The wrong side of history, again?

You and Frank Apisa should get together and take your show on the road.

I believe the previous poster intended to exemplify how faulty the liberal ideology has been throughout history--a horse and pony show you'd surely plop $20 bucks down for....

That is why I suggested he and Frank Apisa, who has consistantly stated he believes conservatives have been on the wrong side of history again and again.

At the beginning of our Constitutional history, the general accord was that partisan politics was a great evil. George Washington was strongly against the development of parties, and warned the nation against them in his Farewell Address (largely written by Hamilton). Washington tried very hard to include in his cabinet the very best men he knew of, regardless of their political philosophy. He included Jefferson, though Jefferson was an anti-federalist who generally opposed the Constitution as it was adopted (thought it gave far too much power to the government and not enough to the masses). The result of Washington's good intentions and idealism was that the Cabinet was almost always working against itself and the President's policies. Jefferson used his position to lay the foundations for a party closer to his own philosophical leanings.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were as critical of the Federalists and their administration, as anything we see in modern politics. Out right lies and scurrilous innuendo were common. Jefferson's partisans accused Washington and Adams of selling out the Constitution, and of planning to establish a monarchy along the lines of Britain. The Jeffersonian party favored the French Revolution and downplayed the blood bath it had become. President Adams, always a sensitive soul, was outraged at the unfair attacks and a Federalist dominated Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Basically, the Sedition Act required that criticisms of the government and public officials be truthful. It didn't work out that way. The Jeffersonians stepped up their rhetoric and accused the Federalists of violating the Bill of Rights. There was truth in the accusation, and Federalists did use the Act to punish and attempt silencing the opposition. The accusations that the Federalists were arrogant and patronizing to the body politic stuck, and the partisanship battles became ever more bitter.

Jefferson won the election when Hamilton split the Federalists by working against President Adams. The Federalists were suddenly "out", and their mortal enemies were "in". Political maneuvers were attempted to avoid turning the government over to the Democratic-Republicans because it was feared, with some justification, that they would destroy everything positive that had come from the Federalist administrations. Jefferson did reduce the army to little more than a palace guard, and the navy to a few gunboats unable to protect our shores. He tried to eliminate West Point. He shifted American Alliance from Britain to France during the Napoleonic Wars, and turned a blind-eye to French faults. He greatly restricted American trade, and precipitated the first Great Depression. During his second term, Jefferson pursued a personal vendetta against Aaron Burr turning the full force of the Federal government against a single citizen. Jefferson, like the Federalists before him, believed that there should only be one party in the nation … his own. As you might guess, I have no great love for Thomas Jefferson, or his blatant appeal to the emotions of those who disliked having a centralized government.

And so it has been ever since. The party in power claims a mandate and calls for consensus. Those who fail to win election, complain that the nation is going to hell in a hand-basket, and that the scoundrels in office are plotting the downfall of the Republic. Both sides claim that their political philosophy is the best, the only, true means of guaranteeing liberty. Both sides campaign hard, and push the envelope of what is legal. Both sides are directed primarily by a relatively small number of very zealous partisans, True Believers in the extremes of their political policies. Though we have been complaining about the nature of the political landscape of the country for over two hundred years, it hasn't really changed much. As Washington warned, partisanship is a nasty danger to the tranquility of the nation.

However, partisan politics is an important element in preserving liberty and the Constitution. The party in power needs opposition. No single political philosophy is so perfect that it can be left unchallenged. Those who guide the country need to know that there is an alternative to their policies. Go too far, disregard too much the popular notion of what is just, right and proper and you will lose to the opposition party. Fail to deal effectively with problems facing the nation, and someone else will take office. Opposition parties are a part of the balancing act we do to constrain any single person, or group from gaining too much power, or from holding one to political power that does not reflect the will of the People.

We now live in a time when there are great challenges to the nation. We are facing a demographic shift in age cohorts from the very young to the very old. The business world has to adjust to open markets and new technologies where the profit/loss equation is bound to disrupt many lives. We are the target of a determined and fanatical group of international terrorists who are willing to die to destroy our system of government. We did not seek world-leadership, but out of the rubble of WWII there was no one else who could oppose the Soviet dream of imposing a worldwide dictatorship. We rebuilt the ruins of our enemies, and we paid the costs of blocking every Soviet attempt to expand their empire. In the course of the Cold War we became rich and militarily powerful. When the USSR finally collapsed in defeat, the world gave a sigh of relief and dreamed of eternal peace and the end of war. The world was tired of war, and Americans were more interested in self-actualization, personal pleasure, and material gain. We cut our intelligence services and military forces as un-necessary expenses. We had not seek it, but we were virtually the sole heirs of world power and wealth. There was, and is the danger of hubris.

During the last two Presidential elections the depth of partisan antipathy have been especially troubling to many. On one side there are those who generally believe that all wars and violence are wrong and not morally defensible. They generally believe that federal government social programs are the answer to every social problem from juvenile delinquency to what goes on behind closed doors. They seem to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy in the opposition to overturn the Constitution. Their suspicion of the national leadership causes them to believe in the most outrageous contentions of our enemy's propaganda. They tend to appeal to the elites, and to those who believe that they have personal grievances against the United States. We see and hear from them every day on these threads. They are mostly sincere people, idealists whose stated goals of world peace, full equality and redistribution of wealth have wide appeal. They tend to be simple in outlook, but willing to believe in the most complex and unlikely conspiracies.

The extreme partisans of the right wing are almost as foolish. The Democrats aren't likely to go away, and there are decided problems with a world ruled more by profit and loss than by ethics. Increased national debt is a problem, even if it is necessary at this time. BTW, the last time the nation was free of debt was during the administration of Andrew Jackson. Republican pork barrel stinks just as bad as the Democratic slops. Often the extreme partisans of the right may be racist, or self-serving. Supporting business does put money into the pockets of some at the expense of others. Lobbyists present a potential danger of corruption to both parties. Working to secure the safety of American citizens does present a danger to our civil liberties, at least in the short term. The use of our troops on foreign soil will result in the loss of lives, both military and civilian. To the Conservatives, those risks are necessary. To the partisans of Liberalism, no risk to life is acceptable no matter what the ultimate consequence might be

Excellent post, as usual, Asherman.

Re: The wrong side of history, again?


You're not alone in that opinion. Check this story out:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050201.shtml

i really enjoyed reading your post, asherman. world is not black and white, and there are many both republicans and liberals that would fall inbetween - neither on the right, nor on the wrong side of history.