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. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. - "Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789."
Sep 15
RSS feed
Wed, 11/25/2009 - 6:17am
Jefferson knew well the dangers of placing party first and so did Adams.While it is true that one tends to adopt a particular political philosophy,one should avoid impaling their soul in the process.
S.Collins
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 2:36pm
I agree with "TJ's" statement. I feel as though this society is so wrapped up in their political party, that they forget to make political decisions based on how they feel. I think that political parties are bringing us back to high school where people are afraid to state their opinions because of their social status.
Fri, 06/12/2009 - 1:00pm
People are too loyal to *both* major parties. Any criticism of 43 made you a virtual terrorist in some circles, for heaven's sake. And no, I'm not an Obama supporter.
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 1:03pm
Yes. I think sometimes people are so loyal to being a Democrat that they don't question anything thats said from behind a podium with the seal of the president.
This is exactly what Jefferson was referring to.
Sat, 12/27/2008 - 5:22pm
Why is it that we as a people cannot agree on anything, I think Thomas Jefferson had all the right ideas, that is to gird up our loins and be proactive instead of compromising our true beliefs. And the shame of it all allowing these usurpers to get into power and keep us under foot. It is time to form a new party a new way towards the ideals that our founding fathers intended and that is the freedom to pursue happiness without the intrusion of our governments.
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 2:18pm
Thanks for your good words. Political correctness is merely the tool to force others to yield to the "Tyranny of the Minority." For, that is where we find ourselves today. Those who actually promote the ideaology of inclusiveness are actually the same tyrants of old using the strategy of "divide and conquer." There purpose is to gain power over all, both the majority and the minority.
And, we must realize that the truth isn't always with either majority or minority factions, as factions never even remain true to the original purpose they espoused in their birth.
If force can be used to compel one, it can be turned and also be used to compel the other. The answer is in recognizing the source of our Rights and the "rule of law." Our founders clearly established a form of government that recognized our rights come from our Creator and was empowered to administer laws that were (no longer) rooted in the organic law of the Holy Bible. The bible was cited more than five times the next highest citation source, Blackstones Law Commentaries. It should be noted that Blackstone considered his commentaries on law to be rooted in the bible.
This should not be misconstrued to say that a theocracy was or should be the form of government in these United States, but that we should recognize our true origins and the standards of conduct among our citizens. Would it not be desirable to have no murder, adultery, theft, false testimonies, or covetousness? And, how wonderful if all children honored their fathers and mothers, who were found to be ideal parents.
So sad, that the most wonderful governmental experiment on this earth may be entering its latter days.
LeRoy Paul; A man born out of time!
Sat, 10/11/2008 - 4:44pm
LeRoy Paul - I completely agree with you. It's tragic that we ever think we need to compromise to agree on a "truth". I suppose this is the result of everyone trying to be politically correct, or perhaps a distortion of the idea of tolerance. Truth is what it is, whether people like it or not. Of course, this does not mean that anyone should be forced to accept it, but we shouldn't try to change it to appeal to the masses.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 5:05pm
By meeting somewhere in the middle do you mean that we should all come to the center and there be run over by the traffic in both directions?
I honestly don't know how the truth is somehow always to be found "somewhere in the middle." Mankind is not the establisher of truth -- he can only seek to discern what is the truth. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Holy Bible; John 8:32)
A good example of what mankind does with truth is found in the progression of the Harvard Motto: "Veritas, Christo in gloriam" (Truth to the glory of Christ); later: "Veritas, Christo et Ecclesiae" (Truth for Christ and the Church); and, now: "Vetitas." Connected to absolutely nothing and therefore a lie. Truth cannot exist without a standard upon which it can be judged.
LeRoy Paul, A man out of time.
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 12:31pm
Yes it does. Party loyalty means to be a group and make decisions together. No one person should have more power over another. If you cant come to an agreement try to meet somewhere in the middle.
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 11:25am
Yes, party affiliation does prevent independent decision making. Party members won't make any decisions on their own and make sure that they have the opinions of all the others in the party.
Thu, 09/25/2008 - 11:17am
Political parties do indeed make people lose their individualism when they join a particular political party. If you are a republican, you must side completely with the republican party, or you will be scrutinized. If you are a democrat, you should have democratic ideals or you will be scrutinized.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 2:12pm
Party loyalty prevents people from voting the way they really feel. They want to stay with the party that they chose in the beginning, instead of really thinking about it and voting for who is really best qualified for the job. If someone's a democrat, they're most likely going to vote for obama and vice versa.
Thu, 09/18/2008 - 11:02am
In the almost fifty years that I have been voting I have worked on the campaigns of democrats, independents, and republicans. It has been my policy to look for statesmen or stateswomen (now-a-days would you call them "statespeople" because narrow minded fools can't understand statesmen as not having gender) who will put the country first as they have been elected to serve the country and protect their home state from incursion by the federal government.
It is pleasing to me to live in a state that doesn't require me to register as a particular party's property.
LeRoy Paul with a thought from 1776.
Tue, 09/16/2008 - 4:34pm
Loyalty can be said to mean unswerving allegiance and that appears to me to be the premise of your question. In which case the voter cannot be independent.
Mr. Jefferson expressed in this letter to Mr. Hopkinson “I am not a Federalist [later, nor antifederalist] because 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.” In that statement it seems explicit Mr. Jefferson believed it always necessary to avoid holding the political party above the nation, especially on moral or practical grounds. What a thought! Why, that means the responsibility of the voter must be to sift through the political parties’ arguments to discern what is most aligned with personal principles, guided by what is deemed best for our country (our founding principles), and vote that opinion regardless of preferred political party affiliation.
Mr. Jefferson continues, “These, my dear friend, are my sentiments, by which you will see I was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties. ... I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own.”
Prior to this letter to Mr. Hopkinson he wrote in 1786 to Mr. Madison, “It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."
Mr. Jefferson also wrote, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” Here is evidence of his faith and trust in the will of the people to ultimately uphold our Republic. An American in Florida
Mon, 09/15/2008 - 1:00pm
This quote reeks of another contradiction by the esteemed Mr. Jefferson. He worked against the Federalists at every turn, sometimes very underhandedly, as head of the Republican party in the 1790s. Of course, the Federalists were quickly willing participants in the same game. I think it can be said that he was a "party man" by the generally accepted definition.
Theoretically, politicians would be loyal to their party because the party platform matches their philosophical views on the way men should be governed. I'm sure that is still true to some extent. Unfortunately, politics is mostly a career and a business in the modern world. If you continually buck the party line, your career and your ability to rise in prominence, status, and wealth are in jeopardy. It is this desire to succeed in the game that causes independent decision making to be lost.
When it comes to individuals, or the people at large, I believe we are attracted to the party that most closely matches our philosophies on government, but I also think there's a deeper psychological desire to belong to a group of people in which we feel accepted and welcomed, and sometimes that emotional need speaks louder than our rational minds.
A Pennsylvanian
Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:04am
Yes. I think sometimes older people especially are so loyal to being Republican that they don't question anything thats said from behind a podium with the seal of the president.
Post new comment