I defer this page to George Washington, “The Father of our Country.”
An excerpt from the book, We Hold These Truths, downloadable free of charge on this website, page “We Hold These Truths.”
On “Party Spirit” in Politics
George Washington: It is a fact too notorious to be concealed, that Congress is rent by party, that much business of a trifling nature and personal concernments withdraws their attention from matters of great national interest at this critical period. When it is also known that idleness and dissipation takes place of close attention and application, no man who wishes well to the liberties of his Country and desires to see its rights established, can avoid crying out where are our Men of abilities? Why do they not come forth to save their Country?
Let this voice my dear Sir call upon you — and others; do not from a mistaken opinion that we are about to set down under our own vine and fig tree and let our hitherto noble struggle end in ignominy; believe me when I tell you there is danger in it. 12
H. Inquirer: What can I say, sir? It is ingrained in human nature to feather one’s own nest. There are always too few George Washingtons among us.
Mr. President, in making its own rules, Congress has allowed what is, to me, a strange development. When this strange rule was first instituted, I cannot tell. I only know I cannot find it in the Constitution. It is called “party control of Congress,” and is so commonly accepted that the phrase is used generously by the media. One or the other of the two viable political parties is also said to be in control of the White House at any given time.
In the elections of 1994, the Democratic party, which had been “in control of Congress” for 40 years, lost the majority to the Republican party; so, the media announced that the Republican party is now “in control of Congress.” It seems that Congress has made rules for its own operation such that the political party having the most members in Congress dictates the proceedings of that body. Where this mode of controlling our Executive and Legislative bodies comes from, I do not know — but certainly not from the Constitution.
George Washington: The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetuated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. 13
H. Inquirer: What an interesting observation. Party control of government is, itself, a form of despotism.
George Washington: But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of and individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns his disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of 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 the duty of wise People to discourage and restrain it. 14
H. Inquirer: Then we would have better government without the interference of political parties. How does our partisan system weaken good government?
George Washington: It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble 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 channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another. 15
On the Danger of Political Parties
H. Inquirer: I quote from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, October 16, 1996, “The controversy over an Indonesian banking family’s donation to President Clinton’s re-election campaign has spread to the contributor’s homeland, where public figures called yesterday for a criminal investigation.” Indonesian Mohammedans saw this act of foreign influence as a criminal act, but the Democrat Party in America does not.
Subsequently, Congress opened an investigation of the incident and discovered that the Democrat Party had actually received millions of dollars from Communist China, a despotic government, known to be at enmity with the United States. The investigation also brought out that the Republican Party, the party then “in control of Congress,” had also taken lesser donations from foreign governments. That party neither could come to court with clean hands.
Can politicians be prevented from forming people into political parties?
George Washington: This spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its roots in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, contrould, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. 16
One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together in fraternal affection. 17
H. Inquirer: The last half of the twentieth century has witnessed a great churning about of the population, so that some of the artificial regional prejudices have been lost to politicians. However, political parties, like lawyers and editors, are not such as to let the people be bound together in fraternal affection. Economics, race, religion, and social issues are rich ground for political parties to create strife and ill will for partisan gain.
George Washington: 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.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true, and in Governments of Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not in 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 quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into flame, lest instead of warming it should consume. 18
On Politics and Bad Government
H. Inquirer: Until my recent study of these matters, I was under the impression that the people elected representatives to Congress, each representative with equal status, independent of each other and all organizations, with the sole purpose of representing the interests of their constituents, with due regard for the best interests of the whole United States. That, sir, is the only impression I can get from the Constitution.
Well over one third of the people claim no political party affiliation. Where is their representation in “party control of Congress”?
George Washington: All obstruction to the execution of Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with real design to direct, controul, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give artificial and extraordinary force; to put in place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of a Community; and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongrous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils 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, 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. 19
H. Inquirer: Mr. President, you have described the system pretty well as it operates at the end of the twentieth century, in both the Executive and the Legislative branches, and, in course of time, in the Judicial branch as well, because of political Executive appointment. Our federal government has become a polyglot of factions, political parties, lobbyists, special-interest pressure groups and organizations, all driven by campaign money of questionable character.
No individual has yet risen to dictatorship; but a condition possibly more odious has developed. The government that actually touches our daily lives is a vast bureaucracy created by Congress, filled with petty tyrants, armed with fill-in-the blanks acts of Congress, and having broad regulatory powers. In theory this bureaucracy is under the authority of the President; but, as a practical matter, because of continuous litigation, it is more under the control of the Judiciary. In short, we are governed by an out-of-control bureaucracy and a judicial oligarchy which has declared, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”
Congress seems blind to our circumstances. They seem to be preoccupied with building their campaign “war chests,” partisan wranglings, and promoting their political parties. How shall we ever return to the simplicity of the Constitution?
On Making Congress Work
George Washington: Party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day whilst the momentous concerns of an empire, a great accumulated debt, ruined finances, depreciated money . . . are but secondary considerations and postponed from day to day, from week to week as if our affairs wore a most promising aspect. 20
H. Inquirer: In the vernacular, sir, you’ve “hit the nail on the head” again.
It seems to me that State Legislatures could devise a plan for electing representatives to Congress that would preclude the interference of political parties. Congress could do likewise for electing the President.
Congress surely could exclude unelected political party hacks from the legislative process. Unfortunately, the only two viable political parties are already firmly entrenched and monopolizing the political process. One or the other of these two parties is in control of State Legislatures, the Congress, and the White House at any given time.
How shall we ever break the stranglehold of political parties on the elective and administrative process and get back to the simplicity of the Constitution?
George Washington: For Heavens sake who are Congress? 21
H. Inquirer: Good question, sir.
George Washington: Are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? 22
H. Inquirer: I believe that is the way it was intended to be, sir.
George Washington: Congress are in fact, but the People; they return to them at certain short periods; are amenable at all times for their conduct, and subject to a recall at any moment. 23
H. Inquirer: Occasionally a rotten Congressman will fail in a bid for re-election; but I have never heard of one being recalled, a reflection on his constituents, I suppose. Actually a recall process is not available to the people.
George Washington: My political creed . . . is, to be wise in the choice of Delegates, support them like Gentlemen while they are our representatives, give them competent powers for all federal purposes, support them in the due exercise thereof, and lastly, to compel them to close attendance in Congress during their delegation. 24
H. Inquirer: One of the most comical scenes I have witnessed was a Congressman babbling away to an empty hall. I do believe, sir, if we all adopted your political creed and pursued it with conviction, most of our problems with our elected representatives would be solved.
George Washington: These things under the present mode for, and the termination of elections, aided by annual instead of constant Sessions, would, or I am exceedingly mistaken, make us one of the most wealthy, happy, respectable and powerful Nations, that ever inhabited the terrestrial Globe, without them, we shall in my opinion soon be every thing which is the direct reverse of them. 25
On Limiting Congressional Sessions
H. Inquirer: Annual sessions instead of constant sessions? Please explain.
George Washington: Annual sessions would always produce a full representation, and alertness at business. The Delegates, after a recess of 8 or 10 Months would meet each other with glad Countenances; they would be complaisant; they would yield to each other as much as the duty they owed to their constituents would permit, and they would have oppertunities of becoming better acquainted with the Sentiments of them [their constituents] and removing their prejudices during the recess.
Men who are always together get tired of each others Company; they throw off the proper restraint; they say and do things which are personally disgusting; this begets opposition; opposition begets faction; and so it goes till business is impeded, often at a stand. I am sure (having the business prepared by proper Boards or a Committee) an Annual Session of two Months would dispatch more business than is now done in twelve; and this by a full representation of the Union. 26
H. Inquirer: Did you say two months, sir, a session of two months? In two months they could dispatch more business than is now done in twelve? I had thought it would take a session of at least six months, after which time they would be up to more mischief than legitimate business; but, I bow to your greater wisdom.
Perhaps they hang around Washington to collect money from lobbyists, to run the President’s business, or to build and protect their personal fiefdoms.
Two months, you say! There is a stirring among the people — fed up with partisan wrangling, pork barreling, tax increases, and passing more laws than we can digest — to limit sessions to six months — a good idea whose time has definitely come.
Two months, you say? Perhaps six months is necessary. But then, after more than two centuries of lawmaking, surely we have about all the laws we need. They just cannot be spending all that time making laws. What they need, I think, is more time to repeal at least half the laws we have already; so I will vote for six-month sessions.
On Term Limits
George Washington: There are other points on which opinions would be more likely to vary. As for instance, on the ineligibility of the same person for President, after he should have served a certain course of years. Guarded so effectually as the proposed Constitution is, in respect to the prevention of bribery and undue influence in the choice of a President: I confess, I differ widely myself from Mr. Jefferson and you, as to the necessity or expediency of rotation in that appointment.
There cannot, in my judgment, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it; but in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity: and even then there is as much danger that any other species of domination would prevail. Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.
Under an extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public. 27
H. Inquirer: Because of sincere agreement on the issues, as well as great respect for your person and station, sir, rarely would I disagree with the Father of our Country.
For nearly a century and a half, Presidents followed your precedent, and declined to serve for more than eight years. Then, in 1932, a man was elected President of the United States in the middle of a deep economic depression. I cannot relate all the details; but, in the public view, this man fed the people when they were hungry. He was elected for a second term; and, as the end of his second term drew near, a despicable madman in Europe was drawing the whole world into a horrendous war.
It seemed expedient under the circumstances not to change Presidents at that time, so, he was elected for a third term. The war lasted for four dark years; and he, being a wartime President and very popular with the people, was elected for the fourth term; although he was too incapacitated to negotiate the peace in the best interests of the United States. Within a year after his third re-election, he died in office.