Question #24
This is in answer to the frozendoll meme I started earlier.
#24) Your political views
I hate political parties.
I am very firmly in George Washington’s camp in this matter. He was very against parties and spoke at length on it in his farewell address.
So, the folks who tell me “this is what the founding fathers wanted” apparently don’t include George in their list of founding fathers.
In my opinion, politics in the US has become a team sport where there are only two major teams and you MUST be on one of them and be for all it says its for. And, to be on one of them you MUST reject the other and be against all it is for.
That’s dumb. And, there are a whole lot of people who know it is dumb, but still go along with it because it is entrenched in our current society.
And, I think one of the key problems is that most folks in the USA have forgotten what the politicians are supposed to be doing, and so let them off the hook for a lot.
I don’t care if someone I elect believes what I believe. I care if he represents me, my needs and my concerns in government. He can believe he’s a purple octopus for all I care as long as he does that.
But, the prevailing opinion seems to be that politicians will just do what they want and can’t be stopped. So, you had better elect someone who believes exactly what you do or they will go off and vote for things you hate.
I write to my congressman, senators and the president. I say if I’m happy or upset with how they’re doing. I’m not going to pretend they drop everything and do what I say.
But, if everyone actually tried to make sure the people representing them knew what they wanted, it might make it different than this “we only get input at election time” mentality and might not get so hyped up.
It’s like saying the only time my boss can give me input on my job is during my annual performance review or by going to a lot of work to fire me.
Not how it works.
And, maybe if we all gave them a little bit more oversight there wouldn’t be so much finger pointing at review time.
And, if you care, here is the bit from George Washington to which I was referring:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, 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.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.