Federalists and Republicans: The First Two Political Parties and the Divide of American Culture

“But every difference of opinion is not a difference of
principle. We have called by different names brethren
of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are
all Federalists.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

But, despite this statement made in 1801 the two political parties that formed, in 1792, would change the way the American political system functions. The two groups originated due to many disputes that arose; these included arguments over how the Constitution should be interpreted, as well as the role that Americans would play in the new government. The ability of these parties to mobilize and persuade voters led their members to realize the important roles that these organizations, of ideological compression, would play in American politics. These disputes and the parties that they spawned led to a great divide in the young nation; and although there have been and continue to be many “third” parties, it was the divide created by the first two parties, and the hostilities that it spawned, that has grown more apparent as time has past. Causing us to become eyewitnesses to the ramifications of this fracture.
One of these early groups was known as the Federalists; they supported a strong Federal government with an emphasis on manufactured goods. The Federalists supported England; in addition they also supported a more industrialized economy, and because of this they enjoyed the backing of the northern states. They also believed that wealthy elected representatives should rule over the nation, by not allowing common citizens to have an extremely active role in the government. Alexander Hamilton, one of the most prominent members of the Federalists, once said, “The people are turbulent and changing. They seldom judge or determine right.” Hamilton, who was the Secretary of the Treasury during George Washington’s Presidency, also believed that the Constitution implied that it would be acceptable for Congress to authorize the establishment of a National Bank. It would then be the job of this bank to deal with the National debt that had been incurred during the Revolutionary War, in addition to developing and issuing a national currency.
As a response to the Federalists ideas, those who did not agree with Alexander Hamilton and his followers formed the Republican Party. The Republicans felt that it was the people that made the Republic strong. Thomas Jefferson summed up the Republican’s feelings about the issue, “I am not among those that fear the people; they, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.” Republicans wanted to establish strong State governments with a focus on agriculture; it was for these reasons as well as being pro-French, that the South heavily favored the Republicans. Republican Party members felt that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, and that it should not be assumed that there are any implied powers. They questioned the Constitutionality of founding a National Bank, and believed instead that it should be left up to the states’ banks to settle debt and issue currency.
Although George Washington was often linked with the Federalists, he was never a member of a political party; and he thought that the factions would be detrimental to the union. This belief led him try to mediate the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson,

“I have a great sincere esteem and regard for you
both, and ardently wish that some line could be
marked out which both [of] you could walk.”
-George Washington in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

But, despite Washington’s efforts the divide amongst these two men and their parties grew; and ultimately it was this divide that led Jefferson and Hamilton to resign from Washington’s cabinet.
Washington’s decision to retire in 1796 led to the first Presidential election in which people ran as members of political parties; this would change the future of political campaigns. By developing polarized platforms these two factions established the foundation of the current two party system. The structure of these factions can even be seen in contemporary political parties, and it was the networks established by these two early groups that gave rise to the patronage system of today. Early in their existence both parties relied on networks of local supporters. People who agreed with the Democratic-Republicans even formed Democratic-Republican Societies. It was the mission of these societies to promote Republicanism, Democracy, and to fight the expansion of Aristocratic feelings. Although these societies were relatively short lived (1793-1796), their organizational impact can be seen today in the form of the so-called “grassroots” groups that organize local residents in support of the national parties that they are associated with.
These two factions also pioneered another tool used by contemporary politicians, the use of the media as a way of distributing information. Up to the election of 1796 George Washington had run virtually unopposed and had very little need for propaganda, but the parties that ran in 1796 understood what a powerful tool it could be. They saw the way it was able to disseminate information, and mobilize groups to arms during the Revolution. Alexander Hamilton even began a publication, the New York Evening Post, to distribute his ideas; and he would periodically write articles that would appear in the newspaper. While at the same time the Republicans used James Callender to expose an affair that Hamilton was having with a Mrs. Reynolds, and that he was making payments to Reynolds’ husband so that he would not publicly expose the affair. As time has past the media has evolved, causing it to become a driving force behind public opinions. Whether it leans left or right, today’s 24/7 news media is broadcast in real time over the airwaves, Internet, and delivered straight to your cell phone anywhere in the world. This instantaneous information dissemination has had a huge impact on parties, and the way they deliver their opposing messages.
This mutual opposition was temporarily ended when a split within the Federalist Party led to Thomas Jefferson becoming the third President of the United States in the election of 1800, by defeating incumbent John Adams. This election signaled the end of the Federalist Party, and although the party was only shortly lived the function of a two party system would again emerge in the United States after the election of 1824. With the end of the Federalists the Republican Party was left unchallenged; and they were able to dominate American politics, despite the emergence of a new organization known as the Anti-Mason Party, till a dispute over their Presidential candidate in 1824 led the party to split. The split created four different factions each with their own candidate for President. The impact of this spilt is significant to today’s major parties. As both, of the current major political, parties are descendents of this division.
The Democrats and Republicans that we know today have adopted many of the ideas that were addressed by the Federalists and Republicans. By adopting and up dating various ideas from both of these parties the current major political organizations have polarized American politics, and reemphasized the divide within the American culture. The Democrats of today support a union in which the citizens have an active role, like Jefferson’s Republicans; however, they also believe that the Constitution has implied powers contained within it, like the Federalist Party. The current Republican Party, on the other hand, supports a government led by the elite citizens of America, like the Federalists; and in addition they also emphasize stronger State governments, like Jefferson’s Republicans.
Like the first two factions, today’s parties have become huge catch basins, desperately trying to absorb every issue that becomes of interest to any voter. By compressing and ideologically shifting these vast issues then presenting them through the filter of a Party it can look as though the people, of the nation, have grown apart. Political scholars disagree with this though ; and instead they believe that it is the American political parties that have become polarized, not the American people. The effect of this ideological division becomes apparent during events like the election of 2000, which led to the emergence of a rivalry of Red v. Blue.

“Polarization is not new to this country. It is hard
to imagine a society more divided than ours was
in 1800, when pro-British, pro-commerce New
Englanders supported John Adams for the
presidency while pro-French, pro-agriculture
Southerners backed Thomas Jefferson. One sign
of this hostility was the passage of the Alien and
Sedition Acts in 1798; another was that in 1800,
just as in 2000, an extremely close election was
settled by a struggle in one state (New York in
1800, Florida in 2000).”
-Professor James Q Wilson, How Divided Are We?, 2005

Political parties have, from their beginnings, separated people along ideological lines; and while many different factions have formed throughout our nation’s history, our political system itself gives birth to the establishment of two dominant organizations. We must resist their push to polarize in order to maintain an active Democracy, and maintain the ability to rationally debate issues in an open way that is not exclusionary. Americans alone can keep these factions in check, by not allowing them to divide the citizens of our nation. United we have changed the way the world’s people view the function of their governments, and together we can continue to build a stronger and safer America.

When is a Democracy not a Democracy?

"Democracies in the MIddle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation iin the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. "
-George W. Bush

"A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal,"
-George W. Bush

One more example of a double standard in American political agendas. You cannot support one way of doning things, and then refuse to deal with the outcome of that system.

Culture of Corruption: The Two Party System and Its Effect on American Politics

Since almost the beginning of American style Democracy, the two party system has dominated the electoral process. Though the names have changed over time (i.e. Federalists, Whigs, Populists, Republicans, Democrats, etc. . .), their functions have remained much the same to support one another by theoretically opposing the other faction. The two parties, which usually to a varying degree resemble one another despite their claims of opposition, rely on the other to maintain their grasp on power. The current major political parties even trace the popular origin of their mascots to the same political cartoon by Thomas Nast in Harper’s Weekly, which was published on November 7, 1874. In addition they also share a history with the name Republican; as today’s Democratic Party traces it’s origin to Jefferson’s Republican Party.


The emergence of two dominant factions is not uncommon within a so-called “First-Past-The-Post” election process, such as ours. A First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) process is any electoral system in which there is not a proportionate representation within the government. Maurice Duverger, a French Sociologist, first recognized this occurrence; and the law is consequently known as Duverger’s Law. Duverger stated in a series of papers, published in the 1950s and 1960s, that while this law is not absolute the simple plurality of the FPTP system would at the very least slow the emergence of a third party; and if a new faction does emerge it will be at the expense of an existing party. An example of this would be the election 1860 which saw the rise of the Republican Party, and the disbanding of the Whig Party. With the Electoral College forming the backbone of the American FPTP system the political influence that the two major parties enjoy seems to be theirs to lose.

A study that was conducted suggested that 33% of American voters do not identify with either major political party, but instead identify themselves as independents. This inability to identify with the two factions could suggest a move towards the formation of a new party, but there has not been a third party that has seriously threatened the dominance of a major political faction in the United States since Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860. In contemporary America part of the reason many Americans discredit Third Party candidates is because of modern communication systems. While the major national parties have the ability to raise money to appear on these outlets, the third parties lack the ability to develop the infrastructure of the established organizations. This exposure plays a big rule in who the American people vote for in the image driven culture we live in today, but third parties have a difficult time raising the funds needed to compete on a national level. The resulting lack of access denies voters information about all the possible candidates running for different offices. An example of this is the fact that during the 2004 Presidential election over 300 people ran for President, and with the exception of Ralph Nader, many of the candidates could not get television access across the country. The two parties, which are constantly raising money from special interest groups, enjoy this monopoly and use it to their advantage. This consequently gives the false impression that the major parties’ candidates are the only candidates.

Each of the major parties know that when they do claim the title of majority it will only be a matter of time before they once again occupy the position of minority. So, the two parties feed on one another’s indiscretions in an effort to gain or maintain the majority within the Federal, State, and Local governments. It is this Despotic cycle that lulls both the politicians and voters into believing that these two parties, which are currently the Republicans and Democrats, are impervious to third party threats. This cycle of manipulation and exclusion often leads politicians to believe that they are above the law and this belief breeds corruption. Because of their lack of oversight or check by any third party, which American voters have been convinced by the media as well as the major political parties is a wasted vote, politicians have engaged in scandalous behavior almost from the beginning of the Republic. The majority party is almost always the faction that feels the most impact of a scandal, with the minority attacking it in an effort to gain voters’ confidence so that it has a chance of becoming the majority after the next election. Once they do come to power they feel absolute in that position till eventually the cycle repeats itself. One example of this would be the so-called “Corrupt Bargain of 1824”, during which the Jeffersonian Republicans split into four different parties; each party having their own candidate for President. With so many candidates there was no clear majority achieved within the Electoral College. Under the constitution when this happens the vote is passed to the House of Representatives for a vote. The Twelfth Amendment also states that only the three candidates with the most votes would be eligible to be candidates in the House; this excluded Henry Clay who only received 37 electoral votes. Andrew Jackson received the most electoral votes with 99 and won the popular vote with 151,271 or 43.3% of the total vote. Clay was, however, the Speaker of the House; and he detested Andrew Jackson, so he threw his support behind John Quincy Adams. Upon the first ballot Adams won and later appointed Clay his Secretary of State, virtually guaranteeing him the Presidency; because, up to that point every President from Jefferson on had held this office. This enraged Jackson who believed that the House would elect him, since he had won both the popular and electoral votes. For the next four years Jackson’s followers campaigned on the accusations that Adams and Clay had struck a “corrupt bargain” and in 1828 Jackson defeated Adams. This is of course not the only reason that one party gains the majority, but as history illustrates it is a far too common occurrence.

We can even see this scenario playing out today, as the Republicans are scrambling to prevent the cycle occurring in the 2006 mid-term elections. The American people are trusting the party members to police themselves, but as we’ve already seen this is not possible within the American political culture of today. The title of this essay, Culture of Corruption, is itself a phrase being used currently in describing the atmosphere within the present Congress. Thomas Paine wrote at the dawn of our nation of the great importance that law should hold within the fledgling country,

“that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is the law, so in free countries the law ought to be King...” (Common Sense)

and we must continue to hold the law in high esteem. It is the American people who must speak out once again against despotism, and end the cycle of party corruption. Only by enforcing the laws of this land and preventing future violations, can we secure the integrity of our nation.

The State of Our Union

As the 43rd President of the United States addressed his fellow citizens in his fifth State of the Union, we are a torn country. A country of us and them, in which people often identify themselves by the color and mascot of the party they vote for; rather than acknowledging others as fellow Americans. Because of this we've lost our sense of national unity. What good is a union if we refuse to acknowledge one another's point-of-view, and work together to come to a compromise? James Madison, while trying to convince his fellow colonists to adopt the new Constitution, wrote,

"AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
-The Federalist, Number 10 1787

But, by continually setting aside the common good in exchange for the advancement of one faction over the other, we are neglecting the guiding principles of our nation's Constitution. A Patriot is not just a person that runs into battle to fight for their country; they are also those who have the strength to stand up, and question those who govern them in an effort to build a better nation. We must remember that the power of this government, which is by and for all its PEOPLE, is inherent within us; and every one of us is responsible to do our part to make it the best country it can be. Parties have fogged the vision of the American people for far too long and should no longer be an disruptive element in Government. So tonight as the President stands to address the most powerful nation in the history of the world, we must try put aside imaginary party lines in an effort to close the divide and reunite the nation. For as Abraham Lincoln once said, while addressing the Illinois State Congress on the issue of slavery, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

George Washington’s Legacy: This Founding Father’s Views on Political Parties

"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, & warn you in the most
solemn manner against the baneful effects of
the Spirit of Party, generally."
-Farewell Address of 1796

In his last action as the first President of the United States of America, George Washington wrote a Farewell Address that he hoped would act as a warning to a fledgling nation. He used this address as an opportunity to describe to the nation what he thought the effects of forming political parties would be on the democratic process, in addition to defining his vision for American foreign policy for decades to come. By devoting so much of his last address as President to the subject of parties Washington, who to this day is still considered one of the most influential Presidents in our nation's history in addition to being the only President in our nation's history who was not a member of a political party, was sending a clear message to those who would succeed him to avoid the establishment of these powerful political organizations. But, despite Washington's strong warnings against the establishment of political parties two factions began to take hold during his eight years as President. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and the Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson were beginning to create a divide through the political landscape of the late 1700s. By making his views on parties so widely available, Washington hoped that just as his decision to hold the office of President for only two terms set a precedent for future leaders of the nation he would set another political precedent by warning Americans against the establishment of such political factions.
It was Washington's fear that by their very nature parties would be counter-beneficial to the democratic process. And, that as these groups evolve they would begin to invest all their powers into establishing one individual as their leader, and that this leader will eventually ignore or circumvent the ideals and principles of a democratic society for their own purposes. Washington was afraid that the exclusivity of political parties would not only limit who would run for office, but also who would run the parties themselves,

"The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute
power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of
some prevailing faction more able or fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
-Farewell Address of 1796

That the hierarchies within these factions would begin to become so obsessed and pre-occupied by the agendas of their parties that they would inevitably lose touch with the public, and cease to reflect the interests of those whom they were elected to represent, was a huge concern of Washington's. These despotic groups could then be more closely related to the tyrannical government that we fought against during the revolution than a government of the people.
As was true of many of the American Patriots of the time, Washington felt that it was the people who make up the fourth and most important check and balance on American government. He also believed that it is their inherent duty to maintain that power,

"The very idea of the power and the right of the
People to establish Government presupposes the
duty of every individual to obey the established Government."
-Farewell Address of 1796

By allowing these organizations to gain influence, under the auspice of uniting the people's powers, they would in fact subvert that power in an effort to extend their own authority over the people; which in turn would then eliminate the people's ability to effectively rule their rulers. They in turn have the opposite effect and divide the people into separate camps that inevitably oppose one another. In the late 1800s Lord Acton, an English historian, wrote, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." This seems especially relevant to Washington's fears of what would happen with the development of political parties. Throughout their histories the members of these groups have been involved in scandals that have plagued these political factions almost from their beginnings, and these scandals continue to today's current political party members. So secure in their hold on power over the American political process, that today's politicians from both major parties are constantly having to reassure the nation's citizens that the system is still functioning as it was intended and, "that the government is not for sale," as Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fischer recently asserted in response to the latest federal scandal.
Washington strongly believed in the principles of a government governed by the people, and he used his last address as the President of the United States as a way of detailing the dangers facing the young American political process. This is not to say that Washington was without his flaws he, like many of his contemporary countrymen, was a slave owner. It was partially because of this personal flaw that he knew that the Republic would not always be perfect, and he believed that the people would adjust the system by adding new amendments to the Constitution to bring up-to-date. It was his fear however that the establishment of political parties would divide the American People and fracture the young nation. As the first President of the United States, and the so-called "Father of his Country," Washington was very conscious of the impact that his actions would have as leader of this young nation, and hoped that his warnings would leave lasting impressions on his fellow citizens. Washington's greatest fear, for the young nation, was that by institutionalizing the government within these powerful factions the people would lose their ability to police their government; and in doing so a "Culture of Corruption" would develop that would destroy the foundation of the Democratic society that so many have died to construct.

Washington today

"The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul, 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 Nation, the will of the party; often a small but artful and enterprizing 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 councils and modefied by mutal interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & 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, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwords the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796

Senator Tom Delay's Mugshot; which
was taken after he was indicted on
charges of money laundering.

Political Parties and their Effect on American Politics: the foundation of the Anti-Party Political Movement

Friends, and Fellow Citizens.
It’s time to tell our Politicians to stop focusing on their own wellbeing, and start paying attention to the People’s needs. For far too long the welfare of the majority of Americans has been set-aside for the interests of the few. This is due in no small part to the polarization of American Politics that has developed over the last two hundred years. By marginalizing the so-called “third party” candidates the two party system, that has evolved, has created an atmosphere of political monopoly and stagnation. By raising the hundreds of millions of dollars required to get a candidate from one of the main political organizations elected, American political parties more closely resemble multi-national corporations. Modern corporations know the benefits to making huge political donations, and often will donate to both major political parties in order to guarantee special treatment no matter who wins an election. This money, that the parties are so efficient at raising, could be going to help the poor, the hungry, or the uninsured; but instead, more often than not it goes towards ensuring that the donors receive favors from their political allies. These monopolies, and the inter-party squabbling they create, have continually diverted politicians’ attention from matters of great social importance to America.
As politicians argue lethargic party agendas, four years after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Buildings, two and half years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and four months after the chaos of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, the 9/11 commission has recently released a new report stating that we’re no safer today than we were four years ago. There are also Global implications of the two party monopoly. As representatives of the people of the United States, many members have come to be viewed negatively by citizens of other nations around the world. This has a direct affect on the way Americans in general are viewed in foreign nations. We are often seen as polluters, murderers, and liars because of the way politicians pursue their parties’ agendas. In order to create a strong and safer nation we must have an active democracy, where a majority not a minority participates in the voting process.
The willingness of members from both major parties to bicker and be constantly implicated in scandals has created among many voters a lack of enthusiasm about going to the ballot box. This lack of excitement manifests itself in the form of dwindling voter turn out, and a general apathy towards the democratic process. The often mediocre candidates that are nominated by these parties are usually not all that different from one another and often spend years in stale offices far past their prime. No longer should Americans have to endure a government made up of politicians that are seen as being the “lesser of two evils.” America’s votes should not be defined by party lines. It is because of these arbitrary lines that to often politicians are quick to criticize their opponent’s approach to policy without presenting an effective alternative proposal to solve the problems facing our nation. This approach often does not offer voters many choices and can often lead to the establishment of sub-standard legislation. When party members in the Congress and/or the President can hold up vital legislation for years because of the, often juvenile, back and forth arguing that takes place; something needs to be done to bring about change. The only way to get our Democratic Republic back on track is by taking actions to ensure its future stability. We need to work together to return to a time when candidates had to stand on their ideals, separate from party agendas and platforms. For far too long individual candidates have let their party’s publicized agenda divert attention from their own point-of-view on American policy. The sign of a truly strong candidate is their willingness to stand-up for what they believe to be sound, foreign and domestic, policies separate of any party’s influence.
It is for these reasons that the only logical way to reinstate the integrity of our nation’s political process, is to eliminate All political parties. By holding each and every individual candidate accountable for their personal views the caliber of the candidates will improve. This presents a beneficial situation not only for the voters who would then have more candidates to choose from, but also for those who are seeking office who will no longer have to worry that they may offend members of their party. Candidates who no longer have to tow the party line are more likely to promote what they believe to be the most effective legislature. The debates brought up by these candidates will then be on the merit of the issues rather than the agenda of out of touch parties. By eliminating these parties every level of government will be reenergized by new people and new ideas. Which in turn will guarantee a safer, stronger, and better America that leads by example not force. With the elimination of the party system American citizens would once again be excited to participate in the voting process in order to leave future generations a nation of integrity.