Skip to main content

This is the third in a series analyzing historian Richard Hofstadter's 1969 book,  The Idea of a Party System. During a period when progressives' frustration with the Democratic Party seeks constructive resolution, it is worth looking at the historical evolution of parties under the leadership of the Founders, whose very fears about political parties quickly became reality.

You can read Part I here and Part II here.

Part III: The Adams Administration

In Parts I and II we looked at the Founders’ disdain for political parties and factions, why Madison and others believed their influence could be mitigated, and how the French Revolution created the first partisan crisis of the young republic.  Now we turn our attention to John Adams, who could not claim President Washington's pretense of non-partisan governance, though that hue by the end of his second term.

The behavior of the Federalist Party in the late 1790s eerily foreshadowed the Bush-era Republicans.  As tensions mounted with France, and the Anglophiles that ran the Federalist Party ratcheted up hysteria over France’s many diplomatic blunders, hoping to turn the American public sharply against the French, and, in turn, against the Republican Party.   The notorious Alien and Sedition Acts, which passed Congress narrowly (44-41) in 1798:

"{W}as vague enough to make a man criminally liable for almost any criticism of the government or its leading officers or anyeffort to combine for such a purpose...It drew no definable distinction between criticism and defamation, opposition and subversion"(p.107).

Hofstadter has praised the innovation of the Founding Fathers for creating the first legitimate political opposition under a republican framework, but he acknowledges that the Sedition Act was a major threat to its development.   Federalists hoped to cow Republican dissent by criminalizing their pro-French rhetoric.  It is a testament to President Adams that he was able to buck the "High Federalists", who agitated feverishly for war, and ultimately decide against it, believing that the United States was too fragile a country to launch a costly war with its populace so bitterly divided.

Meanwhile, morale was down in the Republican camp, even as they continued to make gains in Congressional elections throughout the 1790s.  Jefferson encouraged his party to look past the election of Adams to the presidency, and bear with this Constitutional experiment, even as some of his peers speculated on secession:

"{I}n every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissensions and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for a longer or shorter period of time.  Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch and relate to the people the proceedings of the other"(p.115).

For those of us reeling from the 2010 midterms, or indeed, for Republicans who were stunned by their repudiation in 2008, Jefferson’s passage should remind us all that in a democracy the side one supports will inherently lose the trust of the people in time, for any other result would be an indictment of the democracy’s vibrancy.   It is the responsibility of the party to bring the inadequacies of its opponents to light, and sell the people on why governing in an alternative manner would be preferable to their interests.

Jefferson continued:

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles...If the game runs against us sometimes at home, we must have patience until the luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the PRINCIPLES we have lost.  For this is a game where the principles are the stake"(p.117).  

Folks, even in these times, the reign of witches will pass over, and their spells will dissolve.

For progressives who share my optimism about emerging demographic trends, including the socially liberal inclinations of the internet generation, the growing number of Hispanic voters and the passage of fundamentalism’s high-water mark, Jefferson had similar, and ultimately correct, assumptions about demographics in his own time.   He admonished Republicans to put away thoughts of secession or violence, and to stick with the democratic experiment.  

Meanwhile, President Adams was finding out the lesson George W. Bush never had to- that a public’s appetite for war is easily lost by an accompanying tax increase.   The Republicans seized on this issue, and Adams, even as he had avoided war, was hammered over his party's proposal for a burdensome war tax.  It soon became evident that the Republicans were cruising to electoral victory in 1800.

Now the Republicans, who had suffered such persecution as the minority party, would have the chance to govern.  But, as Hofstadter explains:
"{E}ven their  own experience as an opposition, however educative, had not fully reconciled them to the necessity of an opposition..."
Their own war to wipe out the Federalist Party for good was on the march.

-------------------
Thanks for reading.  This piece and its predecessors are posted on livingthedream.org. Coming soon- Part IV: The Jeffersonians in Power

Originally posted to janosnation on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, coolbreeze, Larsstephens

    http://livingthedream.org

    by janosnation on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:52 AM PST

  •  We've Never Before Had the Entire Global Economy (4+ / 0-)

    free and able to campaign here before. If I've got the figures right, business injected new advertising money into the midterm cycle equivalent to an entire major Presidential election cost, beyond the normal amount that was spent.

    As a result 92% of the country thinks their tax cuts were hikes. And the turnout and voting this month reflects that nightmare fantasy.

    It's not rational to take the position that a free journalistic press is essential to democracy, and then take our situation that lacks a journalistic press reaching the mainstream and instead subjects them to a global information war, and expect that there's going to be a return swing of the democratic pendulum.

    Demographics don't matter if they don't turn out or if like women this election they become convinced to vote Republican.

    Republics have a way of developing permanent propaganda information environments and permanent ruling minorities. While we're not completely there yet and it's not set in stone, it is a very plausible near future for the US at this point.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:17:03 AM PST

    •  Don't disagree with anything you say here... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coolbreeze, Larsstephens, ozsea1

      We're not in great shape as a republic, that is for sure.  

      Corporations, and their partners in the Republican party (and some of their partners in the Democratic party) are a very serious threat.  That said, we've weathered serious threats before.  We all need to stay vigilant and keep fighting.  The pendulum never swings any direction on its own.

      http://livingthedream.org

      by janosnation on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:27:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  XII Amendment in 1804... (0+ / 0-)

    was the reification of the end of the idea that we would not have parties.  Before that the second highest vote for president was assumed to be an ally of the president, with only slightly differing or lessor skills.

    With this amendment a two party system was part of our system of government.  I just read all four parts of your diaries, and appreciate this effort.

    The differences between these early parties and todays, are of course, vast.  Then they were based no fundamental ideological views.  Now, they are often competing for the rewards of gaining power.  They would not have understood the concept of "wedge issues" when now both parties live and die by such issues.

    And of course, voting was restricted to those with wealth and interest in political discourse, now it is based on anger aroused by the mass medium.

    This could never have been foreseen by our founders.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site