Democrats and Republicans are like fraternal twin brothers who love one another, but frequently pommel each other bloody. Then shake hands. So, why do our political parties metaphorically do this?
Here are four conclusions gleaned from America’s history of political discord as far back as the mid 18th century. A more detailed discussion follows these conclusions.
First, a conclusive, but not surprising finding is that the designers of the Constitution did not create a Constitution that satisfied the majority of the colonial population, which at the time numbered less than four million people.
It took quite a long time for the citizens of the newly formed States to recognize the benefits of a Constitution. Moreover, so great was the dissatisfaction with some of its tenets, it threatened a disbandment of the Confederation of States
Second, historically most politicians have defined their legislative role as being strong advocates of a party’s ideology. This was often done without regard to their core beliefs. Nevertheless, they aggressively defended party policies with great expectations of getting converts.
Third, throughout most of the last 200 plus years in American history, legislators were known to complain and blame others for their own faulty actions or party failures. Moreover, they often exacted undeserved punishment on others.
Fourth, parties that inherently lacked leadership, at one time or another, were more inclined to institute bad policies and/or ideologies based on a deficient knowledge of historical precedent related to those policies.
Additionally, politicians were especially prone to “tweak” or modify corrupted policies, instead of abandonment. This practice created much discord and wrangling between and within political parties.
Political history in America essentially started about 225 years ago in the year 1788. At which time, nine members* of the Federal Constitution Convention ratified the principles of how the American republic would function. It was called the Constitution.
During the creation of that document, two parties rose with different opinions, for and against, adopting the Constitution. One party called itself “Federalist,” and the other “Anti-Federalist.” The former was in favor of the Constitution and a strong National Government. The latter preferred a less restrictive Constitution that allowed a freer governance power. After all, they were about to get rid of an English Monarch.
Contributing to the conflict was the language of the Constitution. It was purposely written with “a degree of elasticity of interpretation.” Principally obscure was the basic tenet authorizing legislative power. It simply stipulated the following: “To the United States, what is not granted in the Constitution is denied. To the State, what is not denied is granted.”
While the meaning of the tenet was clear to many, it was unclear to others and subject to debate. The argument centered on the degree to which power was granted to the National Government vs. the States. This disagreement, on the extent of political power being delegated, almost dissolved the agreement by the Colonies on unification.
The political and philosophical differences with respect to the Constitution were segmented by epithets, or short-hand descriptions of a party’s position. The “Federalist Party,” was originally called the “Wigs,” which was subsequently changed it to the “Republican Party.” The “Anti-Federalists” adopted the name “Democratic-Republican Party,” and later simplified it to “Democrats.”
The Federalist or Republicans championed “a vigorous, single nationality.” Also, they spoke for a “considerable” army and navy for defense,” chiefly against England, but also Franceand Spain.
In addition, the party wanted a strong Constitution that would “build up national feelings, unity, respect abroad and policies for national financial stability.” Although their focus was on national unity, the Federalist still recognized the States as the main pillar of the nation’s political structure.
For example, a document dated in 1894 and authored by E. Benjamin Andrews, Chancellor, Universityof Nebraska, highlighted the “Republican Party” platform as based on “the theory that States, rather than the national body politic, had been the parties to the Constitution.” Therefore, he implied, that the States deserve as much, if not more, legislative power as the National Government.
In a contrasting position, the “Democrats” or “Ant-Federalist” platform, while respecting the tenets of the Constitution, proposed a more encompassing role of the Government. The party argued for a “liberal interpretation of the Constitution” whereby congress should be allowed to do more than that allowed. In other words, Democrats argued that legislators should be allowed to take action they deemed necessary, beyond the powers authorized by the Constitution.
Basically, these cited political stances by “Democrats” and “Republicans” in circa 1788 were the start, without end, of the political pummeling that exists today.
Thanks for reading
* Four States signed in 1789
Comments