John Adams and the Two-Party System

Submitted by darkmatter on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 7:34pm

In 1780, seven years before our present Constitution was drafted, John Adams wrote the following in a letter:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

When Adams refers to "our Constitution," he is referring of course to the Articles of Confederation, which were drafted in the late 1770's and finally ratified in early 1781.

But our nation did get another bite at the apple. As we all know, the Articles were too weak and there was a second attempt to create a viable federal government among the former British colonies. What always bothers me is why did the founders not head the two-party danger off at the pass in the 1787 Constitution? Adams, alas, was not present in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787; he was in England, serving as the American ambassador. What if Adams had been active in the drafting of the Constitution? Did no one else share his grave concerns about the rise of a duopoly? Was it again a question of appeasing the slaveholding states, or some other form of privilege protection? I would be grateful if someone more versed than I in the history of the Constitution could shed some light on this question, although for our present purposes, it is all so much water under the bridge.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all states a "Republican form of government." Imagine if the Founders had qualified that just a bit, by saying, "With all Legislatures constituted proportionally by all parties standing for election." Just. That. Phrase.

Tags:

duopoly; John Adams; constitution; proportional representation

Vote

Comments

Submitted by scoff on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 9:12pm

George Washington

warned against the formation of political parties in his farewell address as President.

I came across something about this earlier today but had to find a more direct source:

George Washington’s Farewell Address

20 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.

21 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.

22 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.

23 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.

24 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 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.

25 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.

For an interesting read of the history of Washington's Farewell Address read this.

Submitted by Outsourcing Is ... on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 9:31pm

John Adams wrote the first

draft of the Massachusetts state constitution, which featured a bicameral legislature, a chief executive, and a Supreme Judicial Court. This document did indeed serve as the model for the US constitution. It became the Massachusetts constitution in 1780 with John Hancock as the state's first governor.

—

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Submitted by Outsourcing Is ... on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 9:32pm

Duplicate please ignore

n/t

—

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Submitted by darkmatter on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 9:43pm

What an eloquent warning

Washington's farewell is a remarkable document. In the end, the absolutely prescient warning about the "spirit of party" appeals merely to personal ethical vigilance, rather than forming the basis for an objective, enduring structure that would be adequate to restrain it. People are not angels, and even if half the citizenry at the time took Washington's words to heart, that would have left the other half to go about forming huge parties that would steamroll over all the free agents.

It might have been better for the founders to assume the worst, that parties would indeed form (as they already were at this time), that they would have overwhelming power in controlling the mechanisms of government, and that rules needed to be in place to prevent one or two parties from shutting the door of access behind them, once they achieved power.

Thanks for the reminder and the link!

Submitted by scoff on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 10:09pm

IANAH(istorian)

but I read somewhere recently that Washington sought a second term in office precisely because he was worried that parties were already forming.

even if half the citizenry at the time took Washington's words to heart, that would have left the other half to go about forming huge parties that would steamroll over all the free agents.

That's where we still find ourselves today, and it is, I think, the crux of most of our problems.

Submitted by ZimInSeattle on Sat, 06/04/2016 - 11:06pm

I often use that Adams quote to show my disgust at

the corrupt duopoly which is our system. With the unprecedented situation of two nominees with negative favorability ratings, it only shows that the system has utterly failed. The only good thing about a Trump presidency might very well be the destruction of both parties and the Clinton's as well. Adams, as well as his good friend Thomas Jefferson, would be smiling.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical……It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

—

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 06/05/2016 - 3:04am

In Germany, the proportional system’s limitations are showing

The “grand coalition” of Christian Democrats (including the Bavarian-only Christian Social [N.B.: not “socialist”!] Union) and Social Democrats has a parliamentary majority of more than 75%, enabling them to steamroller through pretty much anything they want.

Many opposition rights in the German lower legislative house are contingent on at least 25% minority support.

Just another reason why right-wing populism is on the upswing: people look at the legislature and elite-friendly media and don’t see any genuine avenue left for dissent. In former East Germany, it reminds “Ossis” of the bloc parties, which were in principle separate from the ruling party but in practice in league with it and/or powerless to do anything.