Although the American form of government has its origins in ancient Greece it borrows greatly from the aristocratic government of pre-parliamentary England – the very government we fought to escape. For centuries England has been a nation of two classes – nobility and commoners. Even with the establishment of the Westminster Parliament in 1801 those old affiliations remained with the founding of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Thus began the myth of the two-party system.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination’s. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. George Washington
When Parliament was formed into the two houses of Commons and Lords the perception (and possibly even the original intent) was to create a form of government that equally represented both classes of English society. I think the English citizens then and now would tell you that they don’t feel the members of the House of Commons represent the views of the commoner. The members of the House of Commons are merely second tier nobility.
Unfortunately, that has also been the result in our two-party system. Our current version of constitutional democracy presents itself to the masses as being made up of Republicans and Democrats but that is misleading. Sure these two groups fight a lot but they are not two separate parties but rather two factions of the same party. In actuality our two parties are the government and the citizenry – nobility and commoners. What would our founding fathers think of that?
It might actually surprise you that some would be delighted. Though most of the founding fathers were good men not all were. Take Alexander Hamilton who was a founding father and the first Secretary of the Treasury; to this day his face graces the $10 bill. Hamilton was a Federalist meaning that he was against the notion of “States Rights” and for a totalitarian federal government. In a speech in June of 1787 Hamilton defined his vision of our new government. He called for a Senate made up of lifetime appointees while the House of Representatives would be up for re-election every three years. It essence an inflexible and permanent nobility and commoners subject to constant outside influence.
To head the legislative branch he suggested not a President but rather what he called an “elective monarch.” Hamilton based his new government on what he claimed was the best model yet established, the British government. The great irony of Alexander Hamilton is that though he was considered a staunch abolitionist he also championed a form of government that relegated all but a chosen few to a life of servitude. The one aspect that he did not want to copy from the Brits was their notion of “free trade” opting instead for an economic philosophy favoring strong government intervention.
See, not a nice guy at all. He kind of reminds me of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To me Reid is the archetypal Democratic politician, trumpeting equality and fairness while secretly trying to return us to the aristocracy of 18th Century England. Reid is one of the best at promoting class warfare, another governing philosophy inherited from the British model – divide and concur.
Anyone who has ever studied English history knows that century’s of British monarchs used clan warfare as a preventative against organized rebellion. The crown often pitted Scottish families against one another through deception. If you step away from your morality for a moment you can see the genius in this – if the people are busy fighting amongst themselves they won’t notice what you’re doing.
Our current politicians still employ this philosophy as is evidenced by their constantly playing the race card or the gender card or the religion card or diametrically opposed political parties. It’s to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they rob us blind. And Harry Reid is one of the grand puppet masters. Class warfare is one of the shiny objects (more on those HERE) politicians use to distract us from the real issues and that’s why each American needs to choose whether we excuse ourselves from class warfare or we become puppets to be ruled.
Another founding father that was kind of a putz was John Adams, the second President of the United States. Though he was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence once he became President, Adams found the US Constitution to be an annoyance. He signed into law the treasonous Sedition Act of 1798 which all but nullified 1st Amendment rights. Adams began arresting any journalists who publicly opposed his administration. In the case of Benjamin Franklin Bache (grandson of Benjamin Franklin) he was formally arrested before the Sedition Act actually went into law. Jefferson would restore the 1st Amendment when he followed Adams as President.
Adams, like Hamilton, also felt that the Presidency should be replaced by a monarchy and that the federal government should be all powerful. Adams was also instrumental in excluding women and blacks from voting as they had been allowed to do under Washington. John Adams would love the way our government works today because it exists solely to benefit bureaucrats, the modern aristocracy. If there is a modern equivalent to Adams it would have to be Senator John McCain – he presents himself as a conservative but his views are progressive which means big government and fewer civil liberties. Oddly enough the man that defeated McCain for the Presidency, Barrack Obama also reminds me of John Adams because he ran as a moderate but his policies have been extremely liberal.
George Washington in his infinite wisdom foresaw that a two-party system was detrimental to a nation built on individual freedom and equal representation. He theorized that a two-party system was freedom’s “worst enemy.” In his farewell address, Washington said of the two-party system, “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 find 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.”
That sounds a whole lot like what we have today doesn’t it?