Reflections on Politics, Political Parties, and Political Understandings

G. Richard Jansen
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Published January 01, 2014

Introduction

Politics is the art and science of governance, and political understanding is understanding that art and science. A political party is a group of individuals who have come together with similar views on governance. They are not identical views but are essentially in agreement on the core views of the party. A good place to start is to consider the views of various political parties in the United States. What became the United States was settled primarily by English people. England had experienced many years of political turmoil going back to 1215 with Magna Carta which limited the power of the King, and has now had a Parliament for over 400 years. We in the United States owe much to our mother country. In the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the English Bill of Rights was passed spelling out the rights of the people. The political party that strongly supported the King was conservative and was known as the Tory party, the party of the crown. The party that mostly supported Parliament was the Whig party, the party of the country. It was the party of reform which derived its ideas from the British, Scottish and French enlightenment. Politically, it was liberal, i.e. in today’s understanding, classical liberalism.

The origin of the Whig party in Great Britain in the 1680's was Constitutional Monarchism and opposition to absolute rule. It favored constitutional rule through an elected parliament while in a monarchy. The Whigs played an essential role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and in the writing of the English Bill of Rights. They were very much influenced by the writings of John Locke, known as the father of Classical Liberalism. The Whigs were generally supportive of the American Revolution.

The revolutionaries in the colonies politically were English Whigs, reformers influenced by the Enlightenment and the English Bill of Rights. They also were known as Patriot Whigs. Jefferson reflected these views in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Declaration blames the King, not Parliament even though parliament had passed the laws the colonists opposed.The Olive Branch petition was sent to the King .The colonists who opposed the revolution were, not surprisingly, known as Tories. The goal of the American Revolution was to establish a representative republic. After independence was secured Articles of Confederation were agreed to but proved totally inadequate to what was needed especially on the need for a strong, but not too strong central government. A convention was called for to revise and strengthen the Articles of Confederation. Instead in that fateful year of 1787 the Articles were thrown out and the Constitution of the United States was written, approved by the Constitutional Convention and ratified by the states. It was one of the most perceptive views of governance ever written. The Constitution was ratified by the required nine states by June 21,1789 and by all thirteen states by early 1790. It has stood the test of time for over 200 years including a very bloody Civil War that could have destroyed the country.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Constitution established a Federal Republic where power was divided between the Central government and the state governments. People that supported the Constitution were known as Federalists and those that didn't want to ratify the Constitution or had reservations were known as Anti-Federalists. The major concern of the Anti-Federalists was too much power would reside in the central government. They were most concerned about the liberty and rights of the people. Most of all they wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution after ratification. The Federalists agreed and this was accomplished during the first session of Congress as the first ten amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Anti-Federalists were right about that and we are in their debt. Bill of Rights is important and the first two are of extraordinary importance to the freedom and liberty of the people. The last two are very important in protecting the rights of the states against the power of the Central government. They are too often neglected.

Political Parties

Initially when our country began as a Constitutional Republic there were no political parties. Federalists controlled the federal government from 1789 until the administration of Thomas Jefferson in 1801.

• Democratic-Republican Party (1791-1825)

It didn't take long for a political party to form in opposition to the Federalists. It started during the Washington administration under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who was Secretary of State during the Washington administration, and James Madison, a fellow Virginian. Today it is known as the Democratic-Republican party but at the time it was known as the Republican party. It ended in 1825 shortly after John Quincy Adams was elected President as a fellow member of the Democratic-Republican party when he was elected in a presidential election and defeated Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay when there were no Federalist candidates.

The political views of the Democratic-Republican party are known as Jeffersonian democracy, and were the opposite of the views of the Federalists. Jeffersonians were antagonistic to the influence of merchants and manufacturers. They favored equality of political opportunity and emphasized agriculture and not business with an emphasis on the the "yeoman farmer", and the "plain folk". The strength of the party was in the South with all three of their elected Presidents, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe from Virginia. The Federalist party died a natural death in this "era of good feelings". John Quincy Adams, son of our second President John Adams and who had been Secretary State for James Monroe was elected in 1824 as a member of the Democratic-Republican party against two other members of this party, Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. Adams was elected decided in the House of Representatives that at the time was called a corrupt bargain between Adams and Clay. Andrew Jackson was so incensed that he formed a new party, the Democratic party, which is now the oldest political party in the country.

• Federalist Party (1792-1824)

The Federalist party was started by Alexander Hamilton the first Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration. Its supporters were largely but by no means all urban individuals involved in business or banking. The party was committed to a fiscally sound and nationalist central government. Federalist policies favored the first National Bank, tariffs on imports and good relations with Great Britain. Washington was in general agreement with federalist policies and John Adams was the first and last Federalist president. The power of the Federalists was in the North and especially, but not only, the cities.

• National Republican Party (1824-1833)

John Quincy Adams only served one term and in 1828 he, Henry Clay and others formed a new party, the National Republican party. This new party was in opposition to the policies of Jackson and was composed largely of ex-federalists and exiles from the Democratic-Republican party who opposed the views of Andrew Jackson. It retained the largely nationalistic views of John Quincy Adams and favored the use of national resources for internal improvements to build the economy. It favored tariffs to protect business and shipping interests and its political strength was in the North and West, especially in towns and cities. It nominated Henry Clay to run for President in 1832. He was defeated and the National Republican party was succeeded by the Whig party in 1833.

• Democratic Party (1832-Present)

The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 ushered in the Democratic party and Jacksonian democracy. This development promoted the strength of the presidency and the executive branch at the expense of Congress, and broadened the public's participation in government. It favored geographical expansion in the West, i.e. manifest destiny, and strongly opposed the National Bank. The Democratic party strove to end what it called a monopoly of government by elites and gave little weight to education. It favored farmers, urban workers and new immigrants, and promoted greater equality among all white men. Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men which was generally accomplished by 1850. They strongly supported the "spoil's system", i.e. patronage, the policy of putting political supporters into government offices. As a consequence of the Civil War the democrats did not again hold the presidency until the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 except for the two separate terms of the relatively conservative Grover Cleveland just before the turn of the century.

Woodrow Wilson was the first progressive president and a progressive in every sense of the word although Teddy Roosevelt with his trust busting had shown the way. Progressives rejected classical liberalism which called for individualism, in contrast to collectivism, and removal of hindrances to free markets. Wilson was a former college professor and president of Princeton University. He has a devotee of the German professor Hegel who favored a strong centrally governed State. Wilson challenged the very structure of the Constitution and wrote that the Constitution was "Newtonian", i.e. unchanging like the planets revolving around the sun and favored a "Darwinian" Constitution evolving with the times. Wilson’s progressivism ended when Harding was elected in 1920 but progressivism lived for another day. Republican’s occupied the White House until the great depression and the election of Franklin Roosevelt as President in 1932.

Roosevelt was a progressive although he declared himself to be a liberal, the exact opposite of what liberalism had been in the time of John Locke's "life, liberty, and property" from the 17th and 18th centuries. In his 1933 inaugural address Roosevelt said this:

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

This would not be constitutional government by a long shot. In 1944, near the end of WWII and his life Roosevelt said this:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all — regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

It is very clear that these are not rights, by any stretch of the imagination. They are aspirations.

The current democratic President Barack Obama, elected in 2008 and in 2012 to a second term promised fundamental changes in the United States. This he has accomplished with his signature legislation the Affordable Care Act pased in 2010 without a single vote from the opposition party and which has, for better or worse taken over one sixth of the economy by the government. Obama, like Wilson does not appreciate the separation of powers in our government and has threatened and has many times not waited for Congress to act and has subverted the role of Congress by many executive orders and other frankly unconstitutional acts. Politically, Obama is a Progressive and a Social Democrat.

• Whig Party (1833-1860)

After the defeat of John Quincy Adams in 1828 the National Republicans, who derived from the Federalist party regrouped to form a new party. They took the name Whig because the revolutionaries in 1776 had been known as Patriot Whigs and because the term Whig connoted opposition to the tyranny of the King as derived from the British Whigs of that time. The new Whig party in the United States had formed in opposition to the policies of Andrew Jackson and the newly formed Democratic party. Their founders, Henry Clay and John Q. Adams among others were in reality former Democratic-Republicans and who favored national unity, internal improvements paid by the federal government territorial expansion and support for domestic manufacturing with protection from the imposition of tariffs. They strongly opposed what they called government over-reaching by Andrew Jackson.

• Republican Party (1854-Present)

The Whig party was torn apart by sectionalism and slavery. Southern Whigs, for the most part supported the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska Act and slavery. This latter act did away with the Missouri compromise of 1820 and opened the door to the expansion of slavery into tne territories by "popular sovereignty". Northern Whigs opposed all these and were joined in the new party by free-soil democrats.

Abraham Lincoln was a Whig who because of his views became a leader in the new Republican party and his performance in the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858 which centered on slavery and the Kansas Nebraska Act, which Stephen Douglas had been a strong supporter of. Lincoln opposed this act because of his opposition to the immorality of human slavery and particularly because he perceived that this act would open the door to the spread of slavery, this national sin, into the territories. Lincoln was not an abolitionist because he knew that there was no constitutional way to abolish slavery in the sovereign southern states. He believed that the best way to abolish slavery was by preventing its expansion. He won the 1860 election with a large majority of electoral votes but only 40% of the popular vote against three other candidates. Outside the slavery issue the policies of the new Republican party were much the same as it’s predecessor the Whig party. The new Republican party strongly opposed the "twin relics of barbarism", slavery and polygamy in the territories, specifically Utah territory. They passed a law against polygamy in Utah in 1862 but it had little effect until Utah was forced to abandon polygamy in order to become a state in 1896. In addition to fighting and winning the Civil War, the Republicans passed the Land-Grant Act establishing new colleges devoted to agriculture, the mechanic arts and the liberal arts in all the states. These land-grant colleges are an important part of the collegiate scene today. The Lincoln administration also funded and established the trans-continental railroad.

The Republican party won all the presidential elections from 1860 until the election of Woodrow Wilson 1912 except for the two terms of relatively conservative Grover Cleveland near the turn of the century. The party generally maintained the positions of its predecessor the Whig party but William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt moved the party into an expansionist and imperialist direction seizing Cuba and the Philippine Islands from Spain, and occupying the former Republic of Hawaii. After Wilson, the party under Harding and Coolidge became more conservative. In responsive to the progressivism of Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt the Republican party under President Reagan became re-vitalized and, in addition to conservatism, developed a strong Hayekian aspect of classical liberalism. Reaganism emphasized a smaller and less intrusive government, less taxation, less government regulation, and a pro-growth agenda that did produce long lasting economic growth. These views have been enhanced as a result of the long term joblessness and the social democracy of Barack Obama. In addition a reduction of the gigantic $17,000,000,000,000 national debt has become a strong political goal of the Republican party.

Discussion

Since politics is the science and art of governance in, this essay we are concerned with the governance of the United States which was established in 1787 as a Constitutional Republic. The revolutionaries were Englishmen who were familiar with the English Bill of Right, the writings of John Locke on the sovereignty of the people, liberty and freedom from tyranny, especially of the King. The revolutionaries were known as Patriot Whigs after the English Whigs who favored cons5titutional government and opposition to absolute rule. They played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the English Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence written in 1776 established the framework for our government but it took eight years for Independence to fully come.

After the Treaty of Paris in 1783 and the country became fully independence Articles of Confederation were written but proved to be inadequate. A Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787. The outcome was the Constitution of the United States which was ratified by all the States. The writers of the Constitution were well educated with a firm grasp of European history, including the English, Scottish and French enlightenments as well as the history of Athens and Rome in the original Greek and Latin. They well understood that a pure democracy would not work in such a large and diverse country. With strong unanimity they established a republic, a country governed by elective representatives, i.e. a representative democracy, and an elective leader, not a monarch. The purpose of the Constitution was spelled out in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States is the greatest and the most perceptive political document ever written and for the last over 200 years we have been in debt to the writers. It established a government with three co-equal branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, thus establishing separation and balance of political power. Included was a procedure to amend and modify the Constitution. Before ratification Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote articles published in New York newspapers explaining to the people why the Constitution should be supported. These 85 articles have been collected and published in a compendium called the Federalist Papers. They are all important and none more so in our time than Federalist 10 written by James Madison. It will be quoted in depth:

Federalist #10

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

During the administration of our first President, George Washington, John Adams was vice-President, Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. They all were Patriot Whigs who supported the Whig principles of freedom and liberty, i.e. 1) a state being free, 2) freedom from physical constraint and absence of coercion and constraint in choice of choice in action and 3) freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. But differences soon arose, especially between Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson supported a small government and favored equality of opportunity for all people with a priority for an agricultural country made up of yeoman farmers and plain folk. He was antagonistic to bank, bankers, merchants and manufacturers. Hamilton supported banking and establish as Secretary of the Treasury the first National bank. He favored merchants and manufacturers and eventually an industrialized country. In that Hamilton saw the future of the country more clearly than did Jefferson. It is important to acknowledge that the views of Jefferson and Hamilton were all significant and important in the development of the United States.

Jefferson defeated vice-President John Adams for the Presidency in 1800. Adams and Jefferson became strong political enemies in spite of the fact they had been strong colleagues during the revolutionary period and in writing the Declaration of Independence. However after their political passions had cooled in later years they carried out a correspondence with each other from January 1, 1812 untl they both died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence. On October 18, 1813 Jefferson wrote this to Adams in response to his earlier letter:

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy.

We also should not over-estimate differences between these two patriots as they themselves recognized in the later years. Our founders had a strong grasp of history and human nature. We are a Constitutional Republic in a representative but not a pure democracy, as discussed by Madison in Federalist #10. It was well understood that a government by the people needed to be religious, moral and industrious. They understood also that factions, political interests, needed to be restrained by separation of powers and a limited government The founders were concerned about rule by a mob or even a strong majority for that matter, and established a system that protected the rights of the minority. As the Declaration of Independence so well put it; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are all Whig principles of what is now referred to as classical liberalism. Locke had enshrined in his Two treatises on government that free people are entitled to life, liberty and estate, meaning property. The right to property is part of our Constitution. It is not clear why Jefferson replaced the word estate or property with the pursuit of happiness and its origin is somewhat disputed. Jefferson expanded these rights to include the pursuit of happiness and the Continental Congress agreed. Note that what was included was the pursuit of happiness, not happiness per se. Happiness is an aspiration or blessing not a right. Liberty derives from the original Whig opposition to tyranny and absolute rule. Liberty means freedom, absence of coercion or constraint in choice or action, and liberty means freedom from arbitrary or despotic controls. The declaration refers to individuals as creatures of God, not as a collective. Liberty does not mean license but structured liberty under law. Law in the United States derived from English common law which itself was derived from centuries of experience, the Constitution and acts of the Congress signed by the President and, if necessary affirmed by the Supreme Court. This is what is meant by separation of powers. We are a country considers itself and has always considered itself as under God.

The differences between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties did not involve differences on these fundamental matters. The Federalist, mostly in the North, particularly Massachusetts, with strong business and shipping interests favored these interests and the Democratic-Republicans came from the South, specifically Virginia, favored an agricultural country with emphasis on the general population and not elites. The differences between Jacksonian Democrats and the Adams and Clay Whigs increased but still did not differ in the fundamentals of government. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig until the Whig party collapsed because of slavery and other sectional interest. He became the first Republican President in 1860. As a former Whig and as a Republican he favored the role of the Federal government in internal improvements as did John Quincy Adams. Witness the Land-Grant, Homestead and the Transcontinental Railroad acts in the Lincoln administration.

As industrialization developed in the post Civil War era under Republican Presidents financial abuses and improprieties developed and the period became known as the Gilded Age. A theory of government became known at that time which became known as progressivism and came to its zenith with the election of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a progressive in every sense of the word. As was Theodore Roosevelt running on the progressive ticket who lost to Wilson in 1912 in a three-way election with Wilson and Taft. Roosevelt was trying to return to the White House after the first term of Republican Taft. He had been heavily influenced by the progressive Herbert Croly who wrote an influential book entitled The Promise of American Life. Wilson not only was elected President he also had been a political science professor for many years and had been president of Princeton University. We need to take a closer look at the progressivism of Wilson.

First, the concept of human progress was by no means the exclusive property of progressivism. Classical liberals, i.e. the Whigs, believed strongly in progress in ideas, material well being and in governance. Progressivism doesn’t define progress but defines a system of government. From The Heritage Foundation in response to an essay by Wilson on public administration:“ This largely dry essay on public administration, published by Woodrow Wilson during the time he taught at Bryn Mawr College, makes a revolutionary argument for a professional centralized administration in the United States. Introducing a novel distinction between politics and administration, Wilson demands a bureaucracy that would govern independently from the elected branches of government. In doing so, he walls off the founding principles of consent of the governed and the separation of powers from the emerging new science of administration.” In Wilson’s view there is no essential difference between democracy and socialism. It is not surprising, therefore to see that modern day liberalism and social democracy developed from progressivism.

Also in Wilson’s view the Constitution is outdated and is no longer applicable to governance in this country. It is Newtonian, i.e. unchanging like the planets are unchanging in their motion. It needs to be Darwinian, i.e. evolve with the needs of the times and be a living Constitution. Likewise the Declaration is no longer applicable as written since it gives too much pwer to the individual and not the collective. Wilson totally ignores what Madison wrote in Federalist #10 on the control of factions:

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

Progressivism pretty much died out after Wilson’s administration. The Republicans controlled the presidency from 1920 until 1932. As a result of the great depression Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and implemented what became known as the New Deal. Roosevelt was a Wilsonian progressive but in part in view of negative feelings in the public about progressivism identified himself and his administration as Liberal in the social democratic not the classical understand of what liberalism means. At the founding the word liberal meant liberty and freedom from coercion. This was the view of the Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, National Republicans, Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs. This view of liberalism, true liberalism, is now called classical liberalism. In Great Britain the Whig party became the Liberal party. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Whig party moved toward social democracy. Social democrats advocated a peaceful and democratic evolution to socialism through the progressive social reform of capitalism. It promoted democratic decision making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy, i.e. social justice. Thus Wilson observed that socialism is democracy and vice-versa. In Britain advocates of what is now called classical liberalism moved to the Tory party which of course no longer meant support for the King or Crown. In the United States the democratic party is the party of social democracy. Lionel Trilling, a man of the left well explained this transition:

Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the free play of the moral imagination.

In contrast the Republican party of today, which evolved from the Whig party, is the party of classical liberalism including freedom of expression, freedom of the press and religion, private property, rule of law and a smaller less intrusive government. It is of some interest that today the term liberal adopted by Franklin Roosevelt has fallen in disfavor so liberals of today have fallen back on the term progressive which had long ago fallen in disfavor 1920. What goes around, comes around.

In the past political views were divided into the political left and the political right as derived from the seating of delegates in the French Assembly during the French Revolution. The radical Jacobins were seated on the left and the Monarchists were seated in the right. We no longer have radical Jacobins and Monarchists. A better understanding is that the political right, i.e. Republicans, represents individualism and the political left, i.e. Democrats, represent collectivism.

In 1997 Thomas Sowell published a seminal book entitled Conflict of Visions which divided people into two different visions in regard to political, social, economic and religious views. He defined a vision as a pre-analytic-cognitive view, a concept of how the world works. Years earlier Bertrand Russell described something quite similar:

Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like a summer day.

At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history. To human nature (of the sort conceived), in a universe (of the kind imagined), after a history (so understood), the rules of the code apply.

Sowell described these two visions as Constrained or unconstrained.

Constrained Vision: Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.

Unconstrained Vision: Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as the self anointed. Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society. Sowell suggests that there is a consistency in each vision over a variety of issues. So if the views of an individual are known on issue x it would likely follow that the individuals views on issue y and issue z could be surmised.

There is no doubt that the founders of our country had a constrained vision and view of human nature. Madison, in discussing the need for the separation and balance of power said in Federalist #10 “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.” He also observed that if men were angels we wouldn’t need government. Clearly he understood that men are not angels. Alexander Hamilton, also in the Federalist papers made similar comments: “It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature”, and “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

A key attribute of the unconstrained vision is that man is inherently good. Sowell quotesWilliam Godwin from the 18th century as saying that because of the goodness in his nature man is capable of directly feeling other people’s needs as more important than his own and therefore acting impartially even when his own or his family’s interest were involved. This is stark contrast with what Adam Smith wrote in his book about mankind. “Theory of Moral Sentiments”: “If he were to lose his little finger tomorrow he would not sleep tonight, but, provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security tonight over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.” Rousseau held that The first stirrings of nature are always right; there is no depravity in the human heart.

In the unconstrained view it is adverse political and cultural influences that make men bad, rather than as a result of human nature. Man is capable of moral perfection and such superior individuals are quite capable of making dispassionate decisions on behalf of millions of others without bias. The progressivism of Woodrow Wilson, as discussed earlier, is without a doubt the view of a man with the unconstrained vision. The French Revolution was led primarily by those with an unconstrained vision when they installed a Goddess of Reason in Notre Dame cathedral. In contrast the American Revolution was led, primarily by those with a constrained vision like Madison and Hamilton who wrote the Federalist papers and helped write the Constitution.

The musical South Pacific made the case that man has to be taught to be bad. To the contrary for three millennia man has needed to be taught to be good. The Ten Commandments state, among other admonitions: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels: All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

The doctrine of original sin, as formulated by Augustine 1600 years ago was a perceptive understanding that man has an innate will to do, in his words, evil. A reasonable current perspective on this is the knowledge that the oldest regions of the brain, especially the limbic system including the hypothalamus, control and in fact promote those aspects of self preservation that lead to territoriality, aggression, violence, fighting and lust. These basic drives are very strong. Fortunately, in mankind, they are restrained by inhibitory influences coming from the neocortex that act on the limbic system. These inhibitory influences derive from conscious thoughts that are in turn derived from moral and ethical teachings, the development of law, and civilization. The suggestion here is that man’s propensity to do evil does not derive from the sin of Adam or the fall of man. It is an innate propensity to do evil. Is man innately moral? Wright, in his 1994 book The Moral animal, best summarized the situation when, writing from an evolutionary perspective he said:

We are potentially moral animals — which is more than any other animal can say — but we aren’t naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren’t.

The Founders of the United States believed that for a constitutional representative republic such as they had created its population must be characterized by morality, virtue, religion and industriousness. Morality and religion are obviously tied closely together. Being a moral person means following the admonitions in the Bible, both in terms of not doing bad things and doing good things. The seven deadly sins are; pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. Doing good can be seen in What Jesus taught in what are referred to as the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

The four cardinal virtues are: justice temperance, fortitude and prudence. The three Christian virtues are faith, hope and love.

In their correspondence after they both had left the presidency John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the importance of religion on many occasions. This was especially true for Adams. In this correspondence they both were critical of priests, prelates and the structure and words from the many sects of Christianity. Nevertheless, on June 28th, 1813 Adams made this comment about the importance of liberty and Christianity:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

Samuel Huntington, in his book Who Are We asserted that the American Creed in 1960 was essentially a secularized version of the Anglo-Protestant creed that the settlers brought with them when they arrived in the 17th century. Our culture has changed significantly since 1960 and not for the better. There are many indexes that could be cited. I will cite the birth of children to unwed mothers. It has been known from biblical days and even before that a culture needs to control human sexuality which can strengthen marriage but even more so destroy marriage and human family structure which has also been the foundation of human society. From 1960 to 2000 the birthrate among married women declined from 160/1000 to 85/1000 while the birthrate among unmarried women doubled from 20/1000 to 40/1000. The percentage of births to unmarried white and black women went from 2.3% and 23% respectively in 1960 to 29% and 72% respectively in 2013. Note that in 1965 when Patrick Moynihan wrote a much quoted report on the deterioration of the black family a key indicator of that deterioration was that 23% of births occurred in unmarried black women. Note also that in 2013 the percentage of births to unmarried white women was 29%, higher than what concerned Moynihan for unmarried black women in 1965 and that from 1960 to 2013 the percentage of births to unmarried black women tripled. This exceedingly high rate of out of wedlock births is at the heart of many of the problems in the black community today.

Charles Murray, in his recent book Coming Apart; The State of White America 1960-2010 compared two mythical communities 1) upperclass and well educated (Belmont) and 2) working class and poorly educated (Fishtown). In 2008 non-marital births for white women in Belmont with 16 years education were 6% compared with 45% for white women in Fishtown with less than 12 years education. In 1960 93% of white women in Belmont were married which only slightly dropped to 88% in 2010. In comparison in 1960 85% of white women in Fishtown were married. This dropped to 50% in 2010. These data illustrate a precipitous drop in marriage in a working class community. These permissive changes sexual behavior in the United States were driven by cultural left, well to do individuals but had had their adverse consequences among middle to low income families.

The United States has become more secular. Secularism is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education or other public parts of society. This is the dominant view in the Democratic party today and in contrast the Republican party has long held the belief that religious considerations are important in making political decisions. As discussed earlier this also was the view of the Founders.

The rapidity of cultural change in the United States can best be shown by the increasing public and legal support for homosexual marriage. Since its beginning 2000 years ago Christianity has opposed homosexuality and has considered it to be a sin. Jesus was asked question and made comments on marriage but never about homosexual marriage because no such thing existed. The same can be said for other writers in both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. A seminal event in the United States in regard to homosexuality was the Stonewall riots in New York on January 28, 1969 in which homosexuals violently opposed police action. This galvanized the homosexual community nationwide and led some of them to start talking about homosexual marriage. Marriage had not been defined before 1996 because every one knew that marriage was between one man and one woman and all laws, except one, dealt with this fact. Because of ordained polygamy on the Mormon territory of Utah in 1962 Congress passed a law banning polygamy in the territories, meaning of course Utah.

In 1996, because of increasing discussion about homosexual marriage, Congress passed by strong majorities in both Houses of Congress the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage for the first time and specifically defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The first national poll, a Gallup poll, in which by a small majority those polled approved of homosexual marriage was 2010, a mere three years ago. Also in 2010 the first legalization of homosexual marriage was done by the judiciary in Massachusetts, not by the legislature or by referendum. At the present time legal homosexual marriage exists in eighteen states. By rejecting a referendum passed by a majority of voters in California, one which the state of California refused to defend in court, and then the Supreme Court threw out DOMA and opened the door to the legalization of homosexual marriage in all the states. Homosexual marriage now is strongly favored by the public, especially the young, in all the national polls.

The rapidity of this change in public, legal, and judicial decisions in regard to homosexuality marriage, is remarkable, really astounding. In our Judeo-Christian culture marriage was understood to be between a man and a woman or in Old Testament days between a man and more than one woman. Now in less than four years this understanding has been largely, but not entirely rejected. What has happened in these four and more years are daily polls on every conceivable topic and instant analysis on TV and in social media such as Twitter and Facebook. This is combined with a largely liberal and secular media. This is just the thing that our Founders feared. The Constitution was written with many checks and balances to prevent abuse of a minority by a strong majority especially with mob-like behavior without sufficient time to make reasoned judgments. They well understood the dangers of a direct democracy and we are increasingly becoming a direct democracy. It should be noted that the progressive movement did not like the checks and balances in our Constitution because, in its view checks and balances prevented good things from happening.