A History of American Political Parties, Part I

Political parties are a little bit like religious denominations - they are rarely formed out of thin air, but instead tend to evolve over time.

This fact is easy to forget in this day and age when the U.S. is virtually wholly controlled by two prevailing parties, representing two prevailing political ideologies.  For many of us, it may seem that these two parties have always existed, and have always been just like they are today.

Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth.

In the earliest days of the United States, there was no such thing as a political party.  There were political ideologies, of course, many of which stood in stark contrast to one another, but there was no such thing as an organized political party that used resources and manpower to help elect like-minded individuals.  As such, the first few sessions of Congress, as well as the first presidency under George Washington, were all non-partisan.  It's hard to imagine such a scenario today.

By the end of Washington's second term, in 1796, political parties were developing into what might be called an embryonic stage.  Two primary ideologies had taken widepspread root, with politicians and average citizens generally falling into one camp or the other.  The first camp was known as the Federalists, and they generally believed in a stronger federal government (hence the name), a national bank to streamline the economy and assume the public debt of the states, and a large standing army.  To put a modern spin on it, they might be thought of as the "big government" ideologues of the 18th century.  Though George Washington never aligned himself with any political party, he was most in line, politically, with the Federalists.  The Federalist founder and leader was Alexander Hamilton, who was Treasury Secretary under George Washington.  

The other party developing during these years was known by a number of different names.  Historians today generally refer to them as the Democratic-Republican party.  In their own day, they tended to either call themselves Jeffersonians (after their leader, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson), or, more often, Republicans.  They generally believed in stronger states' rights, state militias instead of standing federal armies, and private banks.  They were essentially the "small government/states' rights" group of the 18th century.  They called themselves Republicans because they believed strongly in republican principles of government - representatives, elected by the people, doing the will of the people.  They are not related to the modern day Republican Party.  The Jeffersonian Republicans viewed the Federalist movement as leaning too closely to monarchy, and thus to tyranny, and even insultingly referred to the Federalists as "tories" - the name for members of the British parliament who were strong supporters of the king.

The Federalists generally supported big businesses, banks, and wealthy urban interests; they also supported improved relations with Great Britain.  The Jeffersonians, on the other hand, pushed for the rights of rural America, arguing for the importance of farmers and planters over industrialists and financial investors.  They were sympathetic with the anti-monarchy values of the French revolution, and were opposed to the Federalist treaties with Great Britain.

These ideological differences tended to play out geographically.  Federalists were strong in the industrialized north, while the Jeffersonians were strong in the agrarian south.  In many ways, it's not much different than the tension that still exists today between management and labor, Wall Street and Main Street, urban and rural, the 1% against the 99%.

Both of these political ideologies coalesced, during the 1790's, into true, burgeoning political parties.  Their main way of gaining prominence and backing and support was through the use of mainstream media, which, at that time, consisted primarily of newspapers.  Newspapers have tended to have a political slant ever since.

After choosing not to accept a third term in the White House, George Washington delivered a farewell address to the nation, which was printed in all the newspapers around the country.  Sensing the trouble brewing in the political arena, he spent no less than six paragraphs of this address condemning political parties and encouraging Americans not to form them.

This [tendency among people to form political coalitions]...is inseparable from our nature...But, it is truly [our] worst enemy.  The alternate domination of one faction over another...is itself a frightful despotism...The common and continual mischiefs of [political parties] are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain [them].

Unfortunately, no one took the Father of Our Nation very seriously on this point.

In the 1796 election, John Adams, who had been Vice-President under George Washington, ran on the Federalist platform.  He ran against Thomas Jefferson, who was running on the Democratic-Republican platform.  This election proved to be immensely divisive, and in the end, Adams won by only 3 electoral votes over Jefferson, with voting split geographically - the North going with Adams, and the South with Jefferson.

Because of the rules of electoral college voting at the time, Jefferson ended up being elected as Adams' Vice-President, marking the only time in American history when two people from different political parties shared the Executive office.  Jefferson went on to do everything in his power to undermine Adams' presidency, and four years later, they faced off again in an even more divisive election, and this time Jefferson won.  Adams did not attend his inauguration.

Following Jefferson's victory in the 1800 election, the Federalist party began to fall apart, and no Federalist was ever elected again to the presidency.  For the next 25 years, the U.S. was essentially a one-party system.  The Democratic-Republicans held the White House, and also maintained what can only be called a "super-majority" in Congress (often as high as 80%).  In the 1820 election, the Federalists didn't even bother to run anyone against James Monroe, and he became the only president since Washington to run unopposed.  His eight years in office are frequently referred to as the Era of Good Feelings, because there was virtually no political rancor going on in Washington - something that is virtually unthinkable in this day and age.  Essentially, by this time, Americans had stopped thinking of politics in terms of parties, and simply viewed everyone as part of the same basic team.

These good feelings, however, were about to be turned on their head.

Read Part II

Inalienable Rights

Several recent conversations have gotten me thinking: Do Americans really believe in “inalienable rights”?

That phrase, of course, is familiar to most Americans from the Declaration of Independence. A friend of mine – who is, ironically enough, an atheist – recently noted that the wording of the Declaration of Independence substantiates the argument that the USA is a nation founded on what he called “Christian principles.”

As a way to begin, here’s the famous passage in question:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…

What, exactly, is Thomas Jefferson saying here? Have you ever paused to think about it? Here’s my analysis (and you’ll note that I interpret “men” as referring to humankind): For Jefferson, there are at least two self-evident truths that can be ascertained. First, all people are born equal. Race and national origin, gender and social status, have no bearing on a person’s inherent human worth. Second, the “Creator” of the world has bestowed upon human beings three “inalienable rights” – namely, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

By Jefferson’s account, governments are created in order to protect these self-evident truths, these basic human rights. Thus, the government’s job is to ensure that these rights are not taken away, trampled on, or ignored.

The phrase about how humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” is the one I want to focus on here. Many (like the friend I mentioned above) use this phrase to argue that we are a nation founded “under God,” based on basic Christian principles. “Under God” may be a phrase inserted into our Pledge of Allegiance only in 1953, but the Declaration of Independence itself includes similar language, referencing the basic human rights that have been endowed on humanity by the Creator of the universe and for which the government is charged in protecting.

That Jefferson’s language is Deist in nature, and not Christian, is not my focus here. In fact, I’m not even attempting to argue that religion in general didn’t play a role in the founding of America, because it most clearly did. Instead, I want to look more deeply at that phrase about the “Creator” and the “inalienable rights” and take it out to its ultimate conclusion.

For Jefferson, and thus for anyone who agrees with Jefferson’s belief (which most Americans say they do), God has given certain basic rights to humanity. These are God’s gifts to us. We didn’t invent them and no human being has bestowed them upon us. They are ours by virtue of being human creatures created by God. As another good friend of mine pointed out, the very thrust of Jefferson’s argument here was that the “Rights of Man” are not bestowed by the British Monarchy or anyone else. Basic human rights are the domain of God, not of kings and emperors, presidents and parliamentarians. This, of course, is the whole theme of the 18th century revolutionary period in America.

So, according to Jefferson, and agreed upon by countless Americans for the last 225 years, God has given us certain “inalienable” rights. That word – “inalienable” – is familiar to most people simply because of its prominent place in the Declaration of Independence. What does it actually mean? According to dictionary.com: not transferable or capable of being repudiated. According to Merriam-Webster: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

In other words, an “inalienable right” is a right that cannot be taken away by any human being because human beings didn’t invent or bestow the right in the first place. What human beings didn’t give, human beings can’t give away. More pointedly, and more in line with Jefferson’s wording: what God gave, human beings can’t give away.

I think most Americans would agree, and agree profoundly, with that analysis. What I want to do now, however, is take that analysis out to its logical conclusion – a conclusion I have a feeling will be met with some resistance.

Jefferson tells us that among our God-given “inalienable” rights is the right to life. The very phrase “right to life” is a familiar one – it’s most often used in discussions about abortion. All humans have a right to life, given by God and affirmed in one of our most treasured American documents, and thus abortion is not only sinful, it’s also un-American. Without going into a lot of detail about an issue that is anything but simple, many of my readers may be surprised to find that I generally agree with this sentiment. While I consider myself pro-choice for a variety of reasons that are far too numerous to go into here, I also consider myself profoundly anti-abortion. For me, “pro-choice” is a political and social stance, while “anti-abortion” is a moral and ethical and religious stance.

But the phrase “right to life” also has other implications. I’m specifically thinking of capital punishment. I’ve often argued that one can’t be pro-life and pro-death penalty without being hypocritical, just as one can’t be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty without being hypocritical. I consider myself anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I believe in the right to life and in affirming life, and that belief is consistent across my various political opinions.

Here’s the crux: if we agree with Jefferson that human beings have basic inalienable rights – rights, which by their very divinely-given nature, cannot be taken away by human beings – and if we agree that one of these rights is the right to life, then how can we affirm capital punishment without being inconsistent with what we claim to believe?

The primary argument against this is the one that is most obvious: capital punishment is a totally different ball of wax. Capital punishment isn’t “murder.” Capital punishment is justice meted out against those who have committed violent acts against other human beings. As the Christian Old Testament affirms, murder is a terrible sin, but “killing” in war or as punishment for sin is not the same as “murder.”

By the standards of this argument, one might say that capital punishment doesn’t equate to taking away a person’s inalienable right to life. Instead, the criminal in question voluntarily gave that right up when he or she chose to commit murder. This is an extremely common argument in discussions about capital punishment – capital punishment isn’t murder, nor is it unethical, because the right to life was already surrendered by the perpetrator in the very act of committing their crime.

You may already see where I’m going here. If not, recall the discussion above about the meaning of the phrase “inalienable rights.” An “inalienable right” is a human right which, by its very definition, cannot be taken away, transferred, or surrendered. It is “inalienable.” It is bestowed by a power greater than any human being or human institution. What human beings did not give, human beings cannot give away. What God gave, human beings cannot take away and cannot surrender. If a right can be either taken away by others or surrendered by an individual through an act of violence, then it is not, by definition, an “inalienable” right.

For that reason, I am arguing that capital punishment is inconsistent with American principles, as outlined by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Most Americans say they believe in those principles – those inalienable rights – yet most Americans also support capital punishment.

And so we return to the question that opened this discussion: Do Americans really believe in “inalienable rights”? Or is that just something that sounds good on paper, sounds good in a political debate, and sounds pretty to our imaginations, but which we don’t really believe in practice?

If you genuinely believe in the “inalienable rights” that Thomas Jefferson asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and you understand what the word “inalienable” actually means, then I don’t see how you can support capital punishment – regardless of what your personal religious beliefs happen to be.

If the right to life is “inalienable,” and if that belief is a deeply American one which our government is charged with protecting, then capital punishment can only be deeply un-American.

The Founding Father Wars

Let me open by saying I'm pretty darn proud of this one. Please enjoy.

INTRODUCTION

Let’s be honest: a lot of Americans treat the Founding Fathers with the same level of mild divinity that they treat the characters of the Bible (Peter, Paul, Moses, Elijah, etc.).

In that same vein, a lot of folks also treat and quote the Constitution in the same way they treat and quote the Bible – as a kind of inspired, infallible text.

I like to call this “Founding Father Worship” and “The Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility.” I hope you’ll forgive my cynicism.

In any case, this sort of treatment of the Founding Fathers and the constitutional document they gave us tends to get under my skin. The Constitution was designed as a fluid document, a document to serve as a roadmap rather than an infallible truth. The court system was given the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution, and a lot of the wording of the Constitution is intentionally vague and open to different possibilities for that very reason. The Constitution was also designed to be amended, illustrated by the fact that its own writers amended it ten times, giving us the Bill of Rights.

THE FOUNDING FATHER WARS

In recent years – thanks, in large part, to the Internet – a new phenomenon seems to be sweeping popular culture. I call it the Founding Father Wars. Everyone has their pet quote from a Founding Father that they use to support their own perspectives and opinions. You see them in profile signatures on Internet message boards. You see them on bumper stickers. You see them on various “quotation” websites. You see them in email signatures from friends and co-workers. You see them on social networking sites as status updates. Sometimes you even hear a politician, journalist, or media mouthpiece repeat one.

The problem, of course, is that like the Bible, one can find a Founding Father quote to support just about any perspective under the sun. Consider someone arguing against women’s rights:

John Adams: “As to your extraordinary code of laws [for women’s rights], I cannot but laugh. Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems.”

Thomas Jefferson: “The happiness of [a woman’s] life depends on continuing to please a single [male] person. To this all other objects must be secondary.”

Clearly, Founding Father quotes can be found to support just about any peculiar belief system you can come up with.

One such quote that seems to be making the rounds recently is one attributed to John Adams (he of the “masculine system”). It goes like this: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

As one can surmise from the content, this quote is frequently used by religious conservatives to support a blurring of the lines between the separation of Church and State. I found references to it on a number of websites, including the site of Coral Ridge Ministries, which was founded by Dr. James Kennedy, a prominent televangelist, and the website of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s site included a transcript of Limbaugh providing an analysis of the quote on air in 2009. I also found it listed on a site dedicated to legislating prayer in schools. This site, called “Free To Pray” includes this gem on its main page: “A Nation [their own capitalization] that refuses to teach its children right from wrong, good from evil, will become a corrupt nation, where sin prevails, evil abounds, and children do as they please!” This site also includes a topic called “The Myth: Separation of Church and State.” I hope you’ll click on this link, because the picture at the top of the page is priceless.

In any case, this quotation is a good illustration of everything that is wrong with the phenomenon of the Founding Father Wars.

John Adams delivered this line during his presidency, in a short letter he sent to a military brigade in the Massachusetts militia in 1798. Here’s the paragraph that precedes the quote in question:

But should the people of America once become capable [of dignity] towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world.

Written in dense 18th century prose, this passage might be tough to comprehend without reading it through a few times. Here’s what he’s saying: if we pretend to believe in justice and moderation, and we charm the world with images of sincerity, while in reality we are practicing “iniquity” and “extravagance,” then America will be a “miserable” place to live.

He goes on to say:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

In other words, we cannot be barbarians and expect to have any legitimate place in international society. Remember, he is writing these words to a military unit – he is not delivering them to the general public or the houses of Congress. The clear implication is that Adams is encouraging the military to behave honorably, and not to engage in activity that is dishonorable and hypocritical (“rioting in rapine and insolence”).

Notice that phrase immediately preceding the quote in question. “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” In other words, the “moral” and “religious” lifestyle Adams is supporting is a lifestyle that rejects avarice (greed) and ambition, revenge and gallantry. That last word – gallantry – seems odd at first glance, but I believe Adams was talking about soldiers engaging in risky behavior for the sake of being a hero. It may also have been a reference to the 18th (and early 19th) century love of the duel. If a man felt his honor (or the honor of his woman) had been offended, he would often challenge the offender to a duel. This sort of "gallantry" - which is really just vigilantism - may be what Adams was talking about.

In any case, it is worth noting that none of the sources I could find for Adams’ quote ever mentioned this preceding sentence. And that is including several sites that quoted the sentence before the one about greed and ambition. Consider the version analyzed by Rush Limbaugh: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He includes the entire final paragraph except for that phrase about greed, ambition, revenge, and gallantry.

What could be the possible reason for such a unanimous exclusion among those citing this quote to support a blurring of the separation of Church and State? (Picture me with a finger poised thoughtfully upon my lips.)

The answer is obvious: Neo-conservatism is built on these principles, particularly the first two – greed and ambition.

Adams asserted that our Constitution was made for moral and religious people. But he also made clear that religious morality, for him, was humility and justice, dignity and fairness, moderation and honesty. None of those ideals defines modern America very well, and particularly the powerful neo-conservative wing of the Republican party.

How could someone like Rush Limbaugh possibly quote a Founding Father speaking negatively against ambition and the pursuit of wealth?

He couldn’t, of course, which is why he conveniently omitted that part of the quote.

CONCLUSION

The Founding Father Wars are built on the idea of Founding Father Worship, which is one half of a two-sided coin with The Doctrine of Constitutional Infallibility on the other side.

As we have seen here, quotes by the Founding Fathers can be dug up to support just about any kind of peculiar viewpoint a person might adhere to. In most cases (if not in every case), they do very little to provide a genuine insight into what said Founding Father actually meant or actually believed on the topic in question. Instead, they function as stand-alone quips with an authoritative name attached to them, allowing them to be used almost willy-nilly in whatever way seems most appropriate for the person repeating the words.

In that sense, they are about as valuable as a fart directed upwind of a manure pile. They don’t add anything new to the conversation, but they certainly reinforce the stink.