March 12, 2008
Channeling George Washington (John Feehery)
The last American president who governed in a truly nonpartisan way was also the first American president, George Washington. Washington said this about political parties in his farewell address: “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
Washington’s admonition lasted about a day. Soon after the general departed the stage, the capital city named for him separated into two parties, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, led by the rogue capitalist Alexander Hamilton on one side and the gentleman farmer Thomas Jefferson on the other. And from that point on, the two-party system, despite Washington’s admonition, became the process by which we choose our leaders.
While the two-party system continues to dominate the political affairs of the United States, there is still a yearning in the American psyche to have a president who can unite the factions and bring the country together.
That spirit lives on, now more than ever. After the bruising partisanship of the Bush administration, in which both political parties gave as much as they got, the country is seeking a leader who will move past partisanship and assume the mantle of George Washington.
We have had such periods in our history before. The bitter partisanship of the Truman years brought us eight years of the relative calm of the Eisenhower administration. The strife and crisis brought on by the Nixon-Ford-Carter era ushered in Ronald Reagan, who governed as a conservative but appealed to a huge voting bloc of Reagan Democrats.
John McCain’s natural instinct is to move past partisanship. Like his hero, the trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt, McCain takes on business interests, traditional allies of the Republican Party. He is an environmentalist. He has pushed to get money out of politics. Conservatives don’t really trust him, but many Democrats and independents like him.
For an example of post-partisan leadership, McCain need look no further than two governors who support his candidacy and have governed from the center. Both Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) enjoy high approval ratings as a result. Yes, they make their allies nervous, but they will both be easily reelected as long as they continue to find solutions to big problems.
Governing as a post-partisan is not easy. Campaigning as a post-partisan is even harder. The two-party system is not set up for the kind of post-partisan world that George Washington envisioned in his farewell address. But if John McCain can make the case that he will govern as a solutions-based post-partisan, as a patriot and as a hero, he just might do better than most people think this November.
9 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
501 C's will sure make it difficult to move beyond partisanship. I just don't see Americans moving beyond partisanship when these kook orginations continue to thrive, unregulated.
Comment by Lester — March 12, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
I'm a firm believer in partisanship, not really in terms of the Party itself, but Conservative vs. Liberal. Either you believe in Marxism or you don't, a little Marxism won't stay that way for long. Either you believe in free trade or you don't. If there are aspects of free trade you don't believe in, articulate them, but simply compromising will be like being a little bit pregnant. Government boondoggles? Having half as many to please "the other side" without articulating why you're accepting this status quo is no victory. Illegal immigration? Pretending like we need to prove our "collective humanity" to be nice to the invaders who are destroying whole cities and counties will only postpone the boiling-over point a little longer. Global Warming? Ignoring evidence to the contrary just to please the other side is sickening.
When the Republican Party has become, again, the party of big government with a slightly more conservative bent it lost it's soul. Now both it's defenders and opponents are confused, they claim that the conservative way doesn't work because look, all these "conservative" Republicans are spending the country into bankruptcy.
But what to do if your beliefs correspond to what 50% of the country believes in and are the opposite of the other 50%? You CLEARLY articulate your beliefs, you CLEARLY articulate why the other side is wrong, and if necessary you CLEARLY articulate what part of your principles you will temporarily give up on to win on most of them. It seems like with the talented orator and cynical charlatan Barack Obama the order of the day is to use meaningless rhetoric that appeals to everyone without saying anything. This is a temporary phenomenon. Politicians should try using honesty, it has become so novel it may work for a while.
Comment by Igor R. — March 12, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
A conversion of one of the best American playwrights, David Mamet, from a liberal to a conservative. THIS should be a guide about how to deal with bi-partisanship, he actually wrote a play about it.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full
Comment by Igor R. — March 12, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Scientific proof: the Democrats and the liberal media cost American lives in Iraq. Bipartisanship, anyone?
http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf
Comment by Igor R. — March 12, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Igor is commandeering the Ship of Neocon Fools. Too much hating? Too much Rush? Too much Savage?
Igor you are so vulnerable. You're skirting the edge of absolute political insanity. It sounds as though you'd be more at home in Dubai, Igor.
And really, I'm not being harsh. For the sake of credibility, I USED TO BE republican. I fled the party because of Igor's ilk. Nazi's?
Comment by Lester — March 12, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Conservative or Liberal; Just what do they represent today?
Conservatives reduce DOMESTIC spending and take our Tax monies to support Foreign nations in education, health care and military intervention to support "Interests" of Corporate Multinational Businesses and bigger government.
Liberals take our tax monies to increase domestic spending to support education and health care for Americans as well as military intervention to support the "interests" of Corporate Multinational Businesses and bigger government.
Our money is taken away in either case.
Personally, I'd rather help struggling Americans than a foreign nation.
Comment by Donaldd — March 13, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Lester, once again all you can use are empty words. Why don't you try a counter-argument once in a while?
Comment by Igor R. — March 13, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I've tried 'counter argument' with you, Igor. But it is obvious you don't use or recognize facts. You prefer Rush's rhetoric over common sense. You are a neocon.
Comment by Lester — March 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Lester, all you ever tried is appeals to the "Bush is so bad, anybody is better" guilt. Well I don't have any guilt, so to you I seem to not recognize these "facts". And besides, do you really think that calling me names will accomplish anything? You can call me a nazi and a neocon (your should try neanderthal and thug or whatever for variety's sake) and do you think that will make any difference?
Comment by Igor R. — March 13, 2008 @ 3:39 pm