Stop Me if You Think that You've Heard this One Before

I am listening to "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis, which is about the Evolution of America right after the American Revolution. In it Ellis takes six key events in the early history of our nation and unpacks them, talking about the personalities and the philosophies involved (I'm pretty sure I wrote about this the first time I listened to the book, but I'm doing it again).

It's interesting to consider the very real differences that occurred in the Revolutionary era. It's also interesting to note that the great split in the revolutionary era (between Federalists and Democratic Republicans) is such that each modern party can claim a bit of each legacy. The Federalists for example believed in a strong federal government that would exert its influence to solve problems facing the American people. That sounds like something the Democratic Party would agree with. On the other hand, the Federalists were also closely aligned with financiers and manufacturing interests, and were seen as protecting their interests over the interests of the American Farmers (the working class of that era).

George Washington was federalist. The book makes the point that the experience of the Revolutionary War guided President Washington throughout his life. In order to win the war, Washington had to hold his army together. In fact, that's more or less the only thing he had to do. As long as the Continental Army existed, the British couldn't win the war. By the same token, the United States had to hold together. It's not hard to imagine separate colonies being subsumed back into European empires if they had not stayed together. So Washington, on the occasion of his departure from the public stage, wanted to ensure that the nation would continue to stay united.

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.

Something to consider, in these days when we are pitted against each other by powerful political forces who have a lot to gain from our mutual antagonism.