Divided States of America

There is much turmoil in the politics of today, there is little doubt. Turmoil driven by a divide in this country reminiscent of the late 1850’s when America was torn between two distinct factions. War was brewing and tensions were high between these two sides when in December of 1860, North Carolina became the first state to formally secede from the union, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. These Confederate States, while indeed proponents of the continuation of slavery, had many causes that led them to this separation. It was widely accepted in the south that the federal government, physically resting on northern soil, had become unambiguous in its deference to the interest of northern states, many charging that the abolition movement was just a ruse to keep the fast developing plantation states from gaining such power as to threaten the north’s long held position as the center of this new nation.  This paints a picture of the shear divide between citizens, families, and even patriots, who held firm in their conviction even to the climax of a bloody war.

In today’s political dialogue, there is a similarly huge divide in this country. The geographical lines are not so clear nor the ideology behind it but the chasm is there, plainly enough for any to see.  But what is this divide? Where does it come from and are there any alternatives to bloodshed? Before the latter can be answered we must define, as best we can, what it is that divides us. As previously discussed, http://bruteofmonticello.blogspot.com/2011/01/right-vs-left.html there is at least one seemingly clear division of “right” and “left” to describe this rift but with that delineation comes the further confusion of where either side is coming from or what their demands may be.  As mentioned before, these two sides are often changing in principle and direction and their only constant would seem to be their title. Republicans and Democrats are the two teams, both with ardent supporters that make up their base relying on a third group, the independents, to join their ranks during an election cycle. This is how it has been for some time now, though I would make the case that it has been magnified in recent years to an all out disdain when it comes to the two bases and even flowing into the independents, whichever team they join that particular cycle.

This is a particularly troublesome point, in that for most of the year this large group, calling themselves independent, has sense enough to put distance between themselves and either of the major parties and yet, when it comes time to make their voices count with their vote, they put that sense aside and play the game with all the other partisan sheep. Why doesn’t this large group of the electorate stand behind an independent candidate, perhaps someone like themselves, who does not correlate their principles with a party that has none? The accepted answer to this question would be that any independent candidate would just be “unelectable” and therefore a wasted vote. There is some truth to this assertion, especially when talking about the office of the presidency, as many third party or even “independent” candidates have pursued very prominent campaigns and yet none have even come close to winning the seat. The closest ever was Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party, who in 1912 received 88 electoral votes, more than the Republican candidate’s 8 votes but far less than Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435. As popular as it may seem, to be “independent”, when it comes down to it, to when it matters most, we fall back to the party hierarchy, Republican or Democrat.

So back to the question of whether or not we can close the divide that separates us; can anything, short of a bloody revolution, be found to unite again the bonds of America and her citizens?  Perhaps the South was right. Not for the issue of slavery and I do not mean to diminish the importance of such an issue but for a moment, if that issue was taken away, would it not seem that the Confederacy was fighting for the same thing the revolutionaries fought for, a generation before? They saw the Federal government as a growing tyranny, a threat to the liberty that was by right the States and people to control. I can only see two possible solutions to affect a change in our current political divide.

The first would be an abandonment of parties’ altogether; a novel idea perhaps but one of significant difference to our current method of painting, with broad strokes, the beliefs and persuasions of large groups and thus their respective candidates. George Washington gave us an example of this, though it has never been repeated. He was elected to the office of president twice, without party affiliation and even went on to warn us, as a nation, against the notions of party loyalty; decrying it as fire, quick to consume the entire process of representative government. In his day, it was the Federalist and Democratic Republicans, selling their propaganda for the people and while Mr. Washington could arguably be accounted as a Federalist, supporting many of that party’s platforms, he would never formally join. Even though he agreed with the Federalist’s general prescriptions of government he believed it important not to tie his name with them. A farsighted decision it would seem, an almost magnanimous act supporting the legacy of this celebrated founder; and yet a simple choice that can easily be made by every one of us today.

Surely it cannot be refuted, that both have played a part in the division but it is sadly a far stretch that we could see their demise in our lifetimes. Over the years they have amassed such power and control that it could almost not be expected that a movement could gain the traction as to wage a strong enough battle against the established parties. The other possible solution then would be to define them. Define them clearly and separately that the ruse of difference be washed away and leave a true choice in principle and governance. While it is true that political parties have almost always existed among us, it is their ability to change face that keeps us guessing; the Whigs of yesteryear would be Republicans today or the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties are now the champions of Civil Rights. Well no more! In order for us to affect change we must define for ourselves what it is to be this or that in the seats of our government, holding individuals to account for their ability to uphold these principles. This is in my opinion the less attractive solution but likely the most practical.

But how then will each party be defined? Who should decide the definitions? An arduous task certainly but I recommend that we let history be our guide and let the hands that crafted our founding again be part of our reclaiming. Let us turn to the wisdom of our forefathers and see what divisions there were that we may glimpse the answer to assuage our present plight. Early on in the crafting of our founding documents a division arose between those who would have a large and influential federal government and those who would prefer to see the states retain more of the power of government leaving only the most simple and uncontested duties to the federal head. The Federalist and Anti federalist, as they came to be known, were perhaps the most clearly divided parties to ever exist on this continent and yet only one became an organized political party, the Federalist.

When discussing the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist it is important to note that theses names also changed in meaning and direction from the Declaration stages to the adoption of the Constitution in the time of our founding.  The original Federalist were those arguing for a central government and formal union of the different states as opposed to complete sovereignty and independent governance of each state. The Anti-Federalist feared any form of federal government, seeing it as the precise cause for the revolution against the powerful central government of England.  Federalist won the day, when in 1778 the Continental Congress opted for a completely new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation which gave basically no authority to any federal government and signed the Constitution of the United States of America. Then there was another split. The Federalist proper, kept up with all policies enforcing a stronger and stronger federal government until many who were accounted as Federalist before, found that they no longer fell in line with what was happening to the States authority. This divide is often considered a continuation of the Federalist, Anti-Federalist feud but it is important to note that what became of those not solidly behind the Federalist movement were not necessarily Anti-Federalist before. Thomas Jefferson for instance, was most definitely a Federalist in his belief that a strong union was mandatory in order for liberty to be secured but was also the first to split when after the union was established he saw too much power being granted to the federal head. It was actually Mr. Jefferson along with James Madison who established the new adversary party to the Federalist. Not wishing to be defined as a party existing only to be against something, Mr. Jefferson proposed dropping the Anti-Federalist title and opted for the Democratic Republican party, espousing more balance of authority between the states and federal governments.  All this to say that a party system defined on the central issue of federal authority would serve us incredibly better than our current indefinable and chaotic, party loyalty games.

Imagine a two party system that actually had two different solutions to any issue. Take any topic at hand and ask yourself if it may not be more prudent that each state form its own policy and let examples guide other states rather than experiments done at large for the entire country.  Of course there will be issues that can only be addressed at the federal level but I believe those to be infrequent and really the most obvious. The beauty of a Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist party system would be that there are only two choices, real choices; whether it should be Federal or State. In order to affect this kind of change we can start today, we can start right now. When asked what party you support, declare with pride that you are either a Federalist, seeking stronger influence of our central government or a Democratic Republican, looking for a more balanced approach to the governance of men by a limited and clearly defined role for the Federal government and a genuinely liberal approach to the individual States.

I give you my word

How often, to the point of cliché, has it become to give someone your word? How eager are we to accept one at their word? Is this just an example of clinging to a language expression that has lost its meaning? “How are you today?” “What? No I don’t want you to go into it, I just want you to say, ‘fine’ and be done with it.” As with our common vernacular habits, especially in greetings, I feel that to give our word, has lost some of the potency it once held. Our word once given should be counted upon by others but too often is not and for good reason. It seems a trifle that a man will say something and do quite another. It has become quite acceptable to the point of being expected that what a person says must be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. Why is that? Take politicians for instance; during a campaign we hear amazing promises of how that person is going to fix this and that, how they will make our lives better, how with the simple act of electing them we can kiss our problems goodbye. Do you believe them? I don’t think many people put much stock in this grandstanding but we do still tolerate it. That begs the question; do we like to be lied to? Have we somehow become so conditioned to hearing a lie that we now only wish for better liars?

                It has been said that the only thing we can give and yet keep with us, is our word. Our word being more than just what we say but an extension of our own selves, an inanimate expression to be regarded or to be dismissed based on its worth to those who receive it. Honor may be another way of explaining this but that word can also conjure meanings not strictly related to honesty in what we say. Upon a time the honor of a man was based upon his honesty, his words being something to count on.  Along with other physical actions and precepts, a man counted his word as dearly as his life. An example of this sentiment, tying one’s words to one’s very life, can be seen in an example that nearly changed history. The account of a young Abraham Lincoln summoned to duel an adversary by the name of James Shield. The incident began while Mr. Lincoln was still in the Illinois legislature, making a name for himself as a brash and witty politician. The row was between himself and a member of the opposing political party that oddly enough had been his partner in a bipartisan effort to help save a their financially floundering state only a short time before. Despite their history of working together, notwithstanding being at odds politically, the union quickly faded when Mr. Shields became the state auditor and Mr. Lincoln began to openly rebuke and even mock the positions his old partner came to espouse.  Mr. Lincoln took his mockery to public view by means of the local paper. With letters to the editor, penned by an assumed identity, Mr. Lincoln berated Mr. Shields ceaselessly and was even joined by his future wife, Marry Todd and another friend by the name of Julia Jayne. The trio made a mockery of the actions of Mr. Shields and even took to lambasting completely fictitious circumstances all made to incite the public servant to rage.  It worked. Upon pressing the editor of the newspaper, Mr. Shields was given the name of Abraham Lincoln as the sole detractor. The identity of the two women was withheld and not by coincidence but that is beside the point. James Shield now had the information he desired and immediately set out to force a retraction from Mr. Lincoln for the incendiary comments he had made.

Upon receiving a letter demanding such a retraction, Mr. Lincoln pertly requested that if any apology were to be expected, a more genteel letter of request was in order. This infuriated Shields, who upon hearing the response decided to up the ante. While dueling had become a much less frequent practice of deciding victory, it nonetheless was still held as a novel way of showing decidedly who won any debate. Mr. Shield sent the formal summons, at which point Lincoln realized the severity of the situation. He had never meant to infuriate his opponent to this point. He may have believed what he said but now he questioned if were the right things to say. Was it worth his life? In that moment Abraham Lincoln realized the weight of a man’s word and from that day forward a more prudent man emerged. The man that came to be can easily be traced back to this incident, where he learned the value with which some men hold their own honor. He began the practice of writing letters never to be sent, that he might relieve his own desire to scold and yet hold in check that aggression his outpouring would have induced should they become known. As he came to be counted one of the greatest orators of all times, Abraham Lincoln took this lesson to heart and allowed it to shape his life thereafter. The duel never came to fruition by means not wholly credited to Mr. Lincoln but at least in part to his physical stature as it relates to the Calvary broad sword “the chosen weapon for the duel” and perhaps also his willingness to agree on the type of retraction to be made in which to amend the honor of one James Shield.

                  This lesson in the value and consequence as it relates to honor and our word has too often been forgotten in today’s time where it is acceptable if not outright celebrated to be man of eloquence rather than honest. It seems we have little regard or faith in what others say and likewise, in our own speech, a commitment to honesty is heeded only when it seem convenient. What if you were called upon to defend something you said with your life? Of course the reason that duels ceased to be, as a means to dissolve differences, had to do with the terminality of the outcome. Truth was not always vindicated, though the propensity of believing their case to be grounded by the participants was most likely a very high margin. A man willing to die for what he says is most often granted a credence that otherwise may be bereft of him. Perhaps in our dissolution of the practice we forgot to hold any thought for the restraints it so naturally incurred. Not that a return to similar bloodshed should be considered but perhaps a substitute should be found. A man may be destroyed without losing his life. Look again at the  politician for example; should the idea of honor be something revered by us and then to have one grandstanding on the pulpit of the electorate body be caught saying anything but the whole and unadulterated truth, could we then show a disdain for dishonesty? Could we show them to the door? Of course and just so I don’t leave anyone out or leave any to seek understanding for the preceding statement, do NOT elect them. While their life is spared the office they sought would be taken from their grasp. This would prove an even more gigantic a leap for mankind than others I can think of. Politicians are not alone of course and perhaps even too large an example to start with. Every person and every situation is unique and there could never be written a litany to precede the correct solution except for the general notion that all should be held accountable for what they say. The means and the reaction will inevitably change with every new day and yet the idea will always be. Another glaring example I can think of where widespread dishonesty is glaringly acceptable would be the advertisement industry. This is one that really seams harmless and perhaps it is but I am reminded again of that conditioning effect that I believe is the main cause for the rampart removal of honesty in our society. Look at any fast food commercial showcasing food that would pass for a five star dining experience the sight of which entices the senses into a fever of desire. Of course when we get there and the food arrives we see nothing like what we were promised but a shrunken counterfeit as it were, of the mouthwatering indulgence we anticipated. Again this in and of itself is cause for no real alarm and many may drop this book immediately upon the nit picking of such a miniscule matter but I am not trying address any one particular company or even fast food in general. It is only an example of where we are that we all know it to be a farce and yet we are fine with it. If we are fine with being mislead about the food we eat and similarly find it quite natural to be deceived by those we send to represent us in Washington, where else have we found comfort in untruth? I charge it to be all around us.

                Think for a moment, your entire life and all those whom you have come into contact with. Who among them can you count on for everything they say? Look also inwards; how many people do you think count on your word as reliable? Reflecting on this may cause distress and I won’t begin to try and lessen the severity of it but don’t let it get you down. Recognition is the first step but I have found it to be possibly the most difficult. After recognition a simple choice is then made; does it matter to me? If it does then what will you do about it? Take this moment, this day, and decide whether a commitment to honesty is worth your consideration. Once taken upon yourself, the task could easily be seen as complete and truly the benefits of taking it only so far are rewarding indeed but there is one last step that can be taken. This last step can prove dangerous and yet also the most important in making a difference in the world around you. Simply put it is the act of swinging the same measure you hold to yourself to those around you, the demand for honesty in others. Not so much as a judge but more as the prosecuting attorney. Demand that the truth be applied when dealing in debate with others. When your points of argument are spun out of context, corral them back again and show disdain for your need to do so. If your words are well reasoned and established on grounds seeded in honesty, it is completely reasonable and justified to defend them and likewise, if another’s words are found to be a concealment of anything but the truth in its entirety, condemn it without prejudice.