There is good reason to call George Washington the father of our country. There is even better reason to follow his advice about party politics after looking at the results which party politics have brought about in our country. We have been brought to the edge of destruction as a nation by that which party politics has brought to fruition.
George Washington on party politics
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
There is good reason to call George Washington the father of our country. There is even better reason to follow his advice about party politics after looking at the results which party politics have brought about in our country. We have been brought to the edge of destruction as a nation by that which party politics has brought to fruition.
Red Wave Rising
Yuge
Washington was a great man, a great general, a visionary, but like all humans he could be wrong once in a while and he was wrong here.
A two party system is the most stable and fair to the people.
When you have many parties like a parliamentary systems does, there is too much compromise in order to put together a majority coalition. It is not good.
What is happening today is that too many Americans are embracing evil and one party has gone Marxist, and that is not the fault of a two party system, that is the fault of many many things coming together in a perfect storm.
Our two party system was just fine for a hundred years, until around the year 2,000, when the Left started to go off the rails.
theconversation.com
Why two parties?
Likewise, the two-party system will survive, regardless of political turbulence. This is a result of how the U.S. elects leaders.
In the vast majority of its congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections, America uses a system called single member district plurality, which means that each election produces only one winner.
Because voters generally do not wish to “waste” a vote, they focus on their most preferred electable candidate.
Because in a two-party system the major parties seek to appeal to broad coalitions to maximize electability, this is almost always a Republican or a Democrat. It is almost never a third-party candidate, which the voter might actually prefer. Candidates and their wealthy supporters recognize this, and so they ally with major parties rather than creating a third.
A quick look at U.S. history demonstrates the inevitability of these forces.
The very founders of the republic who opposed factionalism created the Federalist Party to support a strong national government and oppose the Anti-Federalist Party, which favored a decentralized government.
When the question of federal supremacy was settled, the Anti-Federalists were replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party, which championed Southern agricultural interests. When the Federalists died out, the Democratic-Republican Party split into the Whigs and Democrats, who disagreed about the balance of power between branches of government.
By 1856, a collapsing Whig Party was replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party, whose feuds with the pro-slavery Democrats led to the Civil War.
From that point forward, those two dominant national parties have remained stable. Third-party challenges have been limited and generally unimportant, usually driven by specific issues rather than broad-based concerns.
Stability in the future
The modern Republicans and Democrats are unlikely to go the way of the Whigs, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, regardless of recent political earthquakes.
National politics are a different game now than they were during the early republic. Advances in communication and technology have enhanced party organization. Parties can maintain a truly national presence and ward off potential challengers. Both major parties have shown a willingness to stretch to accommodate populists like Trump and Sanders rather than splintering.
Recent changes in the Democratic nomination process, for example, demonstrate this flexibility. Barriers to third parties appearing on ballots are ingrained in our electoral laws, which have been engineered by those managing the current system so that it will endure.
And donors and lobbyists, who want predictable outcomes, have little incentive to rock the boat by supporting a new player in the game.
Certainly, the parties have evolved and will continue to do so. For example, the once reliably Democratic “solid South” shifted to Republican control beginning with the Civil Rights movement. Yet evolution should not be confused with destruction, and the persistence of the present system is relatively secure.
A two party system is the most stable and fair to the people.
When you have many parties like a parliamentary systems does, there is too much compromise in order to put together a majority coalition. It is not good.
What is happening today is that too many Americans are embracing evil and one party has gone Marxist, and that is not the fault of a two party system, that is the fault of many many things coming together in a perfect storm.
Our two party system was just fine for a hundred years, until around the year 2,000, when the Left started to go off the rails.
The two-party system is here to stay
Despite the fact that only 38% of Americans say they think the Democratic and Republican parties are doing ‘an adequate job,’ they’re unlikely to disappear.
theconversation.com
Why two parties?
Likewise, the two-party system will survive, regardless of political turbulence. This is a result of how the U.S. elects leaders.
In the vast majority of its congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections, America uses a system called single member district plurality, which means that each election produces only one winner.
Because voters generally do not wish to “waste” a vote, they focus on their most preferred electable candidate.
Because in a two-party system the major parties seek to appeal to broad coalitions to maximize electability, this is almost always a Republican or a Democrat. It is almost never a third-party candidate, which the voter might actually prefer. Candidates and their wealthy supporters recognize this, and so they ally with major parties rather than creating a third.
A quick look at U.S. history demonstrates the inevitability of these forces.
The very founders of the republic who opposed factionalism created the Federalist Party to support a strong national government and oppose the Anti-Federalist Party, which favored a decentralized government.
When the question of federal supremacy was settled, the Anti-Federalists were replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party, which championed Southern agricultural interests. When the Federalists died out, the Democratic-Republican Party split into the Whigs and Democrats, who disagreed about the balance of power between branches of government.
By 1856, a collapsing Whig Party was replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party, whose feuds with the pro-slavery Democrats led to the Civil War.
From that point forward, those two dominant national parties have remained stable. Third-party challenges have been limited and generally unimportant, usually driven by specific issues rather than broad-based concerns.
Stability in the future
The modern Republicans and Democrats are unlikely to go the way of the Whigs, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, regardless of recent political earthquakes.
National politics are a different game now than they were during the early republic. Advances in communication and technology have enhanced party organization. Parties can maintain a truly national presence and ward off potential challengers. Both major parties have shown a willingness to stretch to accommodate populists like Trump and Sanders rather than splintering.
Recent changes in the Democratic nomination process, for example, demonstrate this flexibility. Barriers to third parties appearing on ballots are ingrained in our electoral laws, which have been engineered by those managing the current system so that it will endure.
And donors and lobbyists, who want predictable outcomes, have little incentive to rock the boat by supporting a new player in the game.
Certainly, the parties have evolved and will continue to do so. For example, the once reliably Democratic “solid South” shifted to Republican control beginning with the Civil Rights movement. Yet evolution should not be confused with destruction, and the persistence of the present system is relatively secure.
Your knowledge of US history is sadly lacking.Washington was a great man, a great general, a visionary, but like all humans he could be wrong once in a while and he was wrong here.
A two party system is the most stable and fair to the people.
When you have many parties like a parliamentary systems does, there is too much compromise in order to put together a majority coalition. It is not good.
What is happening today is that too many Americans are embracing evil and one party has gone Marxist, and that is not the fault of a two party system, that is the fault of many many things coming together in a perfect storm.
Our two party system was just fine for a hundred years, until around the year 2,000, when the Left started to go off the rails.
The two-party system is here to stay
Despite the fact that only 38% of Americans say they think the Democratic and Republican parties are doing ‘an adequate job,’ they’re unlikely to disappear.
Why two parties?
Likewise, the two-party system will survive, regardless of political turbulence. This is a result of how the U.S. elects leaders.
In the vast majority of its congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections, America uses a system called single member district plurality, which means that each election produces only one winner.
Because voters generally do not wish to “waste” a vote, they focus on their most preferred electable candidate.
Because in a two-party system the major parties seek to appeal to broad coalitions to maximize electability, this is almost always a Republican or a Democrat. It is almost never a third-party candidate, which the voter might actually prefer. Candidates and their wealthy supporters recognize this, and so they ally with major parties rather than creating a third.
A quick look at U.S. history demonstrates the inevitability of these forces.
The very founders of the republic who opposed factionalism created the Federalist Party to support a strong national government and oppose the Anti-Federalist Party, which favored a decentralized government.
When the question of federal supremacy was settled, the Anti-Federalists were replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party, which championed Southern agricultural interests. When the Federalists died out, the Democratic-Republican Party split into the Whigs and Democrats, who disagreed about the balance of power between branches of government.
By 1856, a collapsing Whig Party was replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party, whose feuds with the pro-slavery Democrats led to the Civil War.
From that point forward, those two dominant national parties have remained stable. Third-party challenges have been limited and generally unimportant, usually driven by specific issues rather than broad-based concerns.
Stability in the future
The modern Republicans and Democrats are unlikely to go the way of the Whigs, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, regardless of recent political earthquakes.
National politics are a different game now than they were during the early republic. Advances in communication and technology have enhanced party organization. Parties can maintain a truly national presence and ward off potential challengers. Both major parties have shown a willingness to stretch to accommodate populists like Trump and Sanders rather than splintering.
Recent changes in the Democratic nomination process, for example, demonstrate this flexibility. Barriers to third parties appearing on ballots are ingrained in our electoral laws, which have been engineered by those managing the current system so that it will endure.
And donors and lobbyists, who want predictable outcomes, have little incentive to rock the boat by supporting a new player in the game.
Certainly, the parties have evolved and will continue to do so. For example, the once reliably Democratic “solid South” shifted to Republican control beginning with the Civil Rights movement. Yet evolution should not be confused with destruction, and the persistence of the present system is relatively secure.
The Civil War was brought into existence by the two party system. We had one pro slavery party and one anti slavery party. The south seceded because of the support they received from northern Democrats. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates to see the political party divide. If there had not been a party system in existence slavery would have been done away with before then because even the southern plantation owners admitted the need for the end of slavery at the time of the acceptance of the Constitution and it would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The party system kept the entire controversy alive and kicking.
It was all due to not listening to Washington.
The following link includes George Washington's farewell address to the nation. He was so concerned by party politics that he used his farewell address to speak to this issue. That ought to tell us his depth of concern.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._washington_thought_of_political_parties.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._washington_thought_of_political_parties.html
Red Wave Rising
Yuge
That is quite a sweeping statement based on one simple factual paragraph by me, and a quote of an article.
My statement is fact:
"A two party system is the most stable and fair to the people.
When you have many parties like a parliamentary systems does, there is too much compromise in order to put together a majority coalition. It is not good.
What is happening today is that too many Americans are embracing evil and one party has gone Marxist, and that is not the fault of a two party system, that is the fault of many many things coming together in a perfect storm.
Our two party system was just fine for a hundred years, until around the year 2,000, when the Left started to go off the rails."
As for the article i quoted, if you do not like it that is your affair, but don't use it to insult me or my education.
LOL! Right, Because states rights would have never been an issue if there were a third party, right? And the desire of some states to secede would have never happened if there were a third party, right? LOL. Now whose knowledge of US history is sadly lacking. LOL.
