The Price of Politics: Why the American Party System was Doomed from the Start

By Josh Hughes
George Washington was not only the first President of the United States, but also the only independent man to ever preside over the nation. He was first and American, second a politician. Washington knew all too well after a Constitutional Convention what political infighting could do. However, even though Washington never associated with a party, individuals around him felt no such qualms. Even during the first administration government officials began to aggregate around such prominent personalities as Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury. Eventually, after Washington left the presidency in 1797, two parties had formed around the ideals of Hamilton and Jefferson. Ever since then, at least two opposing parties have held dominance in American politics. Undoubtedly, these parties have significant benefits; allowing for the large scale distribution of campaign funds, providing a network of supporters nationwide, and small scale political involvement. However, even with these benefits, 200 years of history have shown that political parties do more to hinder, rather than to help, statesmen. All of the 43 presidents following in Washingtons monumental footsteps have been unable to achieve the highest political office without the help of a highly organized and well financed political party. Even at the best of times, these presidents have been first a Democrat, Republican, Whig, or Bull-Moose man, second an American. This has repeatedly stopped any chances of a consensus from occurring in American politics. Just months after Washingtons death in 1799, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were engaged in a no-holds-barred battle for the presidency. Jeffersons Republicans loathed John Adams with a fiery passion and spread such slander through party newspapers that Adams ultimately lost the presidency in 1800. Two years later at midterm elections, Adams Federalists accused the Jeffersonian-Republicans of burning churches, murdering people, and intentionally destroying the nation. Though no parties accuse each other of murder or arson these days, partisan ship is still a clear issue in American politics. Parties have benefitted some presidents immensely, allowing them to only be effective in cases of a clear majority. A good example of a party president is Franklin Roosevelt, 32 nd President of the United States. In the 12 official years that he served, he his Democratic party had a strong majority in each house. Roosevelt used this elevated platform to push through his intensive social agenda and economic recovery packages. Regardless of how he used his majority, it is clear that he nor his party ever faced the scrutiny that split governments might have. In contrast, some presidents have been more bound by parties than empowered. Presidents that have a split congress in opposition find bipartisanship and deal brokering central to the democratic process. Through his eight years of presidency, Republican Ronald Reagan was never able to seize the House of Representatives, and lost control of his Senate in the last two years of his presidency. However, even with all the strife, Reagan and the congress from 1980-1988 made incredible strides together. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 passed with support from both parties, Democrat in the House, and Republican in the Senate. Reagan also made some rough choices, and frequently clashed with members of his own party. Though he was a self-proclaimed conservative running as a Republican, he won easy victories in both 1980 and 1984, proving that we was a better American than Republican. Every day it seems that partisan politics becomes more and more prevale nt in Washington DC. However, this isnt all bad. Consider the original politics of parties: slander, arson, and duels. By those standards, our congress is a well-functioning body. Even when there is debate and argument, it is still much better than the alternative. Just because Republicans controlled both the Senate and the Presidency in 1984, the Democrats did not roll over and allow the majority to make a mockery of the democratic system. Having a vocal minority is one of the reasons, ultimately, that our democracy has succeeded. Finding an idea that adheres to the total average of all opinions inputted is, and has always been the goal of the congress. Party politics will never find consensus in the one-person executive branch, however. So, yes, debate is good, but stonewalling isnt. Accessing a national network of support and voters is good, but only adhering to that same party isnt. Being an American is good, being partisan isnt.