Reply
Thu 5 Jun, 2008 09:49 am
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
-George Washington
discuss
@Silverchild79,
I've known this for quite some time, and have stated it myself.
@Silverchild79,
The two party system is deeply entrenched and sort of works. Washington was entitled to his opinion, but it didn't work out that way.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57683 wrote:The two party system is deeply entrenched and sort of works. Washington was entitled to his opinion, but it didn't work out that way.
Depends on your definition of 'WORKS'....
If by works you actually mean "is preventative to progress, is highly expensive, and cause corruption and useless bickering" then i would agree that a 2 party system works.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57692 wrote:Your alternative?
No political parties, each candidate runs according to his own platform and merit.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57696 wrote:No political parties, each candidate runs according to his own platform and merit.
Every man for himself, then? That's nice in theory, isn't it? I think that was, theoretically, how the Roman Republic worked, it always devolves into two or three factions forming because of alliances for power.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57700 wrote:Every man for himself, then? That's nice in theory, isn't it? I think that was, theoretically, how the Roman Republic worked, it always devolves into two or three factions forming because of alliances for power.
I think it was also the romans who first developed democracy. But of course what the hell do the romans know???
@Silverchild79,
There's no possible way to keep people with similar opinions from grouping together in any situation. It's a wonderful thought, but it just can't be done unless all sides vehemently hate each other.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57704 wrote:I think it was also the romans who first developed democracy. But of course what the hell do the romans know???
No, I think that was the Greeks.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57747 wrote:No, I think that was the Greeks.
yes, what i meant to say was 'modern democracy' with three branches of government, representatives and so forth...
It didn't work so well in their time, but somehow we managed to make it work, and we can do the same with prohibiting political parties.
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;57709 wrote:There's no possible way to keep people with similar opinions from grouping together in any situation. It's a wonderful thought, but it just can't be done unless all sides vehemently hate each other.
we should do our best to suppress and even outlaw political parties, if we can even limit their power a little bit that would be a great victory.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57760 wrote:yes, what i meant to say was 'modern democracy' with three branches of government, representatives and so forth...
It didn't work so well in their time, but somehow we managed to make it work, and we can do the same with prohibiting political parties.
The Roman Republic worked for hundreds of years before the Caesars, and that was with even more dramatic politics and different political factions than we have now. Our history is still very short in comparison, and with a relatively stable political process, we're not in danger of having an emperor any time soon. We can't say anything about the overall directon of the U.S, because we may be living in the middle or even in the earlier part of its existence.
There's probably a good case that prohibiting political parties would be unconstitutional. Even if you somehow managed to pull it off, it's the difference between de jure political parties and de facto political parties.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57766 wrote:The Roman Republic worked for hundreds of years before the Caesars, and that was with even more dramatic politics and different political factions than we have now. Our history is still very short in comparison, and with a relatively stable political process, we're not in danger of having an emperor any time soon. We can't say anything about the overall directon of the U.S, because we may be living in the middle or even in the earlier part of its existence.
well that is pretty true.
Quote:There's probably a good case that prohibiting political parties would be unconstitutional. Even if you somehow managed to pull it off, it's the difference between de jure political parties and de facto political parties.
Unconstitutional? On what grounds? Couldn't be to unconstitutional if Washington didn't like it. especially if it slows progress and becomes a breeding ground for corruption.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57774 wrote:well that is pretty true.
Unconstitutional? On what grounds? Couldn't be to unconstitutional if Washington didn't like it. especially if it slows progress and becomes a breeding ground for corruption.
Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Peaceably assemble" could mean to assemble as a political party.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57782 wrote:"Peaceably assemble" could mean to assemble as a political party.
and they can peaceably assemble.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57788 wrote:and they can peaceably assemble.
As a single political party.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;57790 wrote:As a single political party.
as long as it's outside of government.
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;57793 wrote:as long as it's outside of government.
Still, it's just the difference between de jure and de facto.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace