“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. . . . . Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” John Adams, 1775
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. . . . . Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. . . . . The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.” James Madison, Federalist Papers #10, 1787
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. 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. George Washington, Farewell address to the American People, 1796
Writing an opinion essay for the New York Times, Michael Conway and Jon Marshall argue that the current republican defense of president Trump is not much different than republican defense of president Nixon.
Conway was counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Marshall is an assistant journalism professor. They write: “Reporters and political commentators often express frustrated surprise at the steadfast support of President Trump from most Republicans in the House and Senate. But they shouldn’t — it has happened before.
In fact, when these critics refer back to the Watergate era as a time of bipartisan commitment to the rule of law over politics, they get it exactly wrong. Defending the president at all costs, blaming investigators and demonizing journalists was all part of the Republican playbook during the political crisis leading up to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
. . . . . In late 1972, when a Democratic congressman, Wright Patman of Texas, began to investigate connections between Mr. Nixon’s aides and the Watergate burglary, the House Republican leader, Gerald Ford of Michigan (who later succeeded Mr. Nixon as president), called it a ‘political witch hunt,’ according to the historian Stanley I. Kutler in his book ‘The Wars of Watergate.’
. . . . . the ranking Republican on the Senate Watergate Committee, Howard Baker of Tennessee — a man often lauded for putting principle over party — met with Mr. Nixon to discuss strategy. To ‘maintain his purity in the Senate,’ Mr. Baker didn’t want anyone to know about meeting Mr. Nixon, wrote the White House counsel, John Dean, in a memo before a meeting with Mr. Nixon. Once the hearings started in late spring of 1973, Mr. Baker’s staff leaked information about the committee’s witnesses and plans to Mr. Nixon.
When Mr. Baker famously asked, ‘What did the president know, and when did he know it?’ during the Watergate hearings, he meant to protect Mr. Nixon in the mistaken belief that the president didn’t know about the Watergate cover-up until many months after it occurred. The question backfired once evidence mounted that Mr. Nixon was involved in the cover-up from the start, and Mr. Baker eventually became a critic of the president.”
Thus, it seems that there is not much new in partisan party politics. That makes sense since the impulse is innate to human biology. President Ford called the investigation into Nixon a political witch hunt. That sounds exactly like Trump and his supporters attacking the Mueller investigation. Democrats defended president Clinton, while republicans tried to impeach him. Given history, one can argue that partisan self-defense ranks above country and the rule of law. Apparently, that is what tribal politics looks like.
President Trump’s admiration for tyranny or autocracy, and his disrespect for the rule of law is publicly professed and well-known. So is his contempt for restraining political norms such as avoiding conflicts of interest. For example, Trump falsely asserted “the law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest”.
Clearly, Trump and some or most of his supporters cannot see the warning signs the Founders spoke of. Under the circumstances, including republican control of the House and Senate, Washington’s warning about frightful despotism is something that some Americans alive today just might come to see in their lifetimes.
B&B orig: 8/14/18
No comments:
Post a Comment