John Adams on “division of the Republic”

6 Responses to John Adams on “division of the Republic”

1. Ron says:

   February 16, 2004 at 4:24 pm

   Well, the reality is that politics in this country have always been nasty. In fact, as nasty as they are today, its tame in comparison to what it used to be. And accusations of a sexual are nothing new either. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

   Reply
2. red says:

   February 16, 2004 at 4:26 pm

   The divisiveness of the political PARTY is what he is referring to.

   Adams never wanted our government to divide off into factions. It pained him to see. jefferson SAID it pained him, and yet he was behind the scenes, increasing the divisions, forming alliances.

   I know politics are nasty, but that’s not what he’s talking about here.

   Reply
3. David says:

   February 17, 2004 at 9:02 am

   As mentioned, politics have always been a nasty business. What Adams, and others, feared was a “divided” two-party system wherein blind partisanship superceded the welfare of the country as a whole. Today’s Us vs. Them menatality is very unhealthy for our nation, in my opinion. Any accomplishment, no matter how beneficial, is derided by the other side, which believes if “they” succeed, “we” suffer. There are many honorable exceptions on both sides of the aisle/political divide, but there is an ugly self-absorption that permeates our whole political system. It threatens our stability, and our unity.

   Reply
4. Dean Esmay says:

   February 17, 2004 at 10:44 am

   Let me tell you why Adams was wrong.

   Almost all the founders hated the idea of political parties. Some, like Jefferson and Adams, while hating the idea, saw them as an inevitability.

   Political parties make for petty, snarling, stupid squabbles. Grasping, vile, vulgar fights over stupid bullshit.

   But here is another truth, and one I often try to remind myself of: political parties keep each other honest, constantly striving to not give the other an opening. Especially in our two-party system, the existence of parties forces everyone toward moderation. The most shrieking, earth-shattering rhetoric often underlies the most moderate of proposals: thus, an effort to move Social Security toward a privatized system is portrayed as “an attempt to destroy Social Security,” and an effort to expand medical insurance toward the poorest citizens is portrayed as “socialized medicine.”

   The truth is that the effect of all this vituperation–the actual result–is usually a moderate solution that most people can live with.

   In other words, our system tends to amplify rhetoric but to moderate results.

   Even if you look at so towering a figure in 20th Century history as Franklin Roosevelt, it is very easy to remember the accomplishments instead of the failures. We talk a lot about the changes the New Deal wrought, yet, how often do we talk about the fact that at least half of Roosevelt’s New Deal proposals either failed to pass in Congress, or were struck down by the Supreme Court? Or the fact that most of the New Deal changes were gone by the 1950s? (Do you know anyone who works for the WPA?)

   Almost no one remembers the fact that Republicans, in the early 1940s, accused Franklin Roosevelt of knowing in advance about the raid on Pearl Harbor and doing nothing. Furthermore, almost no one remembers that, of the war in Europe, some said, “It’s Roosevelt’s War!” (i.e. not ours.)

   My point being, again: we tend to amplify our rhetoric even when we moderate our results. I think more people should recognize that.

   All that said, I’m spiritually in tune with most of the founders. I hate the extremist rhetoric and attitudes that parties create. This is why I love such politicians as Joe Lieberman, Alan Simpson, John McCain, Joe Biden, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, and others. Politicians who both understand that political parties are an inevitability, AND have an ability to step outside the partisan bullshit and really get what’s important.

   Reply
5. red says:

   February 17, 2004 at 10:51 am

   Yes, but at the time that John Adams wrote this – he could not see into the future, and see a “two-party system” that could somehow bring about moderation. There had never been such a thing on the planet before. They feared “factions” – factionalism was a dirty word. As long as they were working to free themselves from England, they felt they needed to be unanimous. And, of course, they fought about how the government should be set up, etc., but it was all towards a common goal.

   The Founding Fathers had, in their heads, a very clear and frightening example of what factionalism could do to a cause – Factions pulled apart the parliamentary forces in England in the 17th century, and directly led to a restoration of monarchy – despotic monarchy.

   I totally agree that the two-party system is helpful, and necessary – although both parties are driving me fucking crazy right now – and I think all of them are snakes, at heart.

   But in the times that tried men’s souls – factionalism was to be feared. The stakes were so high.

   So no. John Adams was not wrong. His vision was incomplete, perhaps. He was a man of his time, who feared the mob, who feared that his cause would be derailed by infighting.

   Reply
6. Rodney Blythe says:

   December 5, 2010 at 11:20 am

   How does one trick himself into believing ” Party ” superseed’s ” Principle ” ?

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.