George Washington’s farewell address concerning political parties. Was he right?
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
John Adams said:
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.
I totally agree. All too often, political discourse becomes, "But he's a Democrat!" or "But she's a Republican." Further, those in charge of the parties rarely seem to care what the voters actually want, the most recent example of this being the Democratic party's super-delegates. Their very existence should signal to the voters that the party cares very little about what the voters think. However, I'm not sure that there is an alternative. Parties seem to be inevitable byproducts of a republican system.
George Washington’s farewell address concerning political parties. Was he right?
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
John Adams said:
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.
Perhaps not if the R and D were removed from ballot papers and any official list of Congress seats and - perhaps most importantly - the only legal political donations were from individual citizens with full disclosure (rather than incentivizing institutional bribery and mechanisms such as partisanship which make it more effective).
Be thankful you don't live in Australia; here political parties are essentially mandatory in order to appoint a Prime Minister, since it requires a majority of seats in the House of Reps.
Perhaps not if the R and D were removed from ballot papers and any official list of Congress seats and - perhaps most importantly - the only legal political donations were from individual citizens with full disclosure (rather than incentivizing institutional bribery and mechanisms such as partisanship which make it more effective).
Be thankful you don't live in Australia; here political parties are essentially mandatory in order to appoint a Prime Minister, since it requires a majority of seats in the House of Reps.
George Washington’s farewell address concerning political parties. Was he right?
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
John Adams said:
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.
We have to remember that the founding fathers had a fear of direct democracy. Like royalty themselves, they did not believe the average American was capable of making choices in a political area; which is why in the beginning the people had no direct vote for the offices and senate. None of them could have seen the social changes coming, the effects of universal education and changing economics where people were no longer tied to menial jobs in agriculture.
The truth is the one party system cannot work. It didn't work once Thomas Jefferson got pissed off with the back room bull**** of the ruling class and formed his own party.
The US is alone in the world with two parties, which frankly are almost the same. Societies across the world are changing and the result has been many parties, some to the point of ridiculousness with up 25 parties. Having said that, the two party system is clearly not adequately meeting the needs of Americans, more likely making matters worse through the roadblocks set up by the parties themselves, resulting in no middle ground. There is so little separating them, those things do become major issues, founded and defended to the death as core ideology of the party to the point of being beyond reason.
Sorry to say this, but emergence of a third party is likely a long way off. In the states the blue print for forming a party is to run for president. However the voter does not easily give up his vote for president, and fears a situation of a president with no support in congress. In the early days, leaders saw the answer in a one party system.
But we have moved on. We are smarter, we have much more complex needs, and frankly neither of the two parties is delivering good government so consumed they are at warring with one another.
The way to build a party is to start at the grass roots. You run people for civic and state legislatures, for congress and senate and build from there. The best most recent model is the Canadian Reform Party of the middle to late 1980's through to the early 2000's, which then became The Conservative Party of Canada and won government under Stephen Harper.
I think Americans are looking for a savior or magic bullet that will come in, sweep up and put the country back on track in eight years. In order for that to happen you need control of at least two of the three divisions of government. Further, the system has become incredibly cynical, where as soon as a politician gets elected, his one and only objective is to stay elected, second is to fit in the congressional power structure in order to move up the ladder and ensure his position.
In the end, in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
If I may, the founders were rightly wary of direct democracy, because direct democracy is little more than mob-rule. Direct democracy often results in a tyranny of the majority and often leads to the majority voting away the rights, and sometimes the wealth, of the minority. In a republic, the people, seeing as most are not fit to run the country, are meant to elect officials for their good judgment, in the hope that they represent the people's best interest, not necessarily what the people want.
I do agree, however, that the emergence of a third party is a way off. And I also agree that most Americans are looking for a savior when they should be looking for a leader.
See bold, when and where has that ever happened? At the very least the word "often" is beyond an exaggeration
I should apologize, more proper wording for what I was getting at would be: Direct democracy is often thought to result...
An example would be during the era of slavery in America, during which many people (northern and southern) sought to keep blacks in slavery. Had America been a democracy, they would have simply voted and that would have been the end of it, slaves may or may not have gotten freedom. However, thankfully, America was and is a republic, and thus slaves gained their freedom.
However, regardless, this topic of discussion probably branches a little too far outside the intent of this thread.
Simply removing the parties' names from the ballot would not cause their existence to cease. More heavily regulating campaign contributions would not bring an end to the parties either. Political parties, and indeed all types of factions, are a result of the fact that humans are tribal creatures, and, when given the choice, we are likely to gravitate towards seemingly like-minded individuals. This is seen in school, in the workplace, and in politics. And, it is common in all these areas for one person or a group of people to rise to lead the 'tribe,' so-to-speak. In the case of politics, it is practically inevitable that these groups garner power. To amend my previous statement, as I feel it is somewhat in error, political parties are not explicitly byproducts of republican government, they are byproducts of humanity and our tribal nature.
We have a similar Parliamentary system in Canada to that in Britain and the leader of the party with the most seats is the PM. I don't see why, though, it couldn't work without parties. The elected MP's could elect a Prime Minister from among them who would then appoint his cabinet, again from among the MP's. 'Course, parties would inevitably form but they wouldn't necessarily be part of the general election process.
You're right, but removing all official endorsement for party affiliations might go further than you'd think. Would folk who favour greater civil rights but less government involvement in the economy identify, or vote for politicians identifying as Republican? If elections were no longer perceived to be two horse races, would there more likely be third and fourth candidates entering the running too? Folk might always have a tendency to identify as conservative, libertarian etc. and gravitate towards those with like-minded views, but the affiliation would be ideological rather than partisan, and potentially less susceptible to a politics of negativity and lesser of two evils mentality.
See bold, when and where has that ever happened? At the very least the word "often" is beyond an exaggeration
Lynch mobs, and the cry to "crucify him" just to name a few.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
That's simple gang violence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?