In our prior article in this series, we had discussed the origins of the political divide within the United States. Beginning with divergent opinions over how to interpret and implement the Constitution and the way our nation should be constructed, our first set of political parties – called by political historians the “First Party System” – consisted of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists favored a strong central federal government that wielded a fair amount of power over the states and believed that the future of the nation rested in commerce, industry, and trade with foreign nations. The Democratic-Republicans believed in a very limited government, preferring the states to possess greater power, and felt that the yeoman middle-class farmer was symbolic of the direction the nation should follow. Despite making important changes in our government that influences us even today, the Federalists were repeatedly swept in elections following the presidency of John Adams. The party soon disbanded in 1828, ushering in the end of the First Party System and bringing on the Second.

Oh, yes, Old Hickory would get his revenge…

In 1824, before the Federalist Party met its death, the seeds of the Second Party System were already planted. That year, only one party was in the presidential election. The Democratic-Republicans were running four men for the presidency: John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, William Crawford, and Andrew Jackson. Jackson won the popular vote of the election, however there was no electoral majority. The election was then thrown into the House, which, with the behind-the-scenes help of Henry Clay, chose well-connected John Quincy Adams. Jackson, claiming a “corrupt bargain,” left the Democratic-Republicans to form his own faction of reformers. This faction would become known as the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Adams’ Democratic-Republicans came to be known as National Republicans. Jackson’s party became known for its outspoken disapproval of the Second Bank of the United States, a large federally operated bank based on Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist beliefs. Jacksonian Democrats felt the bank, issuing its paper money, was perpetuating economic instability and that the credit of the United States should be based on specie (gold, silver, etc.) rather than paper notes. Furthermore, the Democrats ran in support of the working class, farmers, immigrants, and the westward expansion of the nation.

Ok, tell me that isn’t awesome.

The election of 1828 brought about an entirely new era of American politics, truly bringing a marked change from the First Party System. Jackson’s Democrats and Adams’ National Republicans unleashed into the country a level of mudslinging and negative campaigning previously unseen in the young nation. Jackson’s supporters referred to Adams as a pimp, spreading a rumor that while Adams was serving as ambassador to Russia, he had given an American girl to the czar for sexual favors. Adams’ supporters countered by calling Jackson a murderer for engaging in numerous duels and executing six militiamen during his military service. The National Republicans went so far as to question the legitimacy of Jackson’s marriage, claiming that Rachel Jackson was an adulteress because she had allegedly married Jackson while married to another man. Despite these less than sparkling aspects of this period in American politics, the election of 1828 sparked a huge overdrive in the levels of voter turnout. The heavy and highly involved campaigning during this election resulted in four times as many voters participating than in 1824.

An 1837 lithograph with the first usage of the Democratic “jackass,” a symbol of the Democrats that still exists today.

Jackson roundly defeated Adams and went on to a two-term presidency marked with what some would term as heavy-handed policy. Crushing the Second Bank of the United States, smashing political opponents like his rival Henry Clay, and presiding over the dangerous Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs, Andrew Jackson gathered quite an opposition to his name. His opponents, rallying from the ashes of the old National Republicans, founded the Whig Party in 1833. The term “Whig” is derived from a term patriots and opponents of King George III in the American Revolution referred to themselves as. Wishing to announce their opposition to the oppression of “King Andrew,” the name stuck. Making their first major appearance on the national political stage in the election of 1836, the Whigs ran three candidates: William Henry Harrison, Daniel Webster, Hugh Lawson White, and Willie Person Mangum (what a name…). However, they were unable to muster up enough votes against the genius political maneuvering of “The Little Wizard,” Martin Van Buren. However, war hero Harrison managed to rally significant support and knock Van Buren down four years later.

In the next post, we’ll chart the second half of this rather large and influential segment of American political periodization, following the battle of the Democrats and Whigs, the rise and fall of smaller third parties, the divide over the question of slavery, and the eventual rise of the Republican Party. Thanks for reading, tune in next week!

In last week’s blog post, we covered the opinions of our nation’s Founding Fathers on the concept of political parties within the United States of America. The three spotlighted Founding Fathers we spotlighted were our first three presidents, George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. What they had to say about political parties would certainly not flatter the modern Democratic Party or GOP. Washington said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another… is itself a frightful despotism.” Almost having a frightful premonition, Adams put it, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.” Jefferson mused, “Such an addiction [the submission to a political party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

Yet, despite these men’s best efforts, political parties began to form early in our nations history. This week, we’ll explore the origins of these parties and what they stood for in the period typically described as America’s First Party System.

The First Party System is typically described by political historians as beginning around 1796 and progressing to 1816. In the first years since the Constitution’s ratification in 1787, George Washington provided something of a stabilizing presence within the nation’s political realm. A dedicated non-partisan, he despised the notion of the country becoming split into factions. However, even under his own administration, he saw the effects of political division beginning to take effect. The first great political break initiated with the construction of the Constitution itself. Federalists (led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) were for the establishment of a stronger central government and the eventual passage of the Constitution, while the Anti-Federalists (led by the likes of Patrick Henry) preferred a weaker national government and preferred things as they were under the Articles of Confederation. As we all know, the Constitution passed and the Anti-Federalists were defeated. But still, the question of how strong the national government should be is a question that continued to a be a burr under the saddle for Americans throughout the coming years.

A pretty accurate description of how the First Party System came to be.

This question brought about the rise of personalities as rallying posts for where the country would go in the future. On one hand was Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, who had visions of a strong federal government based on industry and mercantilism with foreign nations (Great Britain in particular). On the other was Thomas Jefferson, a strong supporter of the the value of “republicanism” (note the small “r”). The classical concept of republicanism in American political history holds a belief in the rights of the states rather than the strength of the Federal government, and that the key to building the nation was through the liberty of the yeomanry (middle-class independent farmers). As Hamilton drew more supporters, his coalition came to be called the “Federalist Party” around 1793. In response, Jefferson’s supporters founded what they termed the “Republican Party,” called the “Democratic-Republican Party” by political scientists today to avoid confusion with later parties.

A black and white cockade, the symbol of the Federalist Party.

Thomas Jefferson himself gave an accurate synopsis of this period in American political history. He wrote in 1798, “Two political Sects have arisen within the U. S. the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other that like the analogous branch in the English Government, it is already too strong for the republican parts of the Constitution; and therefore in equivocal cases they incline to the legislative powers: the former of these are called federalists, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats, and sometimes tories, after the corresponding sect in the English Government of exactly the same definition: the latter are stiled republicans, whigs, jacobins, anarchists, disorganizers, etc. these terms are in familiar use with most persons.”

When George Washington chose to leave office in 1796, the floodgates were opened for political battle between these two now firmly established parties. Jefferson challenged Federalist and former Vice President John Adams for the presidency that year, but found himself defeated by his good friend turned political adversary. However, policies by Adams’ administration, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, proved unpopular, and in 1800, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans roundly defeated the Federalists in national elections, Jefferson himself taking the Presidency. However, Federalists remained at a considerable strength in the judiciary and legislature, making many advances in strengthening the Federal government. The Federalists would never again take the Presidency, and eventually following the War of 1812 in a period known as the Era of Good Feelings, many of the issues that the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans had fought over became moot. Thus, the Democratic-Republicans remained in power and the Federalist Party fell away into history.

In an illustration from 1800, the late President Washington, pictured in heaven, implores Federalists and Democratic-Republicans not to destroy the pillars of liberty in the midst of their fighting.

The question of the strength of the Federal government remained a provocative issue throughout American political history, and in fact still is today. Today in Congress, we see squabbles over whether or not the government is overreaching its authority on measures like healthcare, Social Security, surveillance, and other issues. In our next post, we’ll explore later periods in American politics and the effects they had on today’s polarized political atmosphere.

These days, politicians positively love to raise up the ghosts of the Founding Fathers.

“Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he would see that this administration has done x.” 

“Our nation’s father, George Washington, would hang his head in shame to see the state of this country after y.”

“Benjamin Franklin would certainly have preferred z over what this Congress is proposing.”

Senator Paul of Kentucky, avid utterer of Founding Fathers’ quotes

The Founding Fathers are quite frequently included in the rhetoric of today’s political orators. After all, what red-blooded American could revile the holiest of all American holies, the men that created this Union? It’s a fair enough rhetorical device, and it often enough actually works. We can see from a decent glance through a history book how Jefferson felt about the size of the role of government in American society, the vision Washington held for the future of the nation, or the methodology Franklin may have used in foreign diplomacy. Why not call these facts up a bit to help bolster our argument against our political opponents, those miscreants across the aisle? Strong libertarian and opponent of large government Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky certainly loves to throw Jefferson at his adversaries. In his victory speech after winning his senatorial seat in 2010, Paul proclaimed, “Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘That government is best that governs least.'” (Rather unfortunately for Sen. Paul, though that quote is often attributed to the third President of the United States, it was actually authored by literary figure Henry David Thoreau.)

But there are some opinions and philosophies of the Founding Fathers that esteemed congressmen of either side will not generally air, mainly due to concern for their political survival. It may come as a shock to the leading members of the Democratic Party and the GOP to suddenly be reminded that those men they so revere, the ones they studied all through their academic careers, absolutely reviled the concept of political division and partisan rule in the United States of America. It’s quite true.

The founders of our nation were of course prepared to expect that not everyone would get along in American politics. Not everyone will be of one accord, and naturally people will be split on issues. That, of course, is how democracy works – through deliberation of issues by differing mindsets and searching for an outcome that is best somewhere in the middle. But never did these men hope to see this nation descend into the bitter partisan polarization that we now see today. Rhetorically speaking, if we look at a lot of our legislators and political figures in our nation today, we almost see a stronger devotion to the concept of party than to the duty of the job they had been elected to do. Rather than cooperate to produce a final product beneficial to the American people, it almost appears that the main goal of politics today is to retain and defend the integrity of one’s own party while, if one can, demeaning the opposition.

But from the very beginning, it was this sort of political behavior that our first leaders warned us about. Let us observe George Washington’s farewell address, delivered in a letter “to the People of the United States” at the close of his second term in 1796. This letter was originally to be delivered in 1792, when Washington originally planned to step down. However, in order to prevent the rising tension between the new Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party, he stayed on a second term, thus saving this letter for later. Washington knew in 1796 that the nation’s strength was threatened by political divisiveness, and thus made it one of the key topics of his address. He writes:

President Washington, 1789-1797

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension … 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.”

Furthermore down the line of presidential stock, we find the beliefs of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both some of the most lauded of our Founding Fathers. Adams and Jefferson lived in the first truly charged partisan atmosphere of American history, in the midst of the conflict and bitter rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Perhaps none at the time were more aware of the vitriolic poison of such an atmosphere than these two. Dear friends and political partners during the time of the Revolution, Adams and Jefferson, a Federalist and Democratic-Republican respectively, were drawn apart by the political tension of the era. Sucked into the political division as they were by the events of the time, there was little they could do about it. Nonetheless, we do find in each of their pasts a hatred for the bitterness that partisan division brings.

President Adams, 1797 – 1801

Adams writes in 1780:
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.”

Jefferson writes in 1789:

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

President Jefferson, 1801-1809

The Founding Fathers themselves have presented us with the dangers of partisan division, and Adams and Jefferson found themselves lost in it. In the next blog post, we will explore the origins of American parties, starting with Adams and Jefferson’s own Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

Mr. Obama flanked by the Vice President, Joe Biden (left) and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner (right)

On Tuesday night, January 28, 2014, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, stepped into the House Chamber before a thronging audience of senators and representatives, generals and officers, justices, esteemed guests, and the almighty television camera to perform his perennial duty as mandated by our Constitution: to “give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” After a year consisting of debacles like the government shutdown crisis, a rocky roll-out of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the leaking of crucial government information by Edward Snowden, the international bur-under-the-saddle of Syria, and the lack of meaningful legislation on firearms and immigration policies, Mr. Obama had much to say.

After a brief run-down of advances and improvements made by the administration over the past year (a slightly inflated view of things, according to fact-checking by political news clearinghouse Politico), Mr. Obama launched directly into an acknowledgement of the deep partisan divides that have halted progress on nearly all fronts of our national legislature. “For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government… But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy – when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States – then we are not doing right by the American people.” The President clearly referred to the sharp political battle that boiled in October of last year when Congressional Republicans, coaxed along by ringleader Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, blocked the passage of the federal budget due to the inclusion of the Affordable Care Act, resulting in a government shutdown and the threatening of the United States’ AAA credit rating.

The political deadlock in Congress caused by the polarized political attitudes now prevalent amidst the nation’s legislators is a major problem, and no one knows it better perhaps than Mr. Obama. The amount of pushback this president has received from Congress is almost unprecedented, the greater portion of it regarding the president’s healthcare reform. House Republicans voted, as of November of 2013, 47 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a statistic Obama almost blithely included Tuesday night, saying, “But let’s not have another forty-something votes to repeal a law… The first forty were plenty.” But of course the most significant jams in the process of legislative progress are not between the President and Congressional Republicans, but between Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans. Though the Democratic Party presently holds a majority in the Senate with 53 Democrats and two Democratically-caucusing independents, the GOP holds a strong majority of 233 to 200.

Courtesy, Gallup Politics

The partisan deadlock has manifested itself in a noted lack of productivity in this 113th Congress, a sharp decline from 2009-2010’s 111th Congress – noted as one of the most productive since the 1960s. Approval ratings of this current Congress certainly point to the general public’s opinions on the present lack of activity. In November, 2013, in the wake of the hindrous and disgraceful government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, Gallup polling registered a Congressional approval rating of a paltry 9%. This ranks the current Congress as the least-respected since Gallup began measuring the nation’s feelings regarding it.

Feeling the clearly evident pulse of the nation regarding our law-making bodies, Obama called for an end to the partisan detritus that so hindered legislative efforts over the past year and a refocusing by Congress back onto what truly matters, requesting, “In the coming months, let’s see where else we can make progress together.  Let’s make this a year of action.  That’s what most Americans want – for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations.”

Moving through his address, Mr. Obama touched upon several issues, from education, to foreign policy, to alternative energy, to climate change, to healthcare reform (Ted Cruz at this point clenched his fists in silent frustration), to jobless benefits. His message to the nation was clear: on these topics, he intended to see meaningful legislation passed and useful action taken. However, the nation will silently (or perhaps not so silently) wait and see what the ever-deadlocked 113th Congress will do with respect to Mr. Obama’s wishes.

As we are all quite aware, our nation is becoming more politically polarized and divided than it has been in years, almost at an alarming rate. Our legislature is plagued by partisan deadlock, political discourse is plagued by pettiness and divisive behavior, and attempts at political progress and work are horrifically blocked by inactivity and stonewalling. This is a phenomenon worth noticing, certainly worth observing and critiquing. We as Americans need to eventually come to realize that our political differences are steadily pulling us apart and making us utterly ineffective as a functioning government. Therefore I have chosen to base my civic issues blog on this particular phenomenon.

Our political leaders are steadily becoming more and more radicalized by fringe movements like the Tea Party and other more extreme organizations, only fueling the partisan divide in our political system. It is becoming more and more difficult to be a moderate in this country, not only in our national legislature and other government entities, but in the every day life of Americans. With drastically differing views on such issues as abortion, marriage equality, gun control, healthcare reform, and foreign policy, our two main parties of our political system are drawing farther and farther apart. Through this blog, I hope to explore where this divide began, who has been leading it, who is most guilty of propagating it today, and where it may take us in the future.

I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.