Honor the Founding Fathers by Supporting Independents
In today’s America, an elected senator can’t even describe his political opponents as nice people without being hounded by those wanting to sacrifice him on the partisan alter. Disenchantment with both political parties is sky high. Government has become dysfunctional: at war with itself, fueled by 30-second news clips and reflexive loyalty or hatred based on the “D” or “R” attached to one’s name.
Several of the Founding Fathers warned about this exact political environment, viewing it as an evil that could threaten the life of the republic. We’ve become so accustomed to this cage-match mentality that it seems we fail to recognize its severity or how much better the country could be without a two-party system. Politicians and voters have talked about the need for bipartisanship so government can run efficiently for years — by now we should recognize it will not happen. If Americans still have faith in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, they should break out of this intellectual and political jail cell by supporting and running as independents.
George Washington warned about “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” calling it “truly their [Americans] worst enemy.” John Adams used especially prescient language, saying: “There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures into opposition to each other. This … is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
Washington was so concerned about political parties that he devoted a major part of his Farewell Address to fighting against them. He cautioned that these parties are organized factions who seek to use the government to enact their agenda, “rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.” These parties, he predicted, would attract “cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men” who will then end up “destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
He wasn’t talking just about the country dividing as later happened during the Civil War, but the actual conduct of politics — the politics of personal destruction and the politics of policy-wrecking instead of policy-making.
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” Washington said.
James Madison had similar thoughts, spending a great deal of time warning about factionalism. In Federalist Paper No. 10, he warns of a future where factionalism “inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” If anything has come to define our current two-party system, this is it.
Washington was especially worried about parties being founded on “geographical discriminations.” Today’s parties aren’t founded upon geography, but geography defines them. There are clear blue and red states and relatively few swing states that decide the fate of the country. It is rare when one party actually challenges the monopoly the other has on states it basically owns.
Finally, Madison foresaw that this factionalism would result in a fight over income redistribution. He actually predicted class warfare. “Every shilling with which they [the victor] overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved for their own pockets,” he said. Whether you view the Democrats as confiscating money from the wealthy to give to the poor or the Republicans as catering to the rich, this is the exact scenario Madison feared. Loyalty to political parties is often not based on who will improve the economy as a whole, but as a way of widening personal wallets without any regard for the greater dynamics at play.
Dear Mr. Mauro,
I don’t know if oyu write the titles and sub-titles to your work, but Charlie Crist is in no way an Independent, and therefore has no useful purpose being mentioned here.
You do a fair job describing the “role” of an Independent in our system.
Yet, Crist is not that, but rather a spineless opportunist and a hate-filled spoiler.
Nancy Pelosi is a liar and an extremist. Anyone who describes her as nice is a dweeb, who is not only no match, but isn’t even playing the same game.
Less than a month ago Crist vowed on national TV that he would run as a Republican.
The Founding Fathers would have taken the Ryan Mauros of this world out behind the woodshed and beaten some sense into them.
“Honor the Founding Fathers by Supporting Independents”
And what do independants stand for? Does it matter? After all eventually one would need to identify with a base.
I have a better idea. Judge the people. Nothing else. Look at what they stand on and judge it.
Because the country is divided by opinions already.
You are telling us to vote Independant.
How about we vote based on people? How about we base our vote on them rather than basing it on the “I” in front of their name?
Charlie Crist is a self-interested, pandering fool without principals.
Personally I have been an Independent since Bush 41. The problem with political parties is that they and not the representative calls the shots and how someone should vote. It’s called money honey…a politician wants to be reelected and without the large infusion of cash from the Party Cow it will not happen. The likes of Lieberman are few and far between. So voting based upon the person is a pipedream and a false sense of reality in our poltical play. We like to say that unlike Britain we are not guided by party platforms but the party faithful or rather the party leeches are so guided. Whomever is the boss, in this case, Obama on the democratic side, calls the shots and noone in his party dares truly speak up if they disagree.
Interestinly, my child learned about George Washington’s warning to America in history class. From that day forward no political rhetoric is permitted in our home, right or left. It is such a sad indictment of our system when one so young is so cynical.
Are we witnessing the beginning of the dismemberment of Republican party? Will more Republicans be forced to switch to Independent? How will this effect the outcome of local and national elections?
Any of the Founding Fathers would running as an Independent well to the right of Republicans these days.
Partys are formed and reformed as the people divide over great political principles. Political scientists call these reshuffling of voters as “realignments”. The great division today pits Constitutional Capitalist Ecologists vs. Authoritarian Socialist Environmentalists. Choose you side.
Partys are formed and reformed as the people divide over great political principles. Political scientists call these reshuffling of voters “realignments”. The great division today pits Constitutional Capitalist Ecologists vs. Authoritarian Socialist Environmentalists. Choose you side.
Politicians and voters have talked about the need for bipartisanship so government can run efficiently for years
—
Now that’s a scary thought. Imagine, govt being more efficient at passing new laws and regulations.
Exactly! The Founders intentionally designed our government not to be efficient or all-powerful. Our only hope lies in partisanship. Elite establishment unity is not a great thing.
Mr. Mauro is the new Ron Rosenbaum.He gets as many hits as Rosenbaum to!
I have to disagree. Mr. Mauro is wrong on the position he takes in this particular post but he is no Ron Rosenbaum. Mr. Rosenbaum descended to the realm of hate, political (verbal) bomb throwing, and outright contempt for those he could not understand because they were not liberal. Mr. Mauro advances a political position backed up by ideas. In that he differs from Mr. Rosenbaum who only offered slander and rumor.
Kipling you maybe right. Mr. Mauro is the David Brooks of PJTV.
Disagree. There is no equivalence between this author and the malevolent demagogue that is Ron Rosenbaum. I think this piece is a little unrealistic in our present time with the stakes as high as they are, but it at no time descends into the graceless smears that Ron used to spew.
The problem is that the system created by the founders practically mandated a two party system.
The only problem is that supporting Independents means handling the keys of the American car for N years to the Party who is likely or even willing to run it into a cliff and destroying it be it throgh bankruptcy or through losing the WOT. Go ahead vote Independent and live in a world where Muslim terrorists have access to Iranian nukes.
This is not 185x when America could afford the luxury of waiting for the Whig’s Party death. Quite simply America has no time for a third party. The only option is a takeover of teh Republican Party (vote in primaries instead of watching sitcoms) and steering it in the right direction.
Its one thing to run as an Independant because, you have a different political philosophy from either party. But to run as an Independant while adhering to the same political ideals of your former party in order to get elected, does no one any good.
The whole premise of the article is rather laughable – no offense.
First, political parties are an essential part of any health system of government. Like minded individuals will always band together for support and to increase their chances of winning elections. The only governments that do not have political parties are totalitarian governments under a one party – thus a no party – system.
Second, the very Founders you cited as opposed to the party system are the ones that first created the system in the United States. Washington, although not a Federalist, clearly sided with the Federalist position with his endorsement and support of Alexander Hamilton and his policies. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who you cited as against political parties, founded the first party in an attempt to organize and defeat the Hamiltonian policies. All may have disagreed with the politcial party system but they created it and used it to further their own agendas.
Third, the real struggle is not between the Republicans and the Democrats but between the establishment and the people. Republicans and Democrats have both been seduced by the establishment mentality. The Democrats are completely given over to establishment mentality. Even the so called Blue Dogs are nothing but establishment lap dogs. (See the health care vote and all other votes as proof.) Yes, Heath Shuler, you are a cowardly boy.
The Republicans are currently in a battle for their own soul with the establishment and the conservatives waging electoral war on one another. The establishment backs candidates like Coats in Indiana and Crist in Florida. Coats and Crist both resemble the Democrat estalishment and vote accordingly. Conservatives go for the conservative candidate in defiance of the establishment. God bless Jim DeMint.
The Founding Fathers would not vote for an I just because of the I. They would vote for the conservatives who continually labor to conserve the political system they fought and died and to build.
The choice is Demopublican or Republicrat. There is not a bit of difference between the two major parties except in their rhetoric. In actions they are the same party with their strings being pulled by an third group which is nowhere and is intended never to be seen. How else could a person with no record of any kind whatsoever be installed as the de facto president?
And the system created by the drafters of the US Constitution did NOT mandate a party system whatsoever, practically or otherwise. The word party does not even occur in any of those documents, and the most outspoken among them all warned us away from believing in parties. But just as cliques form in school, people form in cliques to best each other. That is not the idea of representative government established by our system.
Furthermore, the French Parliament created the idea of two sides of the aisle, and divided their members that way. We don’t have two side but three, and we don’t have sides to our aisles any more because they are all on the same side making side deals with one another when no one is looking.
The French did not create the party system. My guess is that it has existed since the dawn of time. We at least know that the ancient Greeks had political parties or factions. Our analysis of the political system – left to right – comes from the French but not the idea of parties itself.
The Founders may have denounced the party system but they started it in the United States. The Constitution may not mandate it but political parties are the natural outcome of politics.
The advantage of the Greek system was that there were several political parties, not just two… also, there was far less “running for office’ and much more “whoops, you got the short straw and have to go represent us”… which means that nepotism, rhetoric, dirty pool etc had little room to grow.
In European “democracies” there is little way for the citizen to influence the parties. You have to eat the dog food they presnt to you. In the exterme case of prportional systems parties could force a pedophile through the citizens throats and in addition governemnt is formed through negotiations behind teh citizens backs.
Well, aren’t we glad our ancestors left that hellhole
Actually the French had political parties only several years after US had them.
We don’t have a two-party system.
Show me where in the documents defining our system of government that parties, much less two parties, are even mentioned? Its not in the constitution, dude.
The two oligopolies that control things continue to reinforce this idea of a “two-party system” and “bipartisanship” in order to perpetuate themselves. We have no such system.
You’ve heard the Big Lie so often that even you repeat it. Shame on you.
The founding fathers, based on my study… weren’t against ‘parties’ per se… but mostly against the idea that there would be two parties that held all the cards… which is where we are today.
Parties should exist, it makes sense in the system. It’s an easy way for people to identify with those they share values with. However, to believe that the D’s and the R’s provide that kind of value at this point is nuts.
The Democrats claim the liberals, the socialists and the ‘republicans’ (ie those who wish to see a strong republic that directly affects the member states)… yet these three groups are extremely different. Even socialists and republicans are at odds… current Obama policy is ‘republican’, whereas the idea of a One Payer system or Government run healthcare is socialist. Those in our society who are socialist in thinking aren’t getting useful representation. Those who are liberal, and yet not republican aren’t getting good representation.
The GOP, on the other hand, throws a ‘big tent’ but again, they can’t possibly represent the spread. Those with libertarian views are never going to agree with the social conservatives. I know many social conservatives who strongly believe that it is a duty from Christ for our government to help the poor… they have no place in either party…
The reason that we have only these two mega parties has to do with our system of election… remember its a relatively new (100+ years) rule that says “Dem and GOP primary winners AUTOMATICALLY get on the ticket, all other parties have to do X, Y and Z to get on the ticket.”
THAT is the problem.
If the tea party wanted to put up their own reps, they would have to wage a huge battle just to get the person on the ticket… so instead they have to grit their teeth and vote for the least terrible Republican.
Personally, I think we asks each state to set a standard for what a legitimate political party is. Once a party meets that standard (and all parties including the big two must meet the standard) then they get a guaranteed spot on the ballot. Same thing at the federal level for national parties. If you meet the requirements, you’re boy gets a shot on the ballot.
Having only two parties puts us into an Us vs Them mindset… we see ‘the other guy’ as The Enemy, instead of as our brothers, who just have a different way of seeing things. Generally, this is because of the extreme elements in each party which aren’t being truly represented, but are loud enough to smear the whole party.
Besides, smaller parties will probably mean power sharing and more gridlock in congress… that is quite possibly the best thing that can ever happen to our wonderful government. Government is best when its too busy arguing with itself to actually screw up the government
The system of voting we have also strongly encourages the existence of two parties.
There are other voting systems that allow third parties to flourish.
In preferential voting, you vote for everyone on the ballot that you find acceptable, then the candidate with the most votes wins.
There’s also the instant run-off system in which you mark which candidate is your favorite, second choice, third choice, etc. In this system they add up all the first choice votes. If one candidate gets a majority, he’s the winner. If nobody has a majority, then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated, and the second choice on all those ballots are promoted to first choice and the process is repeated.
The problem with the current system of only voting for one candidate is getting people past the notion that voting for anyone other then Rep. or Dem. is a wasted vote. I’ve talked to a lot of people who strongly support the Libertarian candidate, but when they get into the voting booth, they hold their noses and vote Rep. or Dem. because in their opinion, the Lib. has no chance.
I agree completely… and both of these impediments are modern creations put in place by the parties in power. Hrmmmmm
You don’t have democracy because you have elections or a gazillion political parties. Democracy means power of the people and you have it only when there are mechanisms allowing the citizens to force the government to comply to their will. A system of two prties where citiznes cabn steer them through primaries is infinitely better than multiparty systems like in Europe who were designed by to keep the people as far away from having real power as possible.
The problem in the American system is those who prefer to watch sport on TV instead of voting in primaries and those who don’t make the effort of staying informed and prefer to trust some loser in CNN telling them about that wonderful guy who will bring hope, change and flying unicorns.
As you say, it is in human nature to join with those of like mind to oppose those of a different one. As Jefferson reminded us though, a difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. The principles are what are now at issue in America, not human nature or the history of political parties.
When looking at the effects of parties in history, the most pronounced and obvious manifestations to be seen are the Communist Party, the National Socialist Workers Party, and others of like mind, all pursuing the same end, which is tyranny, through the use of public acceptance of their parties. Were it not for ideological parties, and their known acceptance as a part of human nature, which they certainly are, and which can be manipulated, which they certainly were, such genocidal monsters as Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot could not have taken charge of the masses.
When our country was being formed out of the ashes of the struggle to get rid of monarchies, the Royalists could no longer be called by such an unpopular name, so they started calling themselves Federalists. Nonetheless, their objective was the same–re-establishment of a supremely strong central government. Unfortunately for them, the Constitution that was ratified by the states did not allow such dictation from Washington. It has taken people of that mind set, no longer called Royalists or Federalists, a long time to get to this point in which the people have for at least two generations assumed that Washington can dictate to the states. All other countries allow having a central power over all others. Many people migrated to America with this idea and never understood this difference in principle in our system of governance. Parties are the Royalist/Federalist means, as they were stopped from having that means at the beginning of our country.
David Hume wrote extensively on the reason that the masses allow a handful of people to dictate to them. All of those reasons, described by him in the 1700′s before our war of secession from Britain had even started, were realistic and accurate. Among them are reasons we see today in America, such as reverence for the past. But there is one or two among them having to do with factionalism. He described two types of political parties as reasons for allowing a small group to dictate to the vast majority, those which are formed for the good of the party and those which are formed for the good of the country. What we have now is the former, but we do not need one of the latter type today: we need Americans to be Americans, not party members who after once succeeding in regaining our constitutional footing can go back to sleep. We need Americans to stay awake to the dangers of factionalism, because, as you say, factionalism will again encroach upon what is a system based upon principles, not party favoritism. Not trust, but watchfulness, that is what is incumbent upon us from now on.
The primary system is the principal means used by the parties to control the election process. It has not been around very long in America, but once it got started, those who are in it for the good of a party, not for the good of the country, saw the way to cut out all but their supposed opposing party. This was the means that the third group of people, who remain in the background and hidden in their influences, to co-opt the entire process. That has now happened.
Parties are fine when you have a celebration of some sort, but in the decision making process in Washington DC they are the death of America as we thought we knew it. That is why they are not mentioned in our founding documents in any decision making role.
Let us consider what one of the greatest (and one of the most conservative) Presidents has said:
That was Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1975.
It’s still true today.
…and here we are 35 years later, still waiting for a Republican party that sounds like what Reagan described.
And that is why my son wrote in Ronald Reagan for President when he was eligible to vote in 2008 in his first presidential election. Because of what Reagan stood for and also because he (my son) subscribed to the idea that if we were crazy enough to elect a dead guy that it would scare the bejesus out of our enemies.
If only we could find some statesmen and women who could actually accomplish the ideas and goals that Reagan stated.
Charlie Crist is no Independent. He’s a self-serving politician. When he realized he couldn’t win as a Republican, he decided he might have a chance by declaring himself an Independent.
It’s not the same thing.