The American Two-edged Sword

Why is it that Americans love politics so much? Is it maybe because they are presented with a smooth, clean-cut two-party system that aims to solve all problems under one roof (pardon the Pizza Hut language )? Because of man’s errant nature and need for systems, this would appear so. According to Thomas Jefferson, this is exactly the case. “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.” Does this fact require the dissemination of political ideals as “party politics”? Maybe. Does it mean that party politics at any time should be trusted? Of course not! As can easily be seen, a two-party system is like a two-edged sword, equally deadly on both sides.

Whenever man has trusted power in any form to administrate human affairs, whether political, business, or religious, men have been placed in chains-well, at least most men. As James Madison put it, “All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” Does he state that certain men are exempt? No, he states that “All men having power” are corrupt in one way or another. Republican or Democrat, man or woman, sheep or wolf; all men are subject to this sad fate. Even the most clearly resolute individuals, such as Jefferson, had their big falling points in which they clearly violated moral and legal principle in exchange for desperate need or want. Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory in 1803 to massively expand the the territorial dominions of the US. Unfortunately, the Constitution was stretched to provide the legality; In fact,

“the question of the Louisiana purchase marked the beginning of a debate over constitutional interpretation that still goes on today. Jefferson and others advocated a strict interpretation of the document, because they wanted to restrict intrusions by the government into the lives of the people. Some thought the treaty was unconstitutional because power to increase the national domain by treaty is not stated in the Constitution of the United States. Nevertheless, the tenth amendment grants to the states and the people all rights not specifically denied in the constitution — and in any case, the sale went through.”[1]

Despite good intentions, Jefferson still had to follow the Constitution when utilizing foreign affairs-no matter the cost.

Of course, my purpose in this essay is not to cite specific policies or actions that either the Republican or Democratic party wrongly committed. Instead, I intend to simply show why it is not a wise idea to just “follow the status quo”, but rather to really scrutinize our political leaders. A personal example is here in my home city of Phoenix, Arizona. Very soon, District 6 is having a city council election: former Councilman Sal Diccicio versus the newcomer incumbent Dana Marie Kennedy: Diccicio is a Republican while Kennedy is a Democrat. The sad thing is that there are no dissenting voices in this particular election, you stand at a two-pronged fork in the maze and choose either one, but no others. People like me, who don’t particularly adhere to any one political party, have to choose one over the other or not vote at all. But the latter option would be completely contrary to the fact that all people need to vote and remain involved, not just a minuscule portion that caters to the people currently enjoying the two-party system. This entire system only further allocates power to those corrupt men and women in control.

That is not the only example; many others are out there staring you right in the face and we couldn’t care less. The presidential elections of 2008 were hotly contested; but in the end it came down to McCain vs. Obama. What about third parties and independents? Where were they “equally and fairly represented” in the so-called “democratic” (hate the term, BTW) electoral college system? No, in fact not a single third party got any electoral votes. Because of this “enforced” political constraint, many patriotic, liberty loving, and Constitution adhering individuals were forced to vote for individuals who were very inconspicuously not.  This is dangerous to liberty. When government comes down to a few easily regulated and controlled parties, dissenting opinion and free speech is cut off completely, even if not by the means of government censorship.

George Washington, our first President and known as “The Father of our Country”, stated,

“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.”

We have been given a wonderful gift from our Creator: The United States of America. Political parties are an obvious man-needed display of political ideals, especially because men argue incessantly over how they are right and their opponents are wrong; it is completely natural. But at the same time we must remember that we must never associate ourselves so closely with them, because it can be very hazardous to our health. As Aldous Huxley once said, “One of the many reasons for the bewildering and tragic character of human existence is the fact that social organization is at once necessary and fatal. Men are forever creating such organizations for their own convenience and forever finding themselves the victims of their home-made monsters.”

Works Cited

1- http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us6.htm

No related posts.

By clicking the tip jar to the right to the right you can help to keep this site alive.