The fact that Madison felt you cannot deal with the causes of special interests because it would violate rights, could be considered precedence for outlawing restrictions on insurance due to pre-existing conditions. When he says, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man, and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. “ He is recognizing that the purpose of government is to improve life for people, and people are animals who come from nature and therefore make decisions that are not always logical and well thought out. If we are going to have services set in place to assist with those problems and hold our communities together, then we need to be sensitive and appreciative of that fact. Being a community or a nation means embracing the nature of those around you. If you don’t it could be argued that are basically saying, “I love America, but I only love certain Americans.” Everyone is flawed, has special circumstances that distinguish them from everyone else and sees the world in different ways. To have government dedicated to protecting the rights and improving the lives of those people, we need to celebrate our differences as well as our common goals. Part of doing that means accepting that once in a while someone will need help from his or her country and seeing that much of the time, we don’t need more than that to go on. Especially since every single president we have ever elected would not have been elected had they not made it clear that they are devout Christians. I understand there is a separation of church and state but the reality is that our leader being a Christian in very important to much of the country. The least we could is act like it.

Another quote of Madison’s I found interesting reads, “The smaller the society, the fewer probability will be the distinct parties and interests composing it, the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority and the smaller the compass within which they are placed the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.” What he means by this is that a larger nation will be safer from oppression by a corrupt government because a smaller group is more easily distracted and fooled into thinking the same way and obeying. The diverse and complex a nation is, the less like people are to see everything the same way. Different factions means different ways of seeing the world which means different interpretations of right and wrong. He is also saying that when a small group comes to a majority decision, the lack of diversity means no other party has a significant say which means that new ideas are crushed before they even recognized as ideas which is historically and intellectually dangerous. I have mixed feeling about this idea because on one hand I have always felt that the root of many of our problems as a nation is that we are so big. This country is so diverse in its people as well as its way of life, landscape and climate. It is also just geographically very big so there is a lot of space to govern as well. Pleasing everyone is impossible. No matter what decision is reached by a majority, there are going to be a hundred small groups or subcultures (which arose from the different types of diversity of this land) whose toes are being stepped on by that decision. On the other hand, a smaller group will be more likely to fall into some type of mob mentality. A smaller population could mean that an oppressive government can more easily regulate what information is getting out, squash a revolution therefore having less fear of corruption being found out and more easily distract the people from real issues by appealing to simpler list of sensibilities.