"In 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 time." - Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
Sep 22
RSS feed
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 7:25pm
Mr. or Mrs. or Miss Anonymous:
Nobody is being suppressed; if third parties have not made any inroads, it is because the people do not wish to vote for them.
I would be much obliged if you would explain how the Federal Reserve has robbed us of our liberty.
What is a Republicrat?
~ Publia
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 8:58am
Anonymous Says:
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 2:26pm
"The founding fathers would be pleased by our two party system because it is not infringing on any of our natural rights and it is keeping things equal and fair for all."
Never have I seen a statement so deeply in denial of the truth. Our liberties are nearly all gone. We are living under soft fascism and socialism.
The suppression of political parties other than the two mainstream Dems and Reps, i.e., Republicrats, has done more to rob us of liberty and the principles upon which our country was founded than nearly anything else with only the exception of central banking (the Feral Reserve).
Fri, 10/24/2008 - 8:15pm
I looked some things up, and my memory appears to have mildly stubbed its toe: Mr. Jefferson did not actually write the articles and pamphlets himself, but he hired someone to do so, which amounts to the same thing. I only wished to point out that partisan politics has not gotten any nastier since then.
I agree that campaign finance should be more carefully regulated, but I believe that raising money within the United States cannot be considered "buying the election", inasmuch as the people are voting with their money as well as with a ballot.
The larger problem, and an apparently insoluble one, is the bias of the media.
~ Publia
Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:48am
Dear Publia: If memory (of texts, not actual events, chuckle) serves, Mr. Jefferson himself did not defame Mr. Adams, but admittedly, when his supporters did he did not denounce. The important part of my text concerns the enormous amount of money being raised to "buy" the Presidency. Transparency as to where these great sums of money come from is important as we know overseas factions are supporting one candidate over the other. The critical question that must be answered is "Why? What's in it for them?" An American in Florida
Mon, 10/20/2008 - 7:29pm
The lady or gentleman who said that the custom that the runner-up became the vice-president was got rid of because of Jackson and Calhoun is in error. It was changed by the Twelfth Amendment, which was passed in 1804, on account of the discord which had existed between Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr.
To An American in Florida: In the realm of negative campaigning, nothing has changed. Mr. Jefferson himself was guilty of it, running defamatory articles about President Adams (his close friend) in the newspapers before the election of 1800.
~ Publia
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 8:20pm
Madison had it right....gov is required for certain functions AS LONG as the people watch the government
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 10:05am
One thing that is different today from the election of 1800 is that the presidential candidates were not just in contention with their opponent from the opposing party, but they were also in contention with their vice presidential candidate. Additionally, there was no such thing as a running mate, as the president and vice president were from two different parties. This was, in effect, modeled after the the Roman system of government in which there were two councils making decisions and attempting to balance each other out. This format fell apart during the 1830's, because Jackson and Calhoun hated each other.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 4:05pm
In his first Inaugural Address, President Jefferson said,
“During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now
decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good.”
Mr. Jefferson’s lifelong belief was that the people would always be American first, party second. Unfortunately in our time, millions and millions of dollars are spent not on strengthening the people’s knowledge of their government, but on denigrating the opposition’s values, distortion of truth, and debasing the other candidate. It appears our contest to win the presidency will be awarded on which party’s candidate spent the most money. In effect, which party’s candidate bought the presidency.
The question then becomes can the nation unite under a new administration when it believes its highest office is now in the hand of the highest bidder. I wonder what Mr. Jefferson would say about such a situation. An American in Florida
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 2:26pm
The founding fathers would be pleased by our two party system because it is not infringing on any of our natural rights and it is keeping things equal and fair for all.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 11:01am
To Steve in Lancaster:
Well put
Tue, 09/23/2008 - 3:46pm
Unity and dissension are often defined by the times. The Founding Fathers were uniquely unified in their opposition to the crown. But in other areas they were decidedly opposed to one another. Although our presidential elections tend to bring out the divisive issues of the day, I tend to think that we are still loyal to the same basic ideals. I may support the right of a woman to have an abortion, yet we all would agree on the inalienable rights of every individual.
I might support gun control but I would readily admit my belief in the ability for people to own and enjoy property which they use responsibly. We all abhor the terror attacks of 9/11, but we may differ on how to properly respond. Together we hope to enjoy a good economy and prosperity, but we share different opinions about the role of government in a market-driven system. Ultimately, I don't think I'm so different than my next door neighbor even though we're loyal to opposing parties.
We almost always cherish the same earthly ideals, but sometimes we differ on how those things can be acheived. What matters most in American democracry is that we have the freedom and liberty to debate these issues. And as we debate, we come to a greater understanding of the very ideals which we value most.
~ Steve in Lancaster, PA
Tue, 09/23/2008 - 1:27pm
That the Founding Fathers encouraged dialogue and debate is evident, but I don't think they envisioned a time when Americans would hold such vastly different views from their next door neighbors. The last few presidential elections show that more people are embracing a third or even a fourth party ideology. An "any party system" should be more than voting for the lesser of two evils.
An independent party supporter
Post new comment