During Washington’s second term in office, inter-party
animosity was at a high tide (as ever, it seems). The factions that supported
Britain and France respectively took every opportunity to press for any
advantage, call into question their opponents’ motives and register their
disagreements in often violent ways. Political newspapers appeared seemingly
overnight, publishing vicious editorials and slanderous cartoons; farmers and
distillers in Western Pennsylvania staged a tax revolt; Spanish authorities in
Louisiana intrigued with disaffected Westerners and plotted to break away from
the union. Not since the Revolution had America seemed so near the brink of
utter disaster, and few were more conscious of this fact than Washington
himself. It is unsurprising then, that his Farewell Address contains repeated
cautions against excessive factionalism and repeated assertions of the common
causes shared by all Americans. What is perhaps surprising is how relevant they
seem to the present state of politics in the United States.
Before I dive into
the Address itself, I’d like to take what I'm sure you've come to see by now as
a customary pause to discuss some matters of context. It is, in this case, of
particular importance to understand exactly what Washington was confronting in
1796, what his assumptions about factionalism were, and why he was so alarmed
by what modern Americans have come to see as accepted role of political
parties.
As I’ve referred to
before, the factions that emerged in the United States in the 1790s grounded
their opposition in both the foreign and domestic spheres. One, referred to as
the Federalists, was generally sympathetic to Britain, believed in a strong
federal government, and supported commerce, taxation, and the national debt.
The Federalists found their strongest support in large urban areas, particularly
in New England, and were led by men like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. The
other, called the Republicans or Democratic-Republicans, tended to align
themselves with French interests, preferred strong state governments, and
supported agriculture, low taxes, and free trade. They were popular among
Southerners and Westerners (in this era meaning settlers in Western
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, and later Ohio), and were led chiefly by
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Neither party was prepared to accept the
existence of the other, claimed their opponents were actively endangering the
republic they claimed to protect, and believed that they needed to be
completely destroyed in order to ensure the survival of the United States of
America.
This apocalyptic
view of party politics was a consequence of an 18th-century mindset,
and particularly a republican mindset, that didn't really account for the
existence of formal political parties. Factions were an accepted, if
undesirable, reality: court factions, country factions, factions that formed
and re-formed to meet the needs of a given situation. But these entities were
the product of monarchies, were rarely permanent, and lacked almost all of the
characteristics we've come to associate with modern political parties; no
charters, no formal hierarchies, no fundraising capabilities, and no single,
identifiable brand. A common lifespan for this kind of faction would be to
coalesce around a particular leader or issue, do battle with an opposing
faction, eradicate said opponent, and then disperse or divide. Because they
were transient things, and because monarchies tended not to place a great deal
of value on the will of the common people, factionalism was generally viewed as
unavoidable, if unpleasant. For factions to exist in a republic, however, was
seen as far more problematic.
Republics, after all, are
structured around the idea that a government is ultimately responsible to the
people it governs. The people’s ability to choose representative for that
purpose is the literal expression of the same idea, as is their ability to
replace them at regular intervals if they so desire. Presumably, the people
select their representatives - their Congressmen, Senators and Presidents -
based on the belief that whomever they choose will act with the best interests
of their constituents in mind, and in accordance with republican principles,
practicality, and good sense. However, if these same representatives were to
group together in a series of factions or parties whose aim was not observing
the will of the people but consolidating power and destroying their opponents,
how is responsible government to function? And if these factions actively work
to inflame public opinion in order to rally support, and in so doing create an
atmosphere of violence and anxiety, how long would it take for one person or
another to seize power for themselves in the name of promoting security and
stability? It was questions like these that worried classical republicans like
Washington, and led both the Federalists and Republicans to refuse to accept
the label of “political party” for themselves. In both their eyes, their
factions were only temporary associations of like-minded statesmen that sought
to protect the fragile American republic.
I make these points mainly to
drive home the idea that nobody in 1796, not even members of the factions
themselves, thought that political parties were a good idea. This would
continue to be the case in America for several decades, until at least the 1840s.
Up until that point political factions tended to assume power with the
understanding that they would right all the wrongs of their predecessors, and
that organized ideological divisions would no longer need to exist. The idea
that a party could exist, could oppose the government without being accused of
disloyalty or treason, was a novel one, and evolved very slowly. Thus, when
Washington refers to parties or factions in his Address, it’s important to
remember that his understanding of these terms and ours is fundamentally
different. However, that doesn’t stop many of the ideas he puts forward, about
national unity and the dangers of excessive partisanship, from being highly
relevant to the America of today.
For instance, in sections 17 and
18 of his Address Washington argues that any and all “combinations and
associations” whose principle aim is to “direct, control, counteract, or awe
the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,” are
ultimately destructive to the liberty of a free people, however well they might
serve the needs of a few. These associations, he claims, aim to replace the
will of the nation with the will of a “small but artful and enterprising
minority,” for the purpose of making “the public administration the mirror of
the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction.” While Washington was
almost certainly talking about the influence of the Democratic-Republican
societies, local political organizations that had emerged in the early 1790s
and were connected to the Whiskey Rebellion, it’s not difficult to see how this
denunciation might relate to modern money politics and the influence of
interest groups and lobbyists. Though American politics in 1796 were far less
transparent than today, Washington saw that groups or individuals that possess
the proper resources or influence might easily take hold of the political
process and direct it to the own ends, to the detriment of the people. Then as
now, American politics exists in a delicate balance; responsive to the popular
will, but also capable of being manipulated by it. Washington believed, and I
think it true today, that however effective certain methods may seem to be at
getting things done, one must always be aware of their potential implications,
particularly if they come into conflict with the basic principles of
republicanism.
That being said, and though he
likely would have preferred it otherwise, Washington did not believe it
possible to eradicate the spirit of factionalism altogether. Indeed, in section
25 he admits there is evidence to suggest that the formation of a formal
government opposition party could provide a useful counterbalance against
administrative excess. However, at the same time he cautioned that while
factionalism may be capable of serving a useful purpose it was not something
that should be encouraged. It being man’s natural tendency to group together
with others of like mind, Washington believed that it was necessary for a
republican government to “mitigate and assuage” the spirit of partisanship and
channel it in a useful way. “A fire not to be quenched,” he wrote, “It demands
a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of
warming, it should consume.” While Americans today are far less reluctant to
acknowledge the utility of organized parties, they are also at times far too
willing to allow the party contest to eclipse all other political concerns.
Party conventions, filibusters, government shut-downs; these are the events that
seem to dominate the American political landscape, yet how much have they to do
with government? Are they not the flame that Washington warned against? I doubt
very much that he would have been able to foresee the heights to which
factionalism has risen in the United States. Still, he knew well enough that
partisan politics, lest it become destructive of good government, must always
require a degree of restraint; a trait which has, from time to time, been
lacking in American politics.
Before I bring this lengthy
series to a close, I’d like to take a moment and reflect on one last insight
that Washington saw fit to share in his Farewell Address. It comes early in the
text, in section 10, and like his explanation of the necessity of taxes I
believe that it may be one of the most wise, profound, and eloquent statements
ever made by an American leader. In short Washington claims while discussing
the advantages of a union of the states that Americans have every reason to be
proud of their country, and that this pride unites them across all boundaries,
real or imagined.
He goes on to say:
“You have in a common cause
fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the
work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and
successes.”
Imagine that. The things that
Americans value most, their freedom and their independence, they owe not just
to themselves, to their government, or to the efforts of some old white men
from centuries past, but to each other.
However much Americans may disagree (and they do) on how their government
should function, the operation of the law, the freedom of the individual, and workings
of culture and commerce, they could not have achieved the pride of place they
now enjoy in the world without each other, and without a shared devotion to
their country and what it stands for. For Washington, who witnessed in his
lifetime perhaps the most divisive period in American history outside of the
Civil War, this is a very magnanimous view to take, and one which we could all
do well to reflect on, now and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment