In the age of legacy media and alternative information fighting for
segments of political narrative dom- inance, if not serving as press arms
for the dominant political parties of the US, it is illuminating to
study how these structures came about, what they stood and / or stand
for, and how they evolved over time.
As a person who
was firmly on the left as a very young man, and has leaned right since
about the age of twenty, I have come to feel that many of us accept
certain narratives and doctrines based more on our perception of the
parties that claim to represent them, and our self-images of course,
rather than by identification with specific platform points and
Growing up in New York City, the all but overt messaging I received as a general sensibility was that the Democratic Party
was, well...they were "normal". They were clearly the "good guys", and
certainly, one should only vote for them, because to not - was just
crazy. I mean, the Republicans
were just horrible, horrible people (don't you know?). It was an
unspoken truth that they were thoroughly deplorable, in every way, long
before Hillary Clinton deemed everyone to the right of her position as such in the 2015 election cycle.
what many fail to understand is that the corrupt Madame Secretary had
long since gone through her own political evolution - not unalike
millions of others in her generation and since. From a Goldwater Republican as a teenager, Miss Rodham fell under the spell of Socialist agitator Saul Alinsky,
and as she drifted into the Democratic Party, she, like many other
liberals of her generation, brought far left radicalism into the
toxic combination of Marxist-tinged leftist ideology being baked in a
slow admixture with the military-industrial complex, led to the creation
of a type of creature that is now commonly called a "Neo-Liberal",
or "Neo-Lib" in contemporary social parlance. This concoction of victim
politics and Corporatism created a bi-polar dissonance (i.e Woke CEO's)
that achieved a kleptocratic high point in the 1990's - as many former
hippies traded in their moccasins and hoodies for patent leather shoes
and Chanel business suits. It's no coincidence that this high point
matured during the Clinton administration, and was paralleled on the
right side of the aisle by, you got it, the "Neo-Conservatives", or in short, the "Neo-Cons" - an equally despicable creature.
those of you who I might have lost in the last passage I must explain
that these euphemisms do not simple refer to renewed ("Neo") waves of
Liberal and Conservative ideals - they instead refer to a new set of
ideals, much in the same way that breeding a horse with a donkey creates
a mule - it doesn't make a horse-donkey, or donkey-horse.
we have Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons, as well as traditional Democrats and
Republicans, as the dominant forces in America's two-party system. But
where do these ideologies originate from?
My thesis in short will illuminate how the two major and recurring themes of American politics: Federalism and Anti-Federalism
(i.e how much or little control the government has over individual,
local and state issues) has really only been a debate within the
Republican camp from 1789 until the present, while a platform primarily
built upon ethno-identitarianism and Marxist identitarianism (i.e. race)
has always been the purview of the Democratic Party, from its founding
If we are able to recall our early
school days, we might remember studying the founding fathers and their
nascent political alliances. In that, two particular opposing streams of
thought stand out - Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and John Adam's
Federalists. While it would be very easy to picture that our current
RNC and DNC and the direct heirs to these two parties, it is by no means
that simple. In fact, I would argue that the notion that such is the
case is a retro-active deception and a century old historical re-write
created in order to clean up the sordid origins of the Democratic Party.
So let's go back to the very start and see how we got here.
Part One: 1789-1824 (Republicanism versus Federalism)
"independent" or at least "non-partisan" presidency, the
Democratic-Republican Party was founded by President Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison in 1792. It found support mostly in the southern states, and was in essence the successor of the Anti-Administration Party which had formed in 1789 and was dissolved in 1794. The party reflected the core beliefs of "Jeffersonian Democracy" (Jeffersonian Era 1801- 1817), which prized above all civic service.
values of Republicanism opposed aristocracy, monarchy, central banking,
the religious authority, and corruption. Within reason, it can be
described as a socially center-left form of Classical Liberalism (i.e. the liberal ideals of the Enlighten- ment), and if we attempt to find a contemporary political parallels to it, I would suggest it maintained many common- alities with Libertarian thought,
if not the current Libertarian Party - which in my opinion, has not yet
adequately pieced together an holistic platform that would appeal to
both right and left Libertarians.
The counter to both the Anti-Administration party and to the Democratic-Republican party was John Adam's and Alexander Hamilton's
Pro-Administration party, better known as the Federalist Party, or
simply, the Federalists (Federalist Era 1788-1801). The Federalist Party
also formed in 1789, but unlike the Democratic-Republicans it found
most of it's base in the chilly states of New England. The Federalist
position was that government was innately an evil, but a necessary one,
and thus, it should be regulated by a strong legal framework. Within
reason, as a party the Federalists relied on traditional family and
religious values and centralization of power and finances.
Philosophically, it was both socially and fiscally more Conservative
than the Jeffersonians, and would be best described as a center-right
wing branch of Classical Liberalism, placing it firmly in the arena of
most of today's Neo-Con's.
From the beginning the
debate was always between how much, or how little, the newly created
national government of the United States would, well, govern. States
rights and the individual rights of man versus how much power the
national government could, would, or should exert. I guess it was, and
is, a bit of a pickle.
Aaron Burr, who shot the prior to death in 1804. Burr was never charged, but it should be added that the duel ended his political career.
At the time, and until the Civil War,
we must recall that often the President and Vice-President represented
the opposing parties, with the loser of the electoral college taking the
lesser seat. In a mythical construct where political civility reigned
this sounds idealistically non-partisan and just wonderful. But in
reality, this was not possible after the bitterness brought on by the
north-south / Republican-Democratic schism and the Civil War that grew
from it. But more on that later.
Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican parties were both
dissolved in the election of 1824 and morphed into very different
creatures. However, the threads of their philosophy and streams of their
thought both persisted and can be traced in some way until the current
Post a Comment