Impressions

Partisan Politics

By Tim Holland

Where did we ever get the idea that politics is supposed to be fair? Why is it that we seem to have an expectation that those running for office should be doing it for the benefit of the country, as true patriots? Where does all of this come from? Why, George Washington and the founding fathers.

Idealism is a wonderful concept in theory and the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution were full of it. George Washington truly believed that all who would serve their country would do so for the good of their fellow citizens and the benefit of the country. They envisioned a unified country with no political parties; where everyone would look to the future of the new country with a single vision. This was the promise of the United States Constitution.

The first election in 1789 bore out Washington’s vision, with his being elected President and John Adams as his Vice President. Here you had two men with similar views on what the new country should be. However, even then there were some rumblings in the background. Keep in mind that the Electoral System was in place but the Constitution provided no rules for the appointment of the electors who would do the actual voting. The patriotic vision was one where surely no one who fought so hard to create the country would do anything other than what was best for the new country.

However, by the time the second Presidential election came along in 1792, clear divisions begin to emerge that continue to this day. Two factions emerged quickly: the Federalists, who believed in the need for a strong central government and a strong office of the President and the Republicans, who believed in a Republic form of government, where the power was in the hands of the components (the states and its elected and appointed representatives), and looked to a weak central governmental authority.

When we get to 1796 partisanship is in full boom. The general consensus is that if Washington had decided to run for a third term he probably would not have made it and his historical reputation would have been severely damaged. It is here that Republic philosophical proponents in the form of Jefferson of Virginia and Burr of New York linked together to continue what they saw as a continuation of the American Revolution in the French Revolution. They campaigned as proponents of the people of France and happily backed France against England.

As we move on to 1797 political mud slinging begins in earnest and manipulation of the electoral system begins in State Legislatures. Hamilton, the arch Federalist, is vilified with accusations of self dealing in the creation of the Bank of the United States, of secret plans to have the Northeastern states break away from the rest of the country and of having an scandalous affair with Maria Reynolds. Both Federalist and Republic proponents try to manipulate the choice of electors by switching the way electors are chosen: by the Legislature depending on which political fraction controls it; by election districts if that will yield a desired outcome, by the Governor if that would be advantageous.

There are, of course, many parallels to the modern era and the current election. The Republic proponents, embodied in Thomas Jefferson, were to, eventually become the Democrat Party of today while the banner of the Federalist, who subsequently disappeared, would rise again under the Republican banner. Lincoln was the embodiment of a strong central government while the South housed the Democrats in favor of State’s rights and the believers in the constitutional right to dissolve the Republic if they saw fit to do so. Prior to the Civil War it was common to refer to actions of the United States of America by stating that “The United States of America are in favor of….” While after the war the terminology would evolve to: “The United States of America is in favor….”

The Federalists were looked upon as being what would, in today’s terminology, be called Evangelical Christians while the Republic/Democrats were viewed a “Deists” or having atheistic tendencies and these charges were played up in subsequent campaigns. Immigration was another outrage where the one side accused the other of championing the unlimited entry to the country of Irish immigrants, which was altering the culture of the country.

The key to all partisan politics is political philosophy and that is most certainly true today as it was 200 years ago. Mud slinging, political innuendo, appeals to racism, sexism and economic classism are usually emphasized when one wishes to mask political philosophy or at least deflect attention away from it to another issue.

There is no question that one political party has a history of support for unfettered corporate activity while the other is always trying to reign it in. One party is in support of expanding social programs claiming that governments have a moral responsibility to help the economically and physically disadvantaged and believe such support should come through direct action of the government and the funds of the general populace while the other believes the government has no such responsibility. It also believes that individuals have the moral responsibility to help their fellow man and if that help does not come about there is no responsibility for the government to provide financial assistance in the name of the people.

The political philosophies are as clear as they have always been so decide which side of the fence you are on and don’t be distracted by gender, race, personal attack rhetoric or negative advertising filled with outright lies and distortions. Decide what your current political philosophy is and then see which candidate agrees with you; not the other way around.

Note:

Tim Holland is a stall writer for ToTheCenter.com, an internet news magazine. He currently writes a weekly Op-Ed column for the magazine on a variety of topics. Copies of previous Op-Ed columns and Essays can be found at www.tim-holland.com. Comments are welcome and may be sent to: Admin@tim-holland.com