US Political Parties

[Rush Limbaugh]

It seems that Washington hated political parties and warned they would be the nations ruin.

FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796)
George Washington

George Washington had been the obvious choice to be the first president of the United States, and indeed, many people had supported ratification of the Constitution on the assumption that Washington would be the head of the new government. By all measures, Washington proved himself a capable, even a great, president, helping to shape the new government and leading the country skillfully through several crises, both foreign and domestic.

Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility.

When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.

The two parties that developed in the early 1790s were the Federalists, who supported the economic and foreign policies of the Washington administration, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, who in large measure opposed them. The Federalists backed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's plan for a central bank and a tariff and tax policy that would promote domestic manufacturing; the Jeffersonians opposed the strong government inherent in the Hamiltonian plan, and favored farmers as opposed to manufacturers. In foreign affairs, both sides wanted the United States to remain neutral in the growing controversies between Great Britain and France, but the Federalists favored the English and the Jeffersonians the French. The Address derived at least in part from Washington's fear that party factionalism would drag the United States into this fray.

Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

The Address quickly entered the realm of revealed truth. It was for decades read annually in Congress; it was printed in children's primers, engraved on watches and woven into tapestries. Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel, and in any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues would invoke the message as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.

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.

FAREWELL ADDRESS

So how did he see government working without parties. And are they good or bad for us?

[Thanatos]

Except parties are inevitable, we're human.

[Ruin]

No they're not. Here, although admittedly a much smaller system, parties have been torn apart in elections. People prefer to vote for individuals rather then masses, else running the risk of electing some people they don't like for the ability to elect someone they do like. Political parties restrict direct democracy by giving the power of appointment to the party, and away from the electorate.

[Каие]

I can barley apply the term parties to the United States, more like two camps.

[Last Roman]

at a national level, especially in such a large country like the US, it is inevitable. People who have similar ideals and goals will come together.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The problem arises when you have to compromise your beliefs for the party. Thats why the republicans are dying. Mc Cain would be great if he werent wrong on so many things.

[Каие]

The problem arises when you have to compromise your beliefs for the party. Thats why the republicans are dying. Mc Cain would be great if he werent wrong on so many things.

I would say it is the Party which has changed not its members. Didn;t Abe Lincoln found the party? It was pretty different back then, compared to now.

[Senno]

We should trade with all countries and have alliances with none, as expressed by TJ. Makes sense, until Britain or some other country calls.

"Hello America? Need your help over here. Send aid forthwith."

"OK, be right there, gotta put on our pants."

Crazy world. It's either to much America, or not enough America in their necks of the woods.

They are a bit obnoxious now, since they are "saved". Little Belgium, thinking they could blockade our troops moving through Antwerp. Hello there Belgium, that's an act of war Belgium. Move outta the way, pee-wee, coming through.

Next war in Europe I vote for staying home.

And the parties aren't doing all that well for us either.

[Ruin]

"Hello America? Need your help over here. Send aid forthwith."

"OK, be right there, gotta put on our pants."

Iraq was kind of the opposite no?
America: "Hey people, is it alright if we invade Iraq?"
UN: "No"
America: "**** you, Britain, come help us, pity please?"

Crazy world. It's either to much America, or not enough America in their necks of the woods.

Where is there not enough America? Most of the world is fed up with US interventionalism! (Personally I think that the west should be more interventionalist, perhaps NATO should become more active again)

They are a bit obnoxious now, since they are "saved". Little Belgium, thinking they could blockade our troops moving through Antwerp. Hello there Belgium, that's an act of war Belgium. Move outta the way, pee-wee, coming through.

What?

[Senno]

[quote=Ruin;3081388]

Iraq was kind of the opposite no?
America: "Hey people, is it alright if we invade Iraq?"
UN: "No"
America: "**** you, Britain, come help us, pity please?"

Yes it was a bit opposite. One might thank France for that. For 12 years and 18 security resolutions we tried to work within the UN framework. Push came to shove, and, France engaged in machiavellian maneuvering to influence the UN Security Council. So the US withdrew and went with some other allies.

France's behavior was showing of their generalized attitude towards the US. This is epitomized by the "French Exception". They seem to feel the US is to big, therefore must be opposed in all things.

Chirac said this in a letter to his friend Georges-Marc Benamou:

"France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without casualties, at least on the surface."

And that's the problem. France thinks we only act in our national interest, and we think they only act in theirs.

When you view the results of France's UN maneuvering, it makes sense from our perspective.

From a human perspective Chirac promised Bush that France would not stand in the way and would aid in bringing Iraq into the fold. He didn't deliver on that promise.

Where is there not enough America? Most of the world is fed up with US interventionalism! (Personally I think that the west should be more interventionalist, perhaps NATO should become more active again)

There wasn't enough in Afghanistan.

And we realize the level of "interventionalism" is high. Yet it is the result of "well meaning" liberalism that leads us there. Trying to feed the hungry, spread Democracy, etc. Simplistic goals. Those goals in reality are hard to realize.

We are finding out now that specific policies don't accomplish this goal (such as farm subsidies), yet I agree with you generally that some "interventionalism" is needed. Not with tanks, necessarily, but aid, aid that works.

And if a government is recalcitrant, and refuses to amend their ways and continues to harm their citizens, maybe "we" need to do something about that more directly.

War should be the absolute last option. But it is needed as an option. Perhaps NATO is that vehicle. The UN forces aren't effective at the peace-keeping mission, much less a full war.

How to decide when and where to "intervene" is the hard part.

What?

Excuse my little joke about a member of Parliament from Belgium that demanded that U.S. diplomats be expelled from Belgium, and that US troops be blockaded as they tried to move through Antwerp. Blocking US troops movement would have been a technical act of war.

P.S. We are both speaking in large genarizations, I can address specifics if you wish. The "legality" of the war in Iraq, is discussedhere in this thread.

PPS Gone fishin' til Friday evening.

[Ruin]

What has France got to do with anything? I was arguing against your point that people are constantly crying for aid from America, which they're not. Then you go off on a tangent talking about France, which is irrelevant.

The interventionism issue would not be as large an issue if it was not for the headstrong "I'm right you're wrong" of Bush's administration, where any opposition was simply steam rolled or ignored. They would not take no for an answer.

Blocking US troops movement would have been a technical act of war.

No it wouldn't.

[Kiljan Arslan]

The real problem with political parties (especially in the US) but to a lesser extent elsewhere, is the fact that rather then serve the voter they serve themselves, they do not die when they should, they try to change their policies but all that will do is screw up the party turning the party into coalitions of itself.

[bushbush]

guys guys..

compare to a few hundred years ago, politcal parties today are so freaken weak.

back then, party leaders held the power of nomination nationally and locally. They held the control of the massive party machine moblizing voters.

today, parties are merely the vehicle of individual candidates. Election has gone from labor intensive to capital intensive.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Unfortunately.

[Senno]

The mention of the Iraq war brought France into into the topic. I responded to the the mention of the Iraqi war at a general level. France's involvement in that is both explicit and implicit.

There was a reason to not take "no" for an answer. That some of the world doesn't accept it is their problem.

Opposition wasn't steamrolled or ignored in every case. NATO is in Afghanistan now, which is greatly appreciated.

And Bush's term is almost over. Soon the world will have a new President to complain about.

No it wouldn't.

/whoosh. People infer for poop abround here don't they.

Belgians Blocking US troop movement would have been viewed as a technical act of war by the US.

That Belgium got out of the way and our troops were not literally blockaded in Belgium is evidence enough that they came to their senses. The protesters on Belgium might of screamed and hollered, but troops got on the transports and went to Iraq.

C'est la vie.

[Ruin]

There was a reason to not take "no" for an answer. That some of the world doesn't accept it is their problem.

That is a different topic, the legality of the Iraq war. It still remains a fact that the world resents America for it's interventionism and ignoring the basics of international diplomacy and protocol.

Opposition wasn't steamrolled or ignored in every case. NATO is in Afghanistan now, which is greatly appreciated.

What's that got to do with opposition? The US completely ignored the UN's stance in the matter, and completely ignored complaints from middle eastern nations on the matter.

And Bush's term is almost over. Soon the world will have a new President to complain about.

Thank God.

Belgians Blocking US troop movement would have been viewed as a technical act of war by the US.

Why? It's their own territory! The US wasn't going to declare war on a nation for not allowing their forces to cross it, that would be lunacy.

[Senno]

[quote=Ruin;3083430]

That is a different topic, the legality of the Iraq war. It still remains a fact that the world resents America for it's interventionism and ignoring the basics of international diplomacy and protocol.

Rather it objects to President Bush doing what he feels must be done. The The President directs national security matters. That we are the world's pushover is obvious.

What's that got to do with opposition? The US completely ignored the UN's stance in the matter, and completely ignored complaints from middle eastern nations on the matter.

See above.

Thank God.

Religion might be found in the strangest places. But don't celebrate so fast, even Obama is an interventionist at heart.

In an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism – and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction -- will require the cooperation of many nations. We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist. But we should know that our success in doing so is enhanced by engaging our allies so that we receive the crucial diplomatic, military, intelligence, and financial support that can lighten our load and add legitimacy to our actions. This means talking to our friends and, at times, even our enemies.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Nov. 20, 2006

Why? It's their own territory! The US wasn't going to declare war on a nation for not allowing their forces to cross it, that would be lunacy

An act of lunacy on Belgium's part, that would have represented a clear casus belli. That they didn't actually do it was a wise decision. We wouldn't of actually fought them, rather leaned on them in some other matter.

P.S. Obama's quote captures both of our arguments in it's meaning. I rather think we are engaged in much adieu about nothing. Bush is almost gone. A new President is coming.

[Ruin]

Rather it objects to President Bush doing what he feels must be done. The The President directs national security matters. That we are the world's pushover is obvious.

Pushover? And yes, they do object, as one man should not be able to decide the will of nations which did not elect him, that is otherwise known as dictatorship.

Religion might be found in the strangest places. But don't celebrate so fast, even Obama is an interventionist at heart.

In an interconnected world, the defeat of international terrorism – and most importantly, the prevention of these terrorist organizations from obtaining weapons of mass destruction -- will require the cooperation of many nations. We must always reserve the right to strike unilaterally at terrorists wherever they may exist. But we should know that our success in doing so is enhanced by engaging our allies so that we receive the crucial diplomatic, military, intelligence, and financial support that can lighten our load and add legitimacy to our actions. This means talking to our friends and, at times, even our enemies.

BARACK OBAMA, speech, Nov. 20, 2006

It was a figure of speech rather then an actual reference to God. I personally am quite undecided on whether I would prefer Obama or McCain to win personally. Obama seems to be quite a lot of waffle to no substance, but that's another issue.

An act of lunacy on Belgium's part, that would have represented a clear casus belli. That they didn't actually do it was a wise decision. We wouldn't of actually fought them, rather leaned on them in some other matter.

Such as what? Every country in the world has a right to control of it's own sovereignty, the US would have held no rights over Belgium with it's forces in Belgian lands, and every nation in the world would have opposed the US staying there if the Belgian government opposed, it would have been a de facto invasion.

[Senno]

[quote=Ruin;3083587]

Pushover? And yes, they do object, as one man should not be able to decide the will of nations which did not elect him, that is otherwise known as dictatorship

.

Your objection to the Supreme Court's decision is noted. And I disagree. Since you do not understand the Constitutional issues, I will not discuss them.

The next President will also have the same authority, as every President in the history of our nation has.

It was a figure of speech rather then an actual reference to God. I personally am quite undecided on whether I would prefer Obama or McCain to win personally. Obama seems to be quite a lot of waffle to no substance, but that's another issue.

I realize that. I treated it with the same level of literal response that you provide in your answers to me.

And yes, Obama is promising everything to everyone. Government to the rescue, is what he will provide to the US public.

Such as what? Every country in the world has a right to control of it's own sovereignty, the US would have held no rights over Belgium with it's forces in Belgian lands, and every nation in the world would have opposed the US staying there if the Belgian government opposed, it would have been a de facto invasion.

We did not need to stay in Belgium, just move through it to Antwerp from NATO bases around the continent. We can not use Antwerp if the Belgians actually wish. Except they do like the business it generates. Hence it is counter-productive to oppose it, and would have been an cassus belli for war if they had blockaded our troops from moving through Belgium once we were in their territory. If they had not let the troops enter from Germany, that would be one thing, to block us once letting us into their country, another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you miss the part back up there where I agreed with you?

[Ruin]

Your objection to the Supreme Court's decision is noted. And I disagree. Since you do not understand the Constitutional issues, I will not discuss them.

I fully understand them, I was referring to the population of nations the US has invaded, rather then that of the US.

The next President will also have the same authority, as every President in the history of our nation has.

The power of the president has increased this century over that which it was in the nineteenth century.

And yes, Obama is promising everything to everyone. Government to the rescue, is what he will provide to the US public.

A lot of waffle with little actual content is what I get from his speeches

We did not need to stay in Belgium, just move through it to Antwerp from NATO bases around the continent. We can not use Antwerp if the Belgians actually wish. Except they do like the business it generates. Hence it is counter-productive to oppose it, and would have been an cassus belli for war if they had blockaded our troops from moving through Belgium once we were in their territory. If they had not let the troops enter from Germany, that would be one thing, to block us once letting us into their country, another.

It's not as if they would have stopped you leaving.