Geo. Washington & Parties

I have often spoken against political parties as a matter of principle since at least my early days in college. Many events in the last decade have by and large strengthened my convictions by confirmation, revision, and addition of my assumptions. The historic election of Barack Obama and the not-so-different-in-nature populist momentum that brought George W. Bush into office eight years earlier have only served to highlight what I see as the most insidious institution in the American/Western political model: the Political Party.
By way of introduction I am compelled to invoke none other than President #1. In his long, wordy, meandering yet profound farewell address the father of this country makes an observation:

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 [the Constitution], 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.

However combinations or associations of the above description 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...

...

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

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.

Washington's words amount to nothing short of a warning. One might wonder how seriously to take him. Perhaps even ask: Was he simply mistaken? While Pres. Washington may rightfully be said to have been politically disinterested, delivering this address at the end of a political life from which he was retiring, he was still a relative novice in the workings of American politics, as the country itself was an experiment whose results would be measured in centuries to come. His motivations, however, seem to be clear. A statesman and Soldier, Pres. Washington was warning against the human tendency for fractious politiking in a deliberative society.

A society where sound deliberation and agreement are integral to its function, is far more vulnerable to partisan dischord than one where direction is given by a few like-minded voices. While we take pride in this essential feature of American politics on principle alone, we rarely ever discuss the mechanisms that run it. Political parties are that mechanism, and today they form the only other group influence on government apart from interest lobbies.

What we have in America are organizations that exist to mobilize political effort around some agenda, influencing/running the deliberative and the managing organs of government. And of these we have only two viable alternatives on the national stage. In essence, the entire system is run by two membership-based shadow governments that then duke out their differences on the national stage and turn to the voter to arbitrate in their disputes when the Constitutional limit of internal decision making is reached. Is that ok?

There is nothing inherently obvious or necessary about a political party. Imagine for a second a Congress where members deliberated bills based on their role as representatives of a constituency and not as members of a super-lobby?

To be Continued....