The Case Against Party Politics by G. Washington

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.

Discuss...

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant in it's prognostication of where we find ourselves today. How did he know? How did any of them, some 230 years ago accurately predict what we see now and warn us against it?

Because they knew history... intimately. What Washington spells out in his farewell address is a list of the duties and responsibilities of the citizens, and the cautions against tyranny and despotism that are always to be found in any government regardless of it's structure or purpose.

In my opinion, this document is a must read for any person who claims for themselves the banner of Patriot...

Occam's Razor said:

Absolutely brilliant in it's prognostication of where we find ourselves today. How did he know? How did any of them, some 230 years ago accurately predict what we see now and warn us against it?

Because they knew history... intimately. What Washington spells out in his farewell address is a list of the duties and responsibilities of the citizens, and the cautions against tyranny and despotism that are always to be found in any government regardless of it's structure or purpose.

In my opinion, this document is a must read for any person who claims for themselves the banner of Patriot...

Click to expand...

I agree very much and it is no new thing, parties. There were parties in Athens, Rome, Britain...any government polarizes itself among different ideologies and sub-parties about how it should be run. That was a very, very clear and well-spoken statement. I wish some people would really listen to it.

makkam said:

I agree very much and it is no new thing, parties. There were parties in Athens, Rome, Britain...any government polarizes itself among different ideologies and sub-parties about how it should be run. That was a very, very clear and well-spoken statement. I wish some people would really listen to it.

Click to expand...

True, and yet party politics seem inevitable, as you noted it exists in every place and station where it finds any opportunity to grow. Suppressing "party" (or as Washington actually put it, "faction") politics entirely would almost require tyrannical efforts.

Goshin said:

True, and yet party politics seem inevitable, as you noted it exists in every place and station where it finds any opportunity to grow. Suppressing "party" (or as Washington actually put it, "faction") politics entirely would almost require tyrannical efforts.

Click to expand...

There are two possible ways to end the death grip have on American government:

1. Eliminate both parties

2. Permit the equal representation of other political parities in federal government.

It wouldn't hurt to have a percentage of Green, LP and even Tea Parties represented. While both numbers one and two are possible, admittedly both are improbable.

Goshin said:

True, and yet party politics seem inevitable, as you noted it exists in every place and station where it finds any opportunity to grow. Suppressing "party" (or as Washington actually put it, "faction") politics entirely would almost require tyrannical efforts.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It only requires the political will of the People to demand strict regulation and limitations on associations between gov't and business/religion/special interests.

One person, one voice, one vote.

Corporations and special interest have wholly and completely subverted the representation of the People, as Jefferson and others warned us they would.

While corporations and special interest groups have no vote (yet), they have the affect of amalgamating the resources of many into undue influence over Our representation. This is generally done through the creation of polarizing issues and selling it's motivations to the public as such, while often having ulterior motives.

Each person in the party, corporation, special interest group, already has a voice, a vote, and can contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the case of a corporation, they use the wealth and energy created by the workforce to lobby the voice of a few board members, often against the interests of the employees, community, stockholders (though less so, with larger financial consequences).

Remove our public servants from all associations with special interest money or influence.

To start...

Occam's Razor said:

I disagree. It only requires the political will of the People to demand strict regulation and limitations on associations between gov't and business/religion/special interests.

One person, one voice, one vote.

Corporations and special interest have wholly and completely subverted the representation of the People, as Jefferson and others warned us they would.

While corporations and special interest groups have no vote (yet), they have the affect of amalgamating the resources of many into undue influence over Our representation. This is generally done through the creation of polarizing issues and selling it's motivations to the public as such, while often having ulterior motives.

Each person in the party, corporation, special interest group, already has a voice, a vote, and can contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the case of a corporation, they use the wealth and energy created by the workforce to lobby the voice of a few board members, often against the interests of the employees, community, stockholders (though less so, with larger financial consequences).

Remove our public servants from all associations with special interest money or influence.

To start...

Click to expand...

I will grant you that the lobbying efforts of large corporations are something I don't care for. OTOH large corporations have to live with the fear of legislation interfering with business, so they try to cultivate politicans to leave them alone. If that was as far as it went, OK.... but they also try to get legislation that will FAVOR them in the marketplace passed, giving them competitive-advantage-via-government, and I find that abhorrent.

However, many "special interest groups" are simply like-minded citizens who have banded together to try to make their voice heard. The NRA is one such example... millions of individual voters making small contributions to a collective organization, in the effort to see to it that their concerns are heard in the halls of power. Political parties like the Dems and Repubs are, in a sense, an expansion upon that same theme... albeit one that has gotten entrenched as PART of the power structure itself.

Doing away with party, faction and interest-groups entirely would, in a sense, leave the individual voter swinging in the breeze. His voice would be one vote among 100 million; without an organizing structure to get tens of millions of voters behind certain candidates that presumably share those voters interests and/or ideology, elections might well favor those Plutocrats who had enough of their own money to spend to drown out the competition.

What I'm saying is, the devil-we-know is bad enough... the devil-we-don't know could be worse.

How will you get enough voters (say 50 million plus) to insist on an end to party/faction and special interest? You'd probably have to form an organization for that purpose, and then YOU have become a special-interest... :lol:

Goshin said:

I will grant you that the lobbying efforts of large corporations are something I don't care for. OTOH large corporations have to live with the fear of legislation interfering with business, so they try to cultivate politicans to leave them alone. If that was as far as it went, OK.... but they also try to get legislation that will FAVOR them in the marketplace passed, giving them competitive-advantage-via-government, and I find that abhorrent.

However, many "special interest groups" are simply like-minded citizens who have banded together to try to make their voice heard. The NRA is one such example... millions of individual voters making small contributions to a collective organization, in the effort to see to it that their concerns are heard in the halls of power. Political parties like the Dems and Repubs are, in a sense, an expansion upon that same theme... albeit one that has gotten entrenched as PART of the power structure itself.

Doing away with party, faction and interest-groups entirely would, in a sense, leave the individual voter swinging in the breeze. His voice would be one vote among 100 million; without an organizing structure to get tens of millions of voters behind certain candidates that presumably share those voters interests and/or ideology, elections might well favor those Plutocrats who had enough of their own money to spend to drown out the competition.

What I'm saying is, the devil-we-know is bad enough... the devil-we-don't know could be worse.

How will you get enough voters (say 50 million plus) to insist on an end to party/faction and special interest? You'd probably have to form an organization for that purpose, and then YOU have become a special-interest... :lol:

Click to expand...

First in bold:
The minute you start justifying the existence of one type of group over another, the issue dies. Citizens should not separate into specialized camps, but assemble at town halls to debate and find solutions that balance the wants and needs of as many as possible. Just as Our justice system which presumes innocent must reconcile with the fact that some guilty will go free and some innocent will be punished to ensure there is no bias towards guilt, so must we bite the bullet and realize that one voice one vote is the only way it will work.

Second in bold: As for doing away with the party system, this is, as has been said, not possible. But guarding against it's undue influences and gateway to corruption is very possible.

Lastly, we already know both devils. They are repeated throughout every age, culture, system, etc... With the same seemingly pinpoint prognostication the Founding Fathers warned us about, one can know the devils and design political constructs to avoid them... all you have to know... is the history of human civilization and the nature of man.

Occam's Razor said:

First in bold:
The minute you start justifying the existence of one type of group over another, the issue dies. Citizens should not separate into specialized camps, but assemble at town halls to debate and find solutions that balance the wants and needs of as many as possible. Just as Our justice system which presumes innocent must reconcile with the fact that some guilty will go free and some innocent will be punished to ensure there is no bias towards guilt, so must we bite the bullet and realize that one voice one vote is the only way it will work.

Second in bold: As for doing away with the party system, this is, as has been said, not possible. But guarding against it's undue influences and gateway to corruption is very possible.

Lastly, we already know both devils. They are repeated throughout every age, culture, system, etc... With the same seemingly pinpoint prognostication the Founding Fathers warned us about, one can know the devils and design political constructs to avoid them... all you have to know... is the history of human civilization and the nature of man.

Click to expand...

How do you hold a "town hall meeting" (a la Maine's system) in a city of 10 million people? Even the biggest sports arenas won't hold so many. You could do it online I suppose... but who gets to speak? 10 million people talking for 10 seconds each would need over three years to finish speaking.

Of course, not everyone cares enough to participate.... based on voting stats, no more than 1 in 3. Probably no more than half of those would actually participate... that's still a lot. I suppose you could divide large cities or populous counties into more manageable districts of 1,000 to 10,000 people to have these town meetings... well in a sense we already do that with congressional districts, then we send a rep to Congress to speak on our behalf to the nation. So in a sense we already do this.... yet we still have party and faction.

Your proposal also supposes that a town meeting type setup, with say a few hundred in attendence, would consist of honest citizens seeking only the greatest good for the greatest number.... yet a lifetime of experience tells me that a majority of people look out for their own intrests FIRST, and others second if at all. In such a town meeting, those with a gift for oratory and persuasion would likely accumulate their own factions to support their ideas, whether those ideas were truly meritorious or merely appealing-but-untrue. Any idiot can find a solution to a problem that would work in a perfect world... finding solutions that are politically viable (can actually be implemented) and would work in an imperfect world, without excessive negative Unforseen Consequences... well that's a lot tougher.

Also, it isn't just the will of the people... there's the Constitution to consider, those limitations to government that our wise Founders instituted to try to keep things on the rails.

Risky Thicket said:

2. Permit the equal representation of other political parities in federal government.

It wouldn't hurt to have a percentage of Green, LP and even Tea Parties represented. While both numbers one and two are possible, admittedly both are improbable.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is no legal hurdle keeping them from doing so. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and Joe Lieberman is independent (except for the Joe Lieberman party.). Here in Minneapolis, we had a candidate for Mayor who listed his party as "Is Awesome," so the ballot said "Joey Lombard is awesome." (The "awesome" candidate | News Cut | Minnesota Public Radio)

Money, however is a different story. Money talks, Bull**** walks.

Goshin said:

I will grant you that the lobbying efforts of large corporations are something I don't care for. OTOH large corporations have to live with the fear of legislation interfering with business, so they try to cultivate politicans to leave them alone. If that was as far as it went, OK.... but they also try to get legislation that will FAVOR them in the marketplace passed, giving them competitive-advantage-via-government, and I find that abhorrent.

However, many "special interest groups" are simply like-minded citizens who have banded together to try to make their voice heard. The NRA is one such example... millions of individual voters making small contributions to a collective organization, in the effort to see to it that their concerns are heard in the halls of power. Political parties like the Dems and Repubs are, in a sense, an expansion upon that same theme... albeit one that has gotten entrenched as PART of the power structure itself.

Doing away with party, faction and interest-groups entirely would, in a sense, leave the individual voter swinging in the breeze. His voice would be one vote among 100 million; without an organizing structure to get tens of millions of voters behind certain candidates that presumably share those voters interests and/or ideology, elections might well favor those Plutocrats who had enough of their own money to spend to drown out the competition.

What I'm saying is, the devil-we-know is bad enough... the devil-we-don't know could be worse.

How will you get enough voters (say 50 million plus) to insist on an end to party/faction and special interest? You'd probably have to form an organization for that purpose, and then YOU have become a special-interest... :lol:

Click to expand...

I'm not liking that part much either. It undermines the concept of democracy which means that the nation would take a vote, and that if the majority of the voters want or do not want something, that is how it will be. Lobbying undermines the democratic process. Now, it's if we pump enough money into your wallet, we can get the vote passed or our agenda pushed regardless of what anyone else thinks. Though there are examples that are relatively benign and don't really effect anybody, there are probably plenty more that do.

Factions had many negatives, but they soon found out, that as they began participating in them, that they had many positive uses. When they eventually established parties, much of the same held true, and led to our betterment. You would rarely see an argument for reverting back to the factionist-era. It was another observation of many republican thinkers over the centuries that internal debate and checks and balances leads to the best results.

Next.

i'm not liking that part much either. It undermines the concept of democracy which means that the nation would take a vote, and that if the majority of the voters want or do not want something, that is how it will be. Lobbying undermines the democratic process. Now, it's if we pump enough money into your wallet, we can get the vote passed or our agenda pushed regardless of what anyone else thinks. Though there are examples that are relatively benign and don't really effect anybody, there are probably plenty more that do.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, lobbying aides democracies and the democratic process much of the time, even though, it too, has undermining principles. Consider all of the left-wing and right-wing issues (locally, state, or federal) of even just the past decade that would have gotten nowhere without some good deal of disproportionate representation through political organizations talking directly to your representatives and executives. Tocqueville is not shy in discussing the nature of flattery in American social and political life, but he also does not dismiss the utility of them either, as it is yet another internal mechanism for a "minority" to be able to make an impact on policy so as to not be outdone by the "majority" on every basis.

Now, I may be biased, because I grew up with lobbyists and local and state politics through the eyes of non-profits, but I see them as useful, and overly denigrated by those who do not even know that it is lobbyists who help protect or expand their rights, and improve their way of life on any number of issues.

To paraphrase Bill : kill all the lawyers (sorry TD). That eliminates 3/4 of congress right there.

Yeah, not realistic, but the perspective of the abundance of lawyers is true.

OpportunityCost said:

To paraphrase Bill : kill all the lawyers (sorry TD). That eliminates 3/4 of congress right there.

Yeah, not realistic, but the perspective of the abundance of lawyers is true.

Click to expand...

Actually, our legalistic perspective on governance is reflective of our society. We have far more lawyers in our population than most countries.