Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Founding Fathers Despised Political Parties
In spite of the dangers that political parties could pose to our nascent Republic, and the protests that were lodged by many of our Founders to having those parties, no mention of banning political parties appeared in our Constitution:
The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or ‘factions,’ as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.
George Washington warned against political parties when he left the Presidency in 1796. The divisions first emerged over whether to have a strong central government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton representing the Federalists; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who feared putting too much power in the hands of the federal government, ended up forming the Democratic-Republican party. The animosity became so great that Adams tried to stop anything that would interfere with his own goals as President and approved making the criticizing of the president and his policies a federal crime. Jefferson took revenge when he became President by firing half of all federal employees at the top, essentially wiping out the administrative state.
We could say that outcomes of the Constitution not addressing political parties was a grave error:
The Constitution itself omits any mention of political parties. Though it is not as simple as the founders not having considered it, since Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton had all written about the subject at some point in their lives. Specifically, they all had negative views on the matter, with Washington having used precious space in his Farewell Address to discuss the negative aspect of political parties, and Madison dedicating Federalist No. 10 to the issue. In fact, the paper was written in part as a safeguard against political parties, since they were explicitly recognized as inevitable by Madison. The irony is that the constitutional omission of political factions exacerbated the problem. While not mentioning something can serve as a barrier against it, in a legal environment, there is no room for chance; things as malicious as to be recognized as ‘enemies’ of free states are best explicitly prohibited by law.
Today we can observe the consequences of the Constitution not dealing with the issue of partisan politics. Are there alternatives to accomplishing the business of government without political parties? Do you think leaving political parties out of the Constitution was an appropriate decision, or do you think we are paying the price in our political environment for our Founders not addressing this divisive and dysfunctional issue?
Published in Group Writing
I agree with your points, all! And especially this last one. And thanks for referring me to the Necessary and Proper Clause; its existence doesn’t guarantee misuse, but it certain gives permission. Thanks.
She did give them time for unstructured time, too, didn’t she? ;-) Actually, I like her approach!
I guess I haven’t actually offered my own opinion for political parties. I see no way around having them, but from a Conservative point of view, I’d like to feel they are representing me and my colleagues, and not just another voice for the progressives. Our history of going along is a long one (Hillsdale College has a great, enlightening, free course on the development of Congress in the 20th century), and I now know that the Right caving in to the Left is not new.
The legal theory behind the Necessary and PRoper clause kills any thought of there being a limited government by a piece of parchment. Had our current understanding of the N&P been what was proposed by the proponents, then it would have never been ratified. Hamilton knew it, James Wilson of PA knew it, and I suspect Jerry here knows it too. It is a smoke and mirrors argument of tyrants Susan. Don’t fall for it. Please. Don’t take my word for it though; ask Mr. Madison.
Ever notice that when the fighting stops, “nation builders” never set up a two-party system? Perhaps deep down they know it is impossible to divide people into just two categories.
Or maybe if they do set up two parties, they know they’ll just start fighting again?
And both parties are represented by the left-most end of each party. Democrats to the right of their spectrum can find representation, partly, in the left side of the Republican party. But Republicans to the right of their spectrum have no possibility of party representation.
And coincidentally, these are the people Biden is demonizing. Curious. A group of politically disenfranchised people are the presented as the problem.
Perhaps he senses that they could finally realize their own power and be a real threat. That’s probably giving Biden too much credit . . .
Yes, it seems so.
Additionally the behavior is different between the two factions. Moderate democrats will vote to support far left progressive agenda items. Moderate Republicans never support the right most side of their party. This is why there is at least the functional appearance of the uniparty. It is also the source of the ratchet effect we see at the federal level.
It is common for demagogues to chose groups that are politically disenfranchised to target. It lowers the stakes on taking them on. Taking on groups that have power is a riskier political strategy.
Anything that involves cognition is giving Biden too much credit; however, the people may be a different matter. Although I think they look down on the people he is demonizing and can’t quite believe they could be much of a threat.
The structure of Article I and Article II effectively determine we will have two major parties and no more. Minor parties need the oxygen of relevant in a parliamentary system, where they are courted to form a governing coalition.
This conversation is part of our Group Writing Series under the September 2022 Group Writing Theme: “Constitutional.” Stop by to sign up and share your own short observations.
Interested in Group Writing topics that came before? See the handy compendium of monthly themes. Check out links in the Group Writing Group. You can also join the group to get a notification when a new monthly theme is posted.
[duplicate]
That is something I am going to have to think about. That the nature of the challenge limits the practical number of political parties. I think we may be coming up on a three party or even a four party moment. I don’t think there will be a stable 3 or 4 parties but I do think there will be a realignment and we may see the end of one or both of the extant parties in favor of something new.
That still doesn’t explain the barbed wire around congress (if it’s still there).
There are two possibilities there and they aren’t mutually exclusive.
I favor option 2, but could be persuaded that there is an element of option 1.
Sounds like a plan.
That’s a strategy we could use right about now!
Yeah-but, isn’t either one of these so unbelievably out-there that the first can’t be true unless they’re cartoon characters, and the second is so crazily inflammatory it undercuts their credibility as public servants.
Maybe #3: They know they themselves are going to deliberately cause a crisis so bad that people will actually try to storm congress (even if just to get something to eat).
This is where those of us who are less reactive MUST make sure that the more passionate folks don’t lose their heads and allow themselves to be baited. If we don’t talk them down, we will pay a heavy price.
Well, I think that my interpretation is set forth in Federalist No. 33 (Hamilton) and Federalist No. 44 (Madison).
What specific, contrary authorities do you have in mind?
I also find Chief Justice Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland to be persuasive, though admittedly, it wasn’t until 1819. Marshall was a delegate at Virginia’s ratifying convention in 1788, working with Madison in favor of ratification.
So, I have three specific Founders on my side of this argument, I think. Among the most distinguished, I think. Who is on your side?
I’m a fan of political parties … if and only if they act on their party platforms and underlying philosophies. There are just too many issues for individual voters to research, understand, and evaluate policies. But if parties act on their purported beliefs, voters can then evaluate the competing philosophies and be relatively certain that whatever the issue, it will be dealt with in accordance with those beliefs.
The alternative is for voters to be single-issue focused. This leaves politicians free to pursue their own agendas oh a myriad of issues as long as they pander to one or two issues that animate the most single-issue voters. Witness abortion.
Thanks, Ekosj. I personally will not be a single issue voter. There are far too many complex and serious issues to pursue that level of vanity.
Actually, political parties have lost a lot of influence. For one thing, the way political parties pick candidates using a primary system that’s run by the government. In other countries — Canada, Australia, The United Kingdom are examples as well as the Western European countries — each political party runs its own elections for party leadership based on its own rules. Only general elections are run by their governments.
I grew up with government run primaries, and it’s only recently that I’ve seen how bizarre that is, given political parties are essentially private associations.
Starting in 1972, the primary system for the presidency became more widespread when the Democratic Party made changes to its system of picking presidential nominees. The mantra at the time was to get rid of “smoke filled rooms.” What they meant was that party insiders would not be able to pick the party leader.
Campaign finance reform also weakened the parties. What McCain-Feingold did was to encourage the proliferation of political action committees (PAC’s), independent of the parties and the parties themselves are limited in the way they can fund political campaigns.
States like California, Vermont and Alaska have set up election systems that bypass parties.
The result is that in the last presidential election cycle Joe Biden was nominated so that Bernie Saunders, not a Democrat wouldn’t get the Democrat nomination. Donald Trump, not a Republican did get the Republican nomination.
Before 1960, no such candidate would get the nomination, unless they had a bipartisan popularity, as Dwight Eisenhower did, since he was wooed by both parties and their insiders.
The Founding Fathers were right about a lot. They were wrong about political parties.
The weakening of the parties has not resulted in less partisanship. It has resulted in the government involving itself in areas private political parties used to dominate.
True. And there are factions within factions. Nevertheless, there are two parties and the factions are largely stuck operating in one or the other and are pretty much accreted in.
No, I think it IS the right thread. He was explaining what should be done to those who join parties.
To me, the concept of political parties is a natural human consequence. People with similar political outlooks and perspective will naturally unite and attempt to persuade others to follow their way of thinking in order to ‘win’ and result in the political leadership that they desire.
Look no further for a great example than Salmon P. Chase, who was recently profiled here by @peterrobinson (The Antislavery Activist):
Originally a Whig, he changed his politics according to fluctuations in the antislavery movement.
Chase was characterized by the Democrats as that which they feared then as much as they fear now – a Radical Republican.
I agree with that distinction, but I would also divide MAGA Republicans into two groups. I support in the following order, Moderate Republicans including Reagan Republicans, Moderate Democrats, MAGA Republicans without Trump, the Terrible Progressive Left, and finally Trump himself.
ABT. Anybody but Trump.