What Would Our Founding Fathers Think of Us Today?

What do you think our Founding Fathers would think about today’s political situation?  Did you know political parties weren’t around during the founding of our nation? They first arose in the United States in the early 1800’s. At the time we had the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties which were based mainly on the notion of federalism and anti-federalism.

Those two concepts were political philosophies and centered on whether you believed in a large, mostly centralized, government with states having relatively weak authority or a small and primarily decentralized government with most of the power and taxing authority based in the individual states.  Federalist preferred the former and anti-federalist the latter.

Key federalists included individuals like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Madison (George Washington is sometimes lumped in with federalists). Anti-federalists included people like Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and George Mason.

Federalists were strict constitutionalists. Their base of support was centered mainly in urban centers and among larger types of businesses. They also supported commercial trade and renewed diplomatic relations with the British. Anti-federalist on the other hand, backed the Articles of Confederation. Much of their support came from rural areas and farmers.

Federalists tended to downplay or oppose the Bill of Rights whereas Anti-federalists strongly supported the Bill of Rights.  It was from these two groups that partisan political parties would later form.  The two parties would split into the Democratic and Whig parties by the 1820’s.

I should mention at this point that many of the early Founding Fathers opposed the notion of partisan political groups. In fact, in 1787, when they gathered in Philadelphia to hash out what would become our new government, political parties weren’t even mentioned. Why?

Because they had witnessed firsthand the destructive power political parties (or “factions” as they called them) could bring. Factions had nearly torn England apart in the form of civil wars and would do the same to France and elsewhere within their lifetimes in many cases.

George Washington, who opposed political parties, knew that his family was forced to flee England because of these partisan civil wars. Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man”, though these “factions” could destroy the nation or at the very least, make ordinary citizens vulnerable to the power of the wealthy elites.

When Washington left office in 1796, he warned the country of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address (not unlike President Eisenhower did in his 1960 Farwell Address). He warned of the dangers these “factions” would have on democracy when he said, “The common and continued mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it”.  

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said that political parties were the “most fatal of diseases” of a popular government. James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, that one of the duties of a “well-constructed union” should be to manage the “tendency to break and control the violence of faction”. In other words, to keep “factions” or political parties from becoming to powerful.

Several of the Founders saw these “factions” as dangerous.  They would ultimately divide and strip citizens of their political influence leaving a handful of monied elites controlling the political system. What the Founders had hoped to do was to create a new system of government based on the concept of the “citizen legislator”. The last thing they wanted was a professional political class.

Nevertheless, political “factions” happened anyway. Apparently, we weren’t the “wise people” Washington had hoped we would be. By 1860, the two party “winner-take-all” system was firmly entrenched. Corporate influence was even then making itself felt. President Ulysses Grant’s administration in the 1870s was known for its corruption, mainly by banks, financiers, and railroad barons.

Corporate control peaked in 1896 when the robber barons, men like Rockefeller, Hearst, Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt, and Mellon, brazenly “bought” the presidency for William McKinley, defeating reformer William Jennings Bryan. Ultimately their clout would be dismantled by President “Teddy” Roosevelt following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.  

Wounded though they be it, it was far from dead. By the 1920’s they were back in business, and they’ve never looked back, playing one political party off the other and using shell organizations and “straw men” to influence elections, laws, and policies.

They received a lot of corporate and union money, which was used to buy influence for certain pieces of legislation, direct government contracts their way, or impact policies, voters and communities could still count on their legislators. Party delegates had a say in establishing the party’s platform at conventions (with some having more clout than others) while locally political bosses, such as Tammany Hall, controlled state politics and graft.  

The 2010 “Citizens United v FEC” ruling by the Supreme Court changed all that. The ruling (or more accurately, “mistake”) gave corporations “personhood”. That is, these artificial legal fictions now had the same rights as any ordinary human being, but with one key difference.

The court decided that money was now the same thing as free speech. However, while you and I are capped in the amount of “free speech” we could give, corporations weren’t, and they could give millions. If fact, they could literally buy elections out in the open, they made the impact of ordinary voters almost worthless just as our Founders had warned. Wall Street, not the membership, established the party platform.

As an aside, it isn’t only money politicians receive from deep pocket corporations and the well-heeled. Corporate lobbyists also review bills and make recommendations on how to vote (at least to committee chairs and the party whip). They even help write (or actually write) legislation and chaperone them through the maze of committees. They write news releases and speeches, provide some very expensive junkets, and arranged for some very well paying speaking engagements ($2000 per speech isn’t uncommon).

Corporate influence extended to the media and how politics are reported too. Elections were no longer just reported with commentators making subtle innuendos one way or another. Now, with just six corporations controlling 96%+ of all media, they could be as open as they liked.

Instead of merely reporting the news as the media  had once done, buyouts and consolidations gave corporations unprecedented influence over what the public read, heard, and saw. Now they could manufacture the news and slant it however they wanted.

But that’s not the worst of it. With unlimited financial support, Congress has been to virtually isolated itself from voters (and thus, responsibility for their actions) when you consider that the absence of term limits an almost unlimited tenure in office (something many of the Founders opposed) with a 95% reelection percentage despite an approval rating consistently in the teens.

 Founding Father George Mason was a vocal proponent for “rotations” (as term limits were called then), referring to unrestricted terms in a democracy as “oppression”. In fact, term limits had originally been apart of the Articles Confederation, keeping them to no more than three terms over a six year period. 

The thinking was that legislators who weren't restricted by term limits were prone to become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption” as stated by anti-federalist, lawyer, merchant, and delegate to the Continental Congress, Melancton Smith in 1789.

In addition, partisan gerrymandering ensures that the party in control of the district stays in control of the district although gerrymandering itself was intended to give Congress a ”reflection” of the voter demographic for that area. As a result, partisan gerrymandering allows Congress to select its constituents instead of constituents selecting their representative.  

In fact, in 1891, President Benjamin Harrison called partisan gerrymandering “political robbery”. He went on to say that its “overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage represented our chief national danger”.  Partisan gerrymandering represents a de facto “taxation with representation” no different than our “winner-take-all” system where voters on the losing side remained taxed without the benefit of being represented in office.

Even running for office is rigged. Shouldn't that, at least, be open to everyone equally? The nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties are required to jump through hoops the two minority parties---the Democrats and Republicans---don’t have to. Should this be legal? Probably not. Even public referendums, the right of voters to have a direct say, are prohibited in half of all states.

Such is the state of our partisan controlled political system. What would our Founder’s think of their little experiment? Bear in mind that our Founders weren’t entirely as benevolent as we were taught in high school. There were the elites of their day or that they feared direct democracy or “mob rule” as they called it, preferring that the citizenry elect their “betters” to govern the country which is how we arrived at a Republic instead of a democracy.  

And you dear reader, what do you think of our current political situation? Do you approve of corporate control of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system? What about unlimited terms of office or partisan control of districts to ensure their complete control by one party or the other? What do you think about our “winner-take-all” system where if your side loses, you aren't represented for the duration of the term, but you still get taxed? Sound fair? 

Finally, shouldn’t the pollical playing field be level in order to allow everyone equal ballot access?  In the end, regardless of what the media or anyone tells you, it is us---the voters---who still have the final say about our nation….at least for now.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tearthe Nation Apart

First Party System

James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship

 

Political Parties

 

How Big Money in Politics Bought a Presidential Election in1896

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

History Frowns on Partisan Gerrymandering

Members of Congress Get What!?

A Promise From the Founder