Quotations by Author” The Quotations Page; Retrieved from:             http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Confucius/

Critchley, Peter Dr (1995) “Aristotle and the Public Good” Academia; Retrieved from:             http://www.academia.edu/705315/Aristotle_and_the_Public_Good

Eberlein, Xujun (2008) “Political Confucianism as State Ideology” Global Voices Online; Retrieved from: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/02/05/china-the-coming-of-age-of-          political-confucianism/

Fukuyama, Francis (1995) “Confucianism and Democracy” John Hopkins University Press;                      Retrieved from: http://www.unc.edu/~wangc/Francis%20Fukuyama%20-        %20Confucianism%20and%20Democracy%20%20Journal%20of%20Democracy%2062.        htm

Gier, Nicholas (2007) “Review of Jiyuan Yu’s The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of   Virtue” University of Idaho; Retrieved from:       http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/yureview.htm

Mealing, Paul (2008) “Aristotle, Confucius, Ethics and Happiness” Journeyman Philosopher        Blog Spot; Retrieved from: http://journeymanphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/05/aristotle-        confucius-ethics-and.html

Velasquez, Manuel (2012) “The Common Good” Santa Clara University; Retrieved from:             http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html

Yu, Jiyuan (2007) “The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue” Notre Dame           Philosophical Reviews; Retrieved from: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23423-the-ethics-of-      confucius-and-aristotle-mirrors-of-virtue/