From a previous article entitled, American Studies: The Lost Art of studying the Constitution, we read:
for generations there has not been an emphasis on the thorough study of the Constitution…[thus] the current interest and resurgence in studying and defending it is problematic. One would naturally consider this interest good, since we have had a long sabbatical from such. The problem is that there is such a prevailing illiteracy on the subject that genuine students studying from a knowledge of nothing assume, upon learning a little, knowledge of everything.
To add: the real danger lies in those who then proclaim, upon the above, to be authorities on all things Constitutional.
Improper study leads to dangerous teaching and improper application.
A proliferation of Constitutional litter across cyberspace has prompted me to address, albeit one at a time, the erroneous, assumptions, misinformation and downright fictional statements and conclusions spread on so-called Constitutional websites. One of the many so-called authorities--an authority that, upon investigation has neither the following nor the integrity to acknowledge their lack of longevity in the genre--recently claimed that the Founders hated politics and parties, and further claimed that the two would bring faction to the country and lead to tyranny. Then they professed their affinity to such assertions, claiming them as truth. To call their assertions "truth" is in itself deception. And were this lone, virtually insignificant website alone in its practice of blurting out mere words without substance to collaborate them, they would fade into cyber-oblivion and into obscurity without notice or damage. Sadly, I use them as an example of the proliferation of such nonsense, having a mix of poorly assumed concepts and themes that creates nothing short of misunderstanding at best, and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts at worst.
The facts are that while the Founders were very concerned about the power and influence of factions, they knew factions were inevitable and thus needed heavy checks and balances against their potential power in order to protect the Republic and it's republics from democracy (read: oligarchy, tyranny, etc.). On more than one place I have read, claims that parties did not exist with the founding of this country, blamed Alexander Hamilton for the existence of parties, and offered Pres. Washington's farewell address as proof that the Founders were totally against parties and factions. Additionally, there are some who use the terms "parties" and "factions" as one and the same.
The fact is George Washington did hold contempt for the adverse effects of parties. But he is the only President in the history of the United States who did not officially declare a party affiliation. Before reviewing the facts surrounding parties, politics, and the Constitution, it is critical to discuss the peril caused from groups using the current vacuum of Constitutional knowledge as a door to their own notoriety or even an attempt to build a power base.
Are they a fraud or authority?
There are hundreds of so-called Constitution groups throughout the Internet and on networks such as Facebook, all claiming to be experts in the Constitution. Beware. Any group who refuses honest discussion and/or refuses to answer direct questions is, and should be, open to suspicion. To refuse discussion is to violate the very tenet of the Founders in--not just freedom of speech, of an enlightened intellect, which they so much admired and worked to imbue. Any group that does not follow the example of the very men they claim so boldly to know intricately about should be dismissed. The Founders, no matter how diverse their perspectives were, by in large respected eachother's opportunity to question with directness and learn from the collective knowledge and intellect of the whole. In this way, education is shared and application is stretched. There is nothing virtuous in censoring a perceived opposing view in order to quash discussion--or worse, propagate one's own power. Honest sharing of knowledge requires a genuine care to listen to opposing views, irrespective of how vastly different or similar those views may be. To do anything less is to contradict the very literacy the Founders espoused, and condone the entrapment of ignorance--even, as in this case, by force.
This alone is not enough, however. True Constitutionalists can back their points of view using the very same tools the Framers used, the Rules of Construction, imperative to creating legitimate policy, law, and constitutional themes. In addition, a thorough study of history, such as the Founders had, and thorough understanding of their words--in their proper context, are essential ools for the true Constitutionalist.
Under this foundation, we launch into a study of factions, parties, policies, and their relation to the Constitution.
Faction is evidence of the health of liberty.
'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. '~James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787
An illiterate teacher of the Constitution has used this portion of an entire thesis on the subject to claim proof that the Founders wanted to dismiss factions wholesale across the land. Those who believe so are misreading the statement. The emphasis is not on ridding society of factions but on curtailing the possible violence of it.
So let us look at the intricacies of the Framers own words, from the Federalist Papers, for clarity:
First, factions are not defined as parties. Madison clarified in Paper No. 10, what is a faction:
"…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 [sic.] to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
(Emphasis added.)
In other words any group joined for a common cause that differs from others, whether individuals or a group is a faction. Unions are a faction, as well as political parties and PAC's, lobby groups, shareholders, private non-profit organizations, pubic groups, various corporations with or without a spokesperson, even churches and family associations, social groups, and so forth are all factions.
Understanding the meaning of factions, then, it would seem impossible to rid society of them. Indeed, they are inherent: People by nature join into groups of like minds and sociability. In light of his own definition, what more did Madison say to lend understanding to the relationship of factions, the role of government and people within a society? Were the Framers really bent on removing them from society? What did the Founders actually say about politics and parties? We must have courage to study the entire text and context of historical records if we want to know our origins and identity. Otherwise we are not searchers of truth, but con-men, willing to deceive the future for a romantic fantasy about the past; and leaving ourselves and others to stray from the original point and, in this case, the teachings about factions in relation to who we are and who we should be.
In reality, though the Founders did indeed loathe the negative effects of factions. They also knew it was not only impossible, but flatly wrong to rid society of them.
In one of the most simple and straightforward messages to the American people, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison addressed these very issues in two Federalist Papers, No. 9 and 10, respectively.
Both Hamilton and Madison, in reverse order, explain the problems associated with factions. But while Hamilton has been blamed by some for the initiation of political parties (and every other currently perceived nefarious element) in America, it was actually Madison who explained the verity of all factions (including parties) and how they needed to be kept in check while, not only allowing them to exist, but supporting them as an indication of full liberty. At length he explains:
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs [sic.] of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
In other words, the easiest resolution to the negative effects of factions--not factions themselves--is to either force the elimination of factions, or only provide everyone with one view of the world. He explains:
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. [Emphasis added.]
To be plain, Madison here is saying that it would be a ridiculous action to claim liberty for all people except those that assemble of a same mind and purpose. (Note also, that he likens politics to animal life, clearly meant to be good and naturally existing.). Factions, as part of politics are the essence and embodiment of liberty, as it frightens government and permits people to assemble. To rob a faction of liberty is to rob all of liberty. Madison continues:
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. [Emphasis added.]
Again, to explain, Madison guarantees that to remove factions--of any kind--is to remove liberty; and even so far as to threaten those basic rights of property, (through being one kind of property, down to the varying forms of property all arising out of our unique perspectives and desires). To remove the latter is to remove all of the former, taking away a person's right to share their tenets with others.
To go further, Hamilton, in the previous commentary, No. 9, explains further the misguided teachings some on politics, factions and the meaning of the Constitution. Some seem to equate politics and party as the same. Others separate the Constitution from politics as if neither is either the same as, nor in anyway related to the other. As was cited above, the Founders, represented by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, via the Federalist Papers, at least, did not see it that way. Politics, factions and party were not all one and the same, and the Constitution was indeed considered a political document. Contrary to the notion that the Framers hated politics and wanted nothing to do with it, the Founders embraced politics as a necessary instrument of free people. However, as Hamilton observed and explained, politics prior to their time was deficient in handling the vices of factions but of late had so vastly improved that the Constitution could function with these political perfections. (While Hamilton haters would argue that his paper should be dismissed because it was Hamilton who wrote it, one cannot repudiate the fact that the Federalist Papers were written with the consent of the body that endorsed the new Constitution, including Madison who worked co-jointly in the Federalist Papers purpose, but whose perspective varied from Hamilton's as well as others.)
Hamilton's words verbatim from Federalist No.9:
The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.
In one fell swoop Hamilton answers the debate of whether the weaknesses of a free government, which includes all threats to a republic reducing it to a democracy--factions or otherwise--can be kept in check. And what he describes as politics is embodied in the very document they created: the Constitution.
Additionally, some take the assumptive position that because there is no mention of parties in the Constitution; it means there was no intent to include them in American life. Indeed their disdain for current politics has left them thinking, without due study but upon their common sense, that surely the Founders had no place for parties. These people fail to apply the Rules of Construction to their criticism. The void of party mention in the Constitution could and actually should lead one to the very opposite assumption--that they were indeed included--even if he had not broached the topic in the Federalists, a simple reading and very basic understanding of the Constitution tells us that precisely this opposite is an assumptive right. The Constitution specifically states that all rights and privileges not relegated to the Federal government (in Art.I Sec. 8) are the State's and People's respectively. That would include the privilege of participating in a form of faction--even a political party, as was stated by Madison--because liberty grants it.
To those who hold that there were no political parties at the founding of this nation, and to those who blame Hamilton for instigating parties, a refresher in early American history is apropos.
As has already been noted, parties are one kind of faction, but not all factions are parties. Madison who defined factions has already given clarity on this point. Secondly, were the existence of parties about who 'started' them as the ultimate political criminal, the debate would be over. A party of one, is one. Were the statement true, "Hamilton started the first faction,"--and it is not--we would not have parties today. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. If there were no others to oblige the idea, it would have died a quick death. The facts are that a claim that Hamilton created factions in America is outlandishly and undeniably false.
Understanding our current situation: The Real history of parties:
The Founders brought with them from their mother country the Tories and the Whigs. Parties in England actually started in the last 1600's with the violent debate across Britain, from Scotland southward. Two main factions--parties with some similar ideals and some different ones emerged. Both were rooted deeply in religious perceptions desiring to change religious intolerance of opposing royalty verses the crown. Stemming from the defection from the Catholic Church and the subsequent creation of the Anglican Church, both were against what the monarchy and parliament had become, but took separate paths of philosophy to manage and modify the crown.
The medieval days of the Monarchy were, as evidenced through the commoners, relatively even and fair-handed. But the monarch evolved into a self-absorbed dynasty focused upon self-preservation rather than service. Originally the Lords and the Crown represented the land heirs of the combined Kingdoms. Commoners--Septs--were protected under the providence of individual royal clans and their land holdings. But to be fair, Britain had a bi-cameral congress that included representation of the Commoners as their voice directly to the government. In this way, it was held, that fair representation would be honored.
Torres and Whigs sprouted from the disenchantment of the commoners to their representation. In brief, while both wanted improvement, each differed in their approach. As their voices grew, and a century turned a corner, Americans were quite abreast of their homeland's growing voices.
Americans took part in the debates of their home-bound Englishmen, writing pamphlets anomalous to support of rebels in their mother country, such as John Wilkes . Early writings from Whigs on the insults by the monarchy showed a festering canker for the Colonists, who saw the actions and increasing control of the King and parliament as an affront to all things liberal, and protecting inalienable rights. The Tories, also known as Loyalist, were in fact not so loyal. While, of the two they were more persuaded to a monarchical system, it like the Whigs, was formed in the 1600's as an answer to aristocratic and monarchical abuse. But unlike the Whigs, who wanted more voice for the commoners, the Torres wanted to reverse the current trend, restoring to their Monarchy, the fair-hand from nearly a century past.
The party voice of England resulted in a resolution to modify Parliament with more equality. It was done by party discussions alone, without a single drop of blood spilled. Forever, history has recognized this revolution of government as the Glorious Revolution.
The fear from Founders of the vices of parties was actually formed, not from Tories and Whigs, but from parliament itself, hitting a high point from the 1760's, with an English rebellion (not to be confused with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the outcome of which the English made great strides toward balance in the compartments of their government), to the time of the American Revolution, a decade later. As England grew, and the government with it, the Colonist witnessed an abuse wholly intolerable--which actually created the foundation for their objection to taxation without representation.
At the turn of the 1770's parties in Colonial America were quite vocal. The reality, like it or not, was that from the rise of a party system in England, forward from the Glorious Revolution up to and especially during the mid-1700's came many important doctrines of liberty that the Founders ruminated upon in the formation of their own society. A question of aristocracy became obvious.
Huge discrepancies in representation showed British townships and cities were literally and totally unrepresented. Meanwhile, vacant cities had representatives assigned to no one. The question belied, "who were any of them representing?" Parliament's answer was that representation was considered a comprehensive approach to the entire nation. Thus a representative from the House of Commons from one area was supposedly representing another. This is tantamount to a faction--the House of Lords--controlling one segment of population against their will to the benefit of the faction itself, which was, in this case, the government--a party, or whatever the particular interests of the misaligned representatives were.
The Colonist saw this as a blatant insult to their voice. The balance they sought for and achieved via parties in the Glorious Revolution dissolved into one conceited puddle of government mongers once again. One faction--the aristocracy--had become a monopoly in collusion with the King. With this understanding we can see why the Framers were so adamant that many--not one or two--checks and balances were in place, to manage the voice of the people, their individual republics and the security intended by the confederacy on the whole.
While this is not an exhaustive treatise on the American party system and its evolution, it is important to understand a very basic and limited, but factual accounting of parties in light of various misunderstandings floating across cyberspace and hard-copy--such as a belief that there were no parties at the founding of this country; and that Hamilton was the creator of the first American party.
American parties evolved from English groups--aligning philosophies--not power. Tories, Whigs, Federalists and Anti-Federalists Democratic-Republicans, Democrats and Republicans are examples; each speaking to the specific balances afforded in the newly created Constitution. But those soon evolved into further philosophical divisions--still defining Constitutional ideals rather than amassing power. After the new Constitution was written Federalists remained and with that the Republican Association emerged. These became the two most dominant thoughts in American politics, at least until Jefferson ran for President. Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton were all originally Federalist thinkers. And while George Washington professed no official alliance to one party, his actions and practices, along with his recorded words, all show he was indeed a Federalist.
One of the first official American parties was named with Thomas Jefferson, as a Democratic Republican, sometimes referred to now as Jeffersonian Republican. He defected from the Federalist thought during the fracturing debate over a National Bank, during Washington's tenure as President.
If the student of the Constitution, and all things genuinely American--it being, not just a republic, but a Constitutional (confederate) Democratic Republic, will read and study in full context, they cannot be fooled by those, whose agenda includes curtailing the broad study and discussion of the entire spectrum of commentary and teachings from the Founders for their own motives, whatever those may be.
To be fair: Certainly any group which espouses a vague and even fictitious speech on the Constitution is a prime example of the thorny journey the American public and enthusiastic students trudge through, innocently seeking knowledge from a base of nothing. They painfully endure bad education in a desperate need to understand their own roots, what their government was, what it is now, and what it will take to return it to those nearly perfect roots.
The Corruptor's tool: Preying on the ignorance of the people on little known clauses of the Constitution.
So it is that we must acknowledge that this article would fail in its purpose without a discussion concerning parties and what the founders actually intended in supporting the liberties of all and every kind of faction. While it is true, as referenced above that the founders knew factions were both inevitable and that their negative effects needed to be guarded against in order to preserve opposing factions and especially the People themselves, they also witnessed first hand the devastating consequences of no checks and balances, as Hamilton so precisely explained in No. 9 as well as was documented above in the party history. The construction of the Constitution was designed to preserve the most liberties as effectually sound for all people. But, irrespective of their many erroneous statements, if the main complaint by those opposed to party factions in general were about the evolution of the vast power of political parties in today's American government, would they have a legitimate complaint? Certainly.
Referencing the intent of the Framers, then, we must address a disturbing condition contrary to the intent of the overall framework of the Constitution that is little known and even less respectfully obliged. While there is much talk about the abuses of the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Sec. 8, very little if any notice is being taken to a more obscure clause of the same article, that is no less effectual.
As a foundation, it is important to understand that Section 5 of that Article, clause ii allows the Legislature to set its own rules and govern its own integrity by its own scrutiny. In order for this section to work effectively, the people must be ever vigilant in both their understanding of the Constitution and what their representatives are doing. After all, the people are the main and virtually only check on the House of Representatives. (Likewise it was for states, in relation to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment. Now it is the sole, ominous responsibility of the People to be experts in their knowledge and political skills in order to keep both Houses in check. And now there is nothing in this regard to keep the people in check.)
The Congress, as stipulated in the Constitution, sets its own rules. Both Houses of Congress, protected by the Constitution, have provided parties, originally as a voice, to control the affairs of both houses under the rules. The dominant party has the right to determine the House leadership and chairmanships in both houses, respectively. These, subsequently, determine what legislation goes forward from the committees.
Clearly this was not the intent of the Framers--any of them--to have parties, a major faction, controlling either house of the Congress. That goes against everything they stated in assuring checks and balances in government, providing that no section of the public be bullied by another in the form of a faction. What the Congress has done with rules is a flagrant violation of the intent of the Constitution to keep the abuses of party factions at bay. In fact, representatives of the people, either wittingly or unwittingly through ignorance of the Constitution, have opened the doors wide for faction to control the country. Americans are partly unaware that the rules are the impetus behind the powerful party structure. Legislation that represents the people is denied or approved by the prevailing party of power. This is the precise situation that raised the angry Colonists ire over 'virtual' representation as opposed to actual representation, when some representatives in the House of Commons were not actually representing anyone, but rather Parliament itself, viz. the Lords' dominance. When Colonists first wrote pamphlets against the lack of proper representation it was with a view of England. But the problem eventually came the way of the Colonies as well. Hamilton neither implemented the party system in America, nor did he create the party methodology to politics. The former was an evolution of philosophies in accordance with the Constitutional ideals, originating, as already said, from England. But Andrew Jackson did the latter.
It was not until Andrew Jackson that the nation saw a party directly influence politics for the party's sake. As has been stated, prior to this time, a party, as a faction, was a voice. Jackson was the first president to veto legislation, not on Constitutional grounds, but solely on party ideology and platform. The party evolved from a voice to a power machine. Until that time, party affiliation was more an alliance between the opposing ideals of the Constitution rather than actual power. From Jackson, an era of party dominance has evolved into a massive faction likened to the impetus behind the English rebellion in the 1760's and subsequent rebellion by the Colonists in the '70's on what they saw as representation from somewhere vague to no one in particular but in the best interest of the government itself as the dominant faction.
The Constitution and its intent hold the answers.
Sound familiar? It should, when we do not learn from history viz learning it, we are doomed to repeat it. One answer to this dilemma is to insist Congress correct the abuse of faction power primarily via political parties. Short of a Constitutional amendment, an act of Congress, on the demand of the People, could stipulate that parties cannot control committees or the appointment of the House Speaker. Add to that the restriction of any other faction that could possibly monopolize the legislative rules process and this would reflect what the Framers had in mind from the outset. And to assure that the proper interests of the people are upheld, qualifications for committee appointments, and especially leadership positions within those committees should be determined by individual worthiness, rather than party or other faction affiliation.
The primary issue at hand is not party control, however. It remains, and will so, that it is the critical need for proper and truthful widespread education of the People of their Constitution from the perspective of those who created it--not revisionists. Otherwise, their ignorance will make them prey to every whim and desire of groups who, under the Framer's definition--however ill conceived--are a faction. Without a concerted effort to study by the People, every manipulation by their elected representatives to garner power through the parties, rather than hear the voice of the People will continue to prevail.
Sources for critical reading:
Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay, Madison
The Great Republic: A History of the American People, Bailyn, Davis, Donald, et. al.
Political Parties in the New Nation, William Chambers
The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization, Noble Cunningham
