George Washington on political parties

[hnumpah]

George Washington stated his disgust in his farewell address, given three months before the election (for his successor).
 
“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community,” he said.
 
“They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”


http://news.yahoo.com/inside-america-first-dirty-presidential-campaign-1796-style-101212591.html

[BT]

George Washington stated his disgust in his farewell address, given three months before the election (for his successor).
 
“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community,” he said.
 
“They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”


http://news.yahoo.com/inside-america-first-dirty-presidential-campaign-1796-style-101212591.html

I have no argument with that. I think it should be expanded to special interest groups as well.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The opposition in Washington;s time was the Anti-Masonic Party. It never seemed to get much traction.

[Plane]

I think Washington himself reluctantly became a Whig.

But it is hard to deny that Partys can become just as negative as he warned.

[sirs]

Aren't we supposed to denounce him, because he owned slaves?  I recall many a time when the founders are referenced, in support of Constitutional principals, many on the left try to diminish their importance by referencing that they were slave owners.

I'm sure if it was he who led our troops into New York, with intel that told him British were there, and not Nova Scotia, the press now would be decrying how he lied us into defeat in NY

[hnumpah]

Here's what pisses me off...

I'm a registered Republican, partly because when I registered to vote lo those many years ago, the Republican party more closely represented what I believe in, and kept it partly because the only way to vote for a primary candidate in any partisan election in the state of Florida is to state a party affiliation. The Republicans have gone further and further from my own personal political beliefs, and I have considered changing my party affiliation or dropping it altogether - but then I either can't vote in partisan primaries, or I'm much more limited in my choices (if i were to, say, go Libertarian).

Unfortunately, when you put down a party affiliation at the local Supervisor of Elections office, it becomes a matter of public record. That means any Tom, Dick or Harry who is willing to plunk down a fee can get a list of the voter rolls, by party, by neighborhood, district, age, or whatever criteria they want to use, find the telephone numbers, and robocall the hell out of the people on their list.

Obviously they are doing it by party for the most part, because I get very few calls to support Democrat candidates. However, I get several calls each day from Republican sources, especially calls about different issues or diffrent candidates, each one in a different voice, but always ending with the statement that this call was not authorized
by any particular candidate but were paid for by the RNC (Republican National Committee) and always ending with a toll free number. Always a different toll free number.

So being a cranky S.O.B. who feels I pay my damn phone bill to keep in touch with friends and family I care about and businesses I actually do business with and not to be annoyed by every sumbitch with something to sell, whether it's a vacuum cleaner, religion or poiitics, I call the number to tell them to put me on their Do Not Call list. Now, you can't escape these asshole by using the state or federal Do Not Call list, because the politicians that wrote those laws slyly made exceptions for political calls, so you have to call them back and tell them to put you on the Do Not Call list (you  can't just tell the person when you answer to do it, because it is always just a recording).

The problem is, each one of those calls comes from a different number, a different robocaller, with a different message. That's how the RNC gets around putting you on a Do Not Call list, they simply keep calling from different numbers.

And when my own political party pulls shit like that, they lose my vote.

[sirs]

Unfortunately H, that's not a GOP problem.  That's a "global" problem, as my wife and I are on the do not call list, and we're getting hit with robocallers from all sorts, using the same methods in getting around do not call boundries.  But hey, I feel your pain, and if you wish to punish them by not voting for them, its no different than if we're telling some other phone solicitor to go pound sand, seeing how they got around the DNC list.  It's their loss, and in no way, some fault of yours.  Hopefully, they're getting some feedback on this inappropriate tactic, as I'm sure Dems are likely getting pretty fed up as well from the robocalls they've been getting, from their party

[Plane]

.....and robocall the hell out of the people on their list.

...............................And when my own political party pulls shit like that, they lose my vote.

Don't blame you either.

Very shortsighted waste of cash to irritate the votor.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think Washington himself reluctantly became a Whig.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington never belonged to any party. His closest allies were Federalists.

Washington died in 1799. The Whig Party was founded in 1834, by among others, the same Seward who bought Alaska much later.

[Plane]

I think Washington himself reluctantly became a Whig.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington never belonged to any party. His closest allies were Federalists.

Washington died in 1799. The Whig Party was founded in 1834, by among others, the same Seward who bought Alaska much later.

I don't agree.

Have you a sorce?

I can imagine being wrong.

[hnumpah]

Many historians, citing Washington's record as President with Hamilton as his right-hand man, claim that he was a Federalist (Party, although the "Party" wasn't formed until a bit later), placing him in the same category with Hamilton and John Adams. The facts simply do not support such a classification. Washington was four-square against federal involvement in personal lives, yet he did allow Hamilton almost total leeway in establishing a federal financial system because, as the first President, he saw the necessity in a start-up situation of pushing the boundaries. What Washington despised most was the idea of political parties; factions of any kind. He further warned in his Farewell Address; discussing factions between people, between North and South, between states and between nations, "...it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."
 
Washington went on to say,


"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."
 
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html

In 1828, Andrew Jackson, a Democratic-Republican from Tennessee, was elected president. His party had great support in the South and West. Jackson changed the party's name to Democrats. People who had once been Federalists joined with anti-Jackson Democrats to form the National Republican, or Whig, Party. Between 1836 and 1852, Whigs gave Democrats strong opposition.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties

So, Washington was not a Federalist, and the Whigs in the US were not established until the 1830's.

You're welcome.

[Plane]

I didn't need to imagine being wrong very long.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I looked up the date of Washington's death on Wikipedia. I was sure it was 1799, but just to make sure.

Then I looked up the dates for the Whig Party, which was founded in opposition to Andrew Jackson. I knew it was in the 1830's, but I had forgotten the exact year.

[Plane]

Yes , I misremembered badly.