A Message From George Washington On Party Unity

Dissent will always exist within a political party during any election. This presidential election is certainly no exception to the rule. Dissent within the ranks of a political party is perfectly normal and helps to maintain a check upon the power-hungry. For their part the media has focused their attention this season upon the attempts at unity within the Democratic Party; with little regard to the voices of dissent within the Republican Party.

The best gauge as to the intentions of a candidate is not to observe who supports the candidate, but rather who does not. Within the Republican Party, John McCain has had trouble garnering widespread support from the “Conservative” base or right wing of the party. The Obama campaign has tried to define McCain as a far right candidate, out of touch with America, and beholden to the base of the party. However if that were the case, then Conservatives would flock to McCain, embracing him as the champion of conservative values. Have they?

The same methodology can be used with the Democratic Party. Barack Obama has attempted to define himself as a moderate, centrist candidate, able to cross the aisle to work with Republicans to build his New World Order. Obama’s support from within the Democratic Party has come from the far-left and the Party elite; the dissent has risen from the moderate Democrats and “Reagan” Democrats. So what does that tell you about the candidates? One has been tagged as “not conservative enough” and one that represents the “Soros” faction of the far-left.

John McCain has long been the established “maverick” of the Republican Party; able to moderate his position for what he believes is the proper path for America. He has accepted sharp criticism from Conservative and the Far-Right of the party and he has responded not by pandering to his critics but rather by offering to work with his critics. Conservatives and the Far-Right of the party will eventually turn out and vote for John McCain in November, not because they fully support or share his policies but rather to stop what they view as the radical and manipulative policies of a power-hungry politician.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is suffering a different fate. The moderate Democrats, led by truly grass roots movements (Puma and Just Say No Deal) see their party being taken over by a small faction of wealthy individuals, intent upon power. They no longer view the Democratic Party as a party of inclusion and a party with leadership able to moderate their positions. The moderate Democrats understand that their party’s leadership is part of the problem within Washington, not part of the solution. For their part, Democratic and far-left leadership has taken a different approach for building unity within their party. They have sent a clear message that Democrats should vote for a Democrat; that party unity is more important than whom the nominee is; that party unity is more important than the values that the “Reagan” democrats share. Party leadership has gone so far as to create their own organization, HOUND; an organization to promote "Unity" and subvert the genuine GRASS-ROOTS movement of PUMA and JUST SAY NO DEAL.

So…On this week in which we celebrate the birth of our nation and the liberties and freedoms which our predecessors have fought so hard to uphold, I bring you a simple message; a reminder and a warning from our First President and the man who was charged with uniting and building this great nation.

George Washington on Political Parties from his Farewell Address, 1796:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, 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 it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels 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 and things, 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.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

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.

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.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism…

...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Jarid Brown
July 1st, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Remember Just $10!Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement
Obama's Subprime Buddies