The following is an excerpt from George Washington's farewell address in 1796:



"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....
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 passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
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."


Parties do appear to act as polarizing agents, generally taking a "with us or against us attitude". This added to the fact that often people will judge others solely based on their party affiliation seems to indicate that our first president had a point.

So my question to the forum is this, have party politics divided this country and stifled reasoned debate about important issues?

George Washington was very against the formation of Parties, and just saw them as factions. I think he was at the time more worried about the federalist and anti-federalist factions making parties (which ultimately they did, and today's Democratic Party has roots all the way back to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans).

But unfortunately George Washington's view of the new Republic's politics could only be done with an informed and educated populace. I agree that parties can be polarizing, but ultimately they help keep certain people informed and returning to the polls. Of coarse the machinery that we used to have isn't necessarily there still, but I think without parties, even a much smaller voter turnout would be inevitable. I mean, sure, there won't be so much polarization and it might make some voters look into the issues and candidates more thoroughly; but it's not worth the consequences.

Likewise, you're going to have to remember that in Washington's time, only a very small number of people really voted. Not only was the population significantly lower but also only white land-owning males could vote. He really couldn't have envisioned today's America and today's globalization, where the national party apparatus, although unappealing, might be necessary.

So to basically answer your question, I think it has been a source of division but I don't necessarily think parties have stifled reasoned debate on issues. If anything, I think the party system has kept many people in politics and voting who would otherwise not. Of coarse it's unappealing, and I think it's a source of division more than it has to be, but I still think it's relatively a good thing considering the alternative.

No, they have not.

You NEED diversity of thought and ideology in order to have healthy leadership.

I agree that he was not imagining an America of 300 million people, nor all of the issues common to modern politics. However I'm not convinced voter turnout is an accurate measure of whether the party system is stifling debate. How many people who are voting make their choices solely or mostly based upon loyalty to a party rather than an understanding of the candidates? And I wonder how many are voting based upon who had the best attack ad or soundbite on primetime TV? Political advertisements seem to boil down to ad hominem attacks based on something done 10 years ago and presenting a vague platform that may or may not accurately reflect a reasonable plan, but does reflect what a constituency wants to hear. It has reached the point where liberal, conservative, Democrat and Republican all have a pejorative sense when used. How well educated are the people driven to vote by the current party system?

I want to address also your point that Washington's ideas about republicanism require an educated populace. I agree, but should we lower the standards of our ideals? I think we should rather raise the level of education. (Easier said than done I know) When a constitution allows the populace to elect its government they will get the government they deserve. I think we need to deserve a better government. (Not that people don't have a "natural right" to good government, but rather that being lazy about making informed decisions is undeserving of much except pity)

I don't think our choices are, political parties as they are now or chaos, or even despotism as a third option. I also believe it is too late to try doing without political parties in some form now, but I do believe we should have a system that encourages more than two parties, and that requires a different voting system, a better system of education and, most difficult, a shift in culture. A greater number of parties would prevent the polarization by providing shades of liberalism and conservatism as well as preventing the false dilemma presented for most political issues bandied about on TV and in the newspapers.

Ok I apologize for the length of this post, I'll reign myself in now and see what others have to say.

I cannot agree with this statement more. Our current system makes it pretty much guaranteed that only two parties at a time can really exist in a major form. I would like to see more options for parties of relevant size to exist so that we have a greater plurality of ideas and thoughts out there in a format easily accessible to the public.

What do you mean, "I cannot agree with this statement more"? It seems to contradict the rest of your post...

I agree that diversity in ideas is required for good leadership and government. I then went on to explain that since the cat is out of the bag regarding political parties I would like to see a greater number of them reach a relevant size to provide a greater number of different ideas.

Jefferson, your Al Gore avatar looks...
... um ...
... constipated?

Thank you!

More LEGITIMATE political parties would be good. But that's going to require a complete overhaul of the current system - an overhaul that would need the system itself to overhaul it. And you and I both know that's not likely to happen.