In the federalist 70, Hamilton argues that pluralism is detrimental to union of Americans i.e. it is better for Americans to remain in one united government than to have multiple sovereign governments in the America. Hamilton claims that, the executive power is very critical in running of the government. He states that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of a good government” (Alexander Hamilton, March 18, 1788). For this reason, therefore, the quality of executives determines whether the government is good or not. If the executive is feeble, it shall lead to bad executions of its mandate that culminates to a bad government. Since a powerful executive is critical in good governance, Hamilton asserts that the ingredients that determine energy in the executive are drawn from unity, duration, adequate support, and the competence in powers. In addition, in the republican senses, safety in government is determined by dependence on the people and the due responsibility. So should the executives be single or numerous? It is evident that a single nation in the United States is better than plural governments with many executive officers. It is therefore, imperative that a single person in executives is better than many executive members.
Single executive whereby power is placed in one person as opposed to numerous is energetic while the numerous approach if full of wisdom that safeguards the privileges and interests of the people. On the same note, the single person shall be able to handle matters of secrecy, decision, and dispatch better since numerous people shall have these qualities diminished. The possible challenges in the plurality are many by the fact that contradictions, even personal conflicts exist and become more often as opposed to a single system. He says that even when the people in a plural system have equal powers and privileges, “there is a peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity.” When such occurs, the authority vested on the people is weakened and the overall operations made impossible as opposed to single powerful man who does not run into such risks. The situation might be worse in the event that the government wants to response to an emergency. Moreover, the risk of splitting the public into two and possible wars is very high due to the existence of divergent opinions among the leaders. It is worth noting that consultation among the executive in plural approach is pertinent since men tend to reject things, not because they are bad, but because before the decisions are made they were not consulted. Consultations in a single approach are not as much as a threat as it is in the pluralism since a single person in authority does not take instructions from an equal person. Therefore, the consultation is limited to advice only, but not implementation.
Further, Hamilton says ‘plurality of the executive tends to deprive the people of two greatest securities-restraints to public opinion and clearness in the event of misconduct among the executive. ’Since the executive must take responsibility of all their actions, determining who takes what responsibility from among many is difficult than a single person. Investigating a single person and punishing the person legally is much easier than many people (“The federalist papers, n.d p. 322). On top of this, pluralism leads to economic burden on the part of the people. Governments are run with money that is obtained from the people. Taxation might be too high in case of pluralism since the executive has to employ people to serve in the different states. In fact, dividing America into nine states each with an executive officers means that the state employs staff at all levels that is translated to more expenditure. When the expenditure increases, the burden is directly or indirectly transferred to the citizens through taxation. With all that said, lastly, one would wonder the methods and process of uniting the many nations. The moment nations are given some degree of autonomy; the autonomy cannot bring about unity since there is a likelihood of controversy on opinions, policies, regulations, as well as some pertinent issues on the governance. In fact, the states tend to seek absolute autonomy. Unity under a single executive member, therefore, remains the best idea. Without the federal government, there cannot be unity in America (Anthony A. Peacock, n.d.).
Hamilton’s ideas are critical on the fundamental principles on which the president of the United States of America is elected. One notes with keen interest the powers vested upon the presidency in the USA. The president takes responsibility of all his actions solely and has the duty to ensure that USA remains united. These are the ideologies that Hamilton proposed against creation of pluralism since it brings in unnecessary competition among the executive members. The president makes decision based on his advisers, but not a consultation among others with equal powers. For this reason, the unity in USA is exemplary all over the world and it has remained in operation more than one hundred years. The energy, decision, and responsibility are vested upon one person, in the event of gross misconduct and failure; it would be easier to prosecute the president than many executive members.
Alexander Hamilton. “The Executive Department Further Considered.” March 18, 1788. The New York Packet. Accessed from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_70-2.html on November 25, 2014.
Anthony A. Peacock. The Federalist papers. Accessed from http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-federalist-papers on November 25, 2014.
The federalist papers. “An Electronic Classics Series Publication.” Accessed from http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf on November 25, 2014