"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 in opposition to each other."
-John Adams (1790)
In other news, I highly recommend the book John Adams by David McCullough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
... yet there's no other possible endgame based on the provisions in the Constitution.
ReplyDelete[An important note: I fully believe everything David McCullough writes in John Adams and all of his other works, as he is known to be an incredibly meticulous researcher and writer. I mean, the guy was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom and his Wikipedia page has no section entitled 'Criticism' or 'Controversy.' C'Mon!]
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is really unfortunate that this is the only outcome. I only yesterday finished John Adams, and while it inspired in me a reverence toward the moral character of John Adams it did little to give me much confidence in the founding fathers as a whole: Ben Franklin is a womanizing lush; Alexander Hamilton a manipulative man with Napoleonic dreams; Thomas Jefferson a well-spoken, weak-willed man with a penchant for indulgence and a crippling fear of confrontation; ad infinitum.
Adams, on the other hand, consistently comes across as a man who, while flawed, struggles to acknowledge, accept, and manage his weaknesses. He used this self-awareness to achieve many great things: it is Adams who created a bill of rights in the Massachusetts constitution; who defended the British soldiers charged after the Boston Massacre; who was the strongest advocate for a complex system of checks and balances; etc. Though he was an incredible mind, Adams did have trouble with tact, and was viewed as a rigid, argumentative man; this often led to the wrongful dismissal of some of his ideas and claims.
In short it is not surprising that Adams perceived this major weakness of our Constitution (which was written without his consultation as he was at the time serving as ambassador to England), but was unable to inspire the change(s) necessary to correct it.
I now open the floor to comments on these questions: What is the optimal party arrangement for United States politics (theoretical and/or practical)? Why is this optimal? How can this ideal be achieved?
Interesting assessment, you've made me want to read the book!
ReplyDeleteTo tell you the truth, it actually makes me feel better to read about how flawed most of the "founding fathers" were. It's so easy get caught up in hero-worship of them, to compare them with modern evildoers like Cheney & Co., to wonder what happened to the days of brave, committed leaders. It's nice to know that under most circumstances, a certain type of person is attracted to high-profile politics, and that they the power can be corrupting. At least we've always just been human, as opposed to a constant slide downwards.
This did not answer your question at all. That will require a little more thought.