 |
| George Washington |
However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
George Washington, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
John Adams, letter to Jonathan Jackson, Oct. 2, 1789
(n) party, political party (an organization to gain and retain political power)
Princeton University
The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.
James Madison
The great constitutional power in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage...
Andrew Jackson
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Abraham Lincoln
Present Day:
I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans.
Barack Obama
Conservatives believe in providing Constitutional rights to our citizens...
Mitt Romney
I think that the Democratic Party and progressives have really gotten confused in getting trapped in this debate about are you liberal or are you centrist?
Barack Obama
For decades, it was an unquestionable clarity to our nation's leaders that the people held the true power in America. The idea of political parties defining government was unthinkable. Today, American Government would likely collapse if the two dominant parties ceased to exist. What has happened to "the people"? We rely on parties to manage the government for us. We don't have to, but we do.
A representative republic, in its very nature, is designed to allow varied interests a share of government. As originally conceived, these interests would be split along predominantly geographic lines. In the civil-war fallout, Regional interests and identities have been replaced with increasingly atomistic interests.
ReplyDeleteThe more we favor radical individualism, the more we'll be shuffled into BIG groups that have very little to do with who we are. Favoring an arraingment in which individual states are sovereign and have their own unique interests and the power to achieve them would be a start.
In short, as long as life is determined by one large national power, we need to do everything we can to be the one's in charge. After the civil war, the question of where the power lies was solved with powder and shot: after that question is answered, there's really no option but large national parties that are a compromise for everyone in them.
In any event, would you prefer a more mediated or more democratic method? I would personally favor more mediation filtered through voluntary and spontaneous societies like parties than by official governmental unions. One or the other. Or Athens, which may be a tough act to follow with 350 million people. If you're interested, Hamilton and Madison wrote extensively on the historical theories of representation as played out in actual societies and what their implications might be in the American context.
ReplyDeleteAh, but my preference is irrelevant ;) The fact is, the people's role has been replaced largely by organized parties. Because of the nature of the American Experiment, both preferences could be successfully advocated, and that is by design. The only "un-American" preference is to have a defined preference at all.
ReplyDeleteSo, PROPOSE something. It's very easy to say what is wrong with everything, and the original arguments for our constitutional order acknowledged the MANY weaknesses inherent in our form of government. But the argument was one based in reality and not utopianism, so other proposals were weighed and the least awful option was chosen.
ReplyDeleteYou've pointed out things you don't like, which is easy, but you still haven't proposed a reasonable way forward. Most of your complaints, you may find interesting, were anticipated by the people that advocated for this form of government. Prudence dictates that you find the least evil way forward.
It's easy to criticize but hard to construct.
This isn't a criticism though, it is an observation. We live in a country of the majority, and the majority of people chose to take a single side on the party issue. Since the purpose of the nation is to be what the people make it, we are right on track. Granted, we may not have created the story the original authors envisioned, but that does not signify a problem with a system. Any deeper complaints about the state of things would speak not to the system, but to the decisions of the majority to afford certain people or groups excessive power. Here these complaints are unwarranted, because they do not fall into the majority right now. So, I would propose to myself one of two things- Either accept that my opinions are not in line with the direction we as a people are choosing, or attempt to create a new majority based on the changes I feel are needed.
ReplyDelete