“Potent Engines”: Washington on the Subversive Nature of Faction

I have been stumped about which topic to first expound upon, so I decided to peruse the headlines for inspiration. My eyes were met with the usual carnage of partisan nastiness strewn across the headlines: rank accusations founded upon distortions of half-truths gleaned from anonymous sources, grievous stretches of logic and rhetoric weaving a dainty dance to charm a jaded constituency into some convenient perspective, and of course the latest juicy tidbits of scandal that always lurk around the periphery of the powerful… especially the powerfully partisan.

Here was ample meat for digestion, surely… but which story? And did I really feel like wallowing in the mud just for the purpose of classifying it? A virgin posting so quickly defiled? No! So I have opted instead to write about all of it.

Where does it all come from anyway, this partisan posturing? How did we end up with these political parties which none seem to appreciate but upon which our governance so completely depends? Well, as you learned in high school, one of the great innovations of the American government is the two party system. It’s a brilliant system framed by our Founding Fathers to eliminate the chaotic effects of having multiple parties and factions with shifting alliances and coalitions. It was with this in mind that they firmly established this system in our founding documents.

Right?

Our survey says… X! That’s right folks, your high school civics teacher lied to you. It’s not his fault, though. He attended a liberal arts school where his professors lied to him too. Kids haven’t studied the full text of the Constitution for a couple of decades now. If they did, they would notice something peculiar: there’s not one single mention of parties. There is no reference whatsoever to parties, factions, or caucuses. Seems an odd omission, don’t you think?

It turns out, the Founding Fathers weren’t at all keen on faction becoming a force in the government. Even the Federalists and Anti-Federalists refused to openly acknowledge the idea that they had formed any kind of formalized factions uniting on a platform that extended beyond that one issue. All spoke in negative terms of the power of faction.

Try to wrap your head around this for a moment: all the sundry party-based offices and procedures of the Congress, the concepts of “majority” and “minority”, the primary elections process… all of it is an extra-constitutional house of cards built on the same foundation as our currency: nothing. Good gracious, they even have an office called “Majority/Minority Whip”, whose job it is to encourage congressmen to vote the party line instead of their conscience! Parties aren’t even in the Constitution, but it’s their JOB, for Pete’s sake!!! How did we get here?

We didn’t listen.

He told us this would happen. Who? George Washington, of course. He warned us in his farewell address¹ to the nation of the “baneful effects of the spirit of party”. The full text of this address can be found here. Would you believe that they read this address² to the Senate every year? Of course, there usually aren’t more than five Senators in the room when they do, and those five are busy texting congressional pages. The others are out fundraising… for their party.

After discussing what a bad idea it is to have permanent alliances and formal relationships with foreign nations (Stow it, liberal: I’ll see you your NATO bashing and raise you a U.N. withdrawal… but this is a topic for another day.), Washington sets right in and starts ripping a hole in partisan politics:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. 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; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

Kinda puts that “Majority Whip” position in perspective, doesn’t it? When was the last time you looked at a piece of legislation and thought “Now that’s a consistent and wholesome plan digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests!” Sure: that happens all the time. Now, how many “projects of faction” are up for vote this week? (Trick question! Congress is on vacation. Again. Instead of considering FISA.)

He continues with some stern warnings about where this will eventually take us:

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, 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.

Alright, first things first: just go ahead and sweep those partisan conspiracy theories right out of your head. Be honest—as soon as you read those words, the image of your least favorite recent president popped into your head (most likely this was either Clinton or Bush, depending on your political stripes). Take it easy. I feel quite confident that what he is describing here has not yet come to pass… but could. The parties clearly have become the “potent engines” here described, and the pump is certainly primed for this kind of power usurpation, but it clearly hasn’t yet come to pass nor is it likely to within the scope of the next administration, however the election turns out.

But it most certainly has happened before. Some of the most brutal dictatorships in the history have followed exactly this path; Hitler and Mussolini marched this roadmap exactly. See if this feels familiar to you:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. 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.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

Curiously enough, Washington seems to be saying that political parties are actually more dangerous in democratic governments than in more totalitarian governments. Fascinating! He’s just getting warmed up, though:

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.

Mmmm… the spirit of revenge… that doesn’t reflect anything in the modern political landscape, does it? I’d say we’ve come to expect it and even rely upon it. Votes are traded, appointments are held hostage, and entitlements are peddled… all this is called “the balance of power”. Compromise, you see, is the veneer of retributive politics.

Pause for a moment and consider how our attitudes toward political parties have allowed them to become “potent engines” like those Washington describes. The modern political landscape has no qualms about accepting and even rewarding myriad unscrupulous tactics designed to wrest the electoral mandate in spite of the actual will of the electorate. Pandering to bloc voters, courting union endorsements, and (dare I say it?) organizing “get-out-the-vote” drives are actually praised in the political arena as valid, effective means for parties and candidates to win elections. Then there are still baser tactics, like gerrymandering, used to artificially suppress the public will in spite of the results at the ballot box.

Tactics such as these garner praise for being politically savvy, without anyone questioning whether that is a quality to be admired. Losing candidates congratulate their opponents on “running an effective campaign” as if it were something praiseworthy, when the whole intent of these tactics is to distort the outcome from what it would otherwise have been if the voters were simply left to their own devices and if candidates and their ideas were weighed on the basis of their merits alone. Indeed, candidates who fail to (or choose not to) employ these tactics are summarily dismissed for “not wanting it badly enough”.

This is, of course, to say nothing of the distortions, push polling, media collusion, back room deals, and outright vote fraud which always are a factor in every election and are considered in check if kept below the radar. “Campaigning” is a concept I find somewhat distasteful, but I am willing to accept that it is well within the realm of sound civic duty for a candidate or proxy to put great effort into informing the public and evangelizing for his political perspective. It is only natural and in the greatest tradition of our nation to attempt to affect the public opinion on an issue through thoughtful debate in open forums. Picking up homeless people en masse and taking them to the polls to vote for your candidate in exchange for a hot meal is something different entirely and speaks to a corrupt attitude that prizes victory above meaningful public mandate in a just cause.

Okay, so returning to the subject of despotic usurpation, we have already established that this hasn’t happened yet. We haven’t? Oh fine then, chew on this: the fact that two different parties control the executive and legislative branches at this moment pretty much proves it. Trust me, when this final overthrow of liberty happens, you’ll know it and I’ll be very glad my blog has been anonymous. Washington wasn’t talking about W, nor was he talking about the Clintons.

So we haven’t yet had to countenance Washington’s worst case scenario. Does that mean he was mistaken about the influence of parties? No, he has more to tell us on the subject:

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. 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 finds 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.

I could seriously fluff out this posting with prime or late-breaking examples of each of these points, but there’s really no need. Your mind furnished you an example for each point as you read it. Now go back and read it again. As you do, make an effort to be intellectually honest and you will find that this time the examples come from both parties… even the one you typically side with. You’re Libertarian? Green? Sorry, no moral high ground for you, either. Your party is impotent, not altruistic. If they had the power, they’d behave similarly.³

Perhaps you are thinking, however, that despite the enumerated pitfalls of parties the benefits still outweigh them. After all, party fervor serves to animate on civic subjects, those who otherwise might be thoroughly disengaged from the political process. It can inspire patriotism, loyalty, and civic responsibility. I would argue, however that it does so only superficially and artificially: it superficially informs them and artificially involves them. True patriotism and civic involvement are inspired by good character and a broad, thorough education in civics and history. George has a further point for you to consider:

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Basically, Mr. Washington is saying here that people will always be fervent enough in causes that inspire them and will naturally be inclined to as much patriotism and loyalty as is healthy to the cause of liberty. Party and faction will only serve to fan that flame into a consuming blaze that will bring about all the calamities he has enumerated.

Whither, then, the conscientious originalist in today’s political landscape? It is a question I have pondered for years now. I have dabbled in political involvement relating to party out of an abundance of concern for the direction our nation seems to be drifting. Such involvement left me feeling unclean, however. I knew it to be wrong. I experienced a feeling similar to that of piloting a small sail boat in heavy winds: that vague notion that despite your best efforts at helmsmanship you are being carried by the wind into unsafe waters into which you had no intention of going.

Inaction seems wrong. Party politics are the problem and by extention not the solution, and therefore must be wrong. We must, however, face the reality that the parties are here to stay and have been for well nigh 200 years. The parties cannot fall, because every person in a position to tear them down owes that position to their party. And just like the mob, the only safe haven from one party’s retribution is the other party.

So, I have struck a compromise with my conflicting notions of civic responsibility and originalist principles. Every November (and the occasional February), I go to the polls and faithfully pull the lever for the lesser of two evils. I even try to convince my friends and associates to do the same, for principled and measured reasons. Occasionally, if a candidate inspires me with their integrity, awes me with their grasp of founding principles, and seems to transcend their party in direct appeal to the constituency, I will actually campaign for this person (not their party). In my life, I’ve seen only two so far.⁴ One of them was Reagan.

While I feel it crucial to remain wary of factions and their influence, and to be actively vigilant in guarding my own outlook from the “spirit of party”, I have resolved not to automatically dismiss the motives of those who run for office under the auspices of party affiliation out-of-hand. Truly, there is no way to attain an office that will have meaningful effect on the well-being of this nation without the sponsorship of a party. If I were ever to run for office myself, I would have to be severely delusional to suppose that it could be achieved without said affiliation.

This may seem an anticlimactic end to an otherwise incendiary rant, but such is the nature of conservative thought: it is inherently pragmatic. Principles must be applied in the framework of present reality, or the principles become useless: so much fluff for parlor talk and angry rumination… rubber that will never touch pavement. Washington himself would have seen it that way, as would the rest of the Founding Fathers, all of whom signed the Constitution with at least one reservation held at bay by the exigencies of expedience.

Fabius Cincinnatus

1—Actually, it was an open letter, not an address, but it always gets called that anyway.

2—Actually, I believe that the version they read is this one, with the juiciest censures of party politics conveniently redacted. Yup, that link is to the State Department: your tax dollars hard at work revising history.

3—Don’t believe me? Look to the business world. Have you noticed that the greater Apple’s market share becomes, the more like Microsoft they behave? Steve Jobs becomes more like Bill Gates every day.

4—Actually, I’ve seen three, but one was so ill-equipped to win a race as to make my support moot.