Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Party of Who?
There is an op-ed in today's Washington Examiner written by former DNC press secretary Terry Michael, titled, "Rebuilding the Democratic Party brand - Back to the future with a return to liberalism's Jeffersonian roots." My ears, or rather eyes, perked up at the title. Reading on, the story is actually just part 7583456 in an on-going series of what the Democrats need to do in order to firm up their public image and re-connect with the voters. He argues that the Democratic party offers, in contradistinction to the GOP, no tangible and consistent political philosophy, and the party should return to its Jeffersonian roots.
This is not an ideological point. In many respects the Democrats are the inheritors of the Jeffersonian philosophy, but coming from me that is no compliment. My argument is a more historical - and perhaps semantical one.
The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. This is a rather less controversial argument in my mind. Many would argue that the current Republican party does not reflect the philosophy of Lincoln, an argument I would vehemently disagree with, but again that is besides the point. One can easily trace the lineage of the party back to Lincoln, as one can do with the Democrats and Andrew Jackson. In other words, there is a continuous link between these men and their respective parties, a link that has basically gone unbroken since, respectively, 1828 and 1860 (or 1854, if you want to go by the year when the Republican party was established).
The same cannot be said of Jefferson and the Democratic party. The history here is a little more complicated and requires us to backtrack a little bit. Jefferson and Madison formed an opposition party to the Federalists, who were composed of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. To grossly oversimplify, the real opponents were Jefferson and, to a lesser extent Madison, versus Hamilton and, to an even lesser extent, Adams. Jefferson's party was actually called the Republican party, though this bears no relation to the party created over half a century later. Yes, I know some of you have seen Democratic-Republican in your high school history books, but that is largely inaccurate. Perhaps an occasional reference was made to democratic-republicans, but almost all of the literature of and about the era refers to them strictly as Republicans. And, after all, Jefferson did not say, "we are all federalists, we are all democratic-republicans" at his first inaugural.
Anyway, Jefferson was elected to the presidency in 1800, followed eight years later by Madison in 1808, and then Monroe 1816. The Virginia dynasty essentially killed off the Federalist party, if more in name than in essence. Thus the so-called era of good feelings and the seeming abandonment of party politics. Of course the reality was slightly less benevolent than that. There were still significant regional rivalries, and there existed a faction which was much more nationalistic in its approach, while the other faction remained more fixed to states rights.
The election of 1824 fractured the sham of one partyism. I won't go into all the details of the election, much of which most of you probably know anyway, but the elevation of the Nationalist John Quincy Adams over the more popular Andrew Jackson was the final nail in the coffin of national cohesion, sham or no sham. Four years later Andrew Jackson would defeat Adams, and the party for which he was associated would thenceforth be known as the Democratic party. Clay, Webster and others would go their own way and form an opposition party called the Whigs, who would themselves splinter in the 1850's due to the sectional grievances stemming from slavery. Out of that muck the Republicans would rise up as the dominant second party to the Democrats.
This brief recap does not do justice to the complicated issues arising out of the 1820's, but hopefully it demonstrates the inadequacy of calling the Democrats the party of Jefferson. One could perhaps allege that Adams and his cohorts were merely disgruntled Federalists who crashed the party, so to speak, and Jackson merely reclaimed the party from the usurpers, and restored the Democrats to their Jeffersonian roots. But that argument does not satisfy me. I think the two parties that emerged in the mid 1820's were two fresh parties, distinct in many ways from the Republicans of the earlier era. I do concede that the Democrats were much closer ideologically to the Republicans than were the Whigs, and as such it is not wholly incorrect for the Democrats to claim some roots in the Jeffersonian party.
Again, much of this is a semantical argument that has no bearing on the greater substantive argument made by Michael. Of which, by the way, I will just add a few comments. There is much to commend this op-ed, but when he speaks of the "Taliban wing" of the Republican party, he comes dangerously close to discrediting everything he had written to that point. This is a childish, stupid, and absurd label that should not be used by anyone attempting serious political discussion, and merits little more note. Further, the revisionist history of Jefferson as some sort of pacific, non-interventionist President does not neatly jibe with what he actually did in office. The man who successfully guided our Nation through its first war on terrorism with the Barbary states, a war many cautioned he avoid by paying the requested tributes, does not square with the imagery of the so-called pacifist.
There are other quibbles, but I have probably quibbled enough.
From our Jeffersonian roots, we have the glue to make the brand sticky again. The new desktop-empowered generation, turned on by Republican economic choice, but turned off by the social-cultural intolerance of the GOP Taliban wing, could embrace Democrats if we return to our founder's philosophy -- a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberalism.While there is much to substantively critique (and laud) about this analysis, what really sticks out is the proposition that the Democratic party must return to its Jeffersonian roots. This of course implies that the Democratic party can trace its lineage back to Jefferson. The more and more I study American history, the more I ask, is this true?
Jefferson, who said the government that governs least governs best, knew the era of big government was over before Bill Clinton proclaimed it. If we listen to the man from Monticello, who advocated "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, but entangling alliances with none," we can rediscover our anti-war, anti-interventionist nerve. We can be as insistent as Republicans that pluralistic democracy and free markets are noble and worth emulating; but we must equally assert that they be spread by example, not force.
Jefferson can be an inspiration to our candidates, who need a better way to talk about religion and politics. Instead of mumbling about restoring faith to public life, Democrats can find the courage to say what we believe: We protect religious liberty by keeping God out of government. Our Founders knew that; there is not a single reference to God in the Constitution.
This is not an ideological point. In many respects the Democrats are the inheritors of the Jeffersonian philosophy, but coming from me that is no compliment. My argument is a more historical - and perhaps semantical one.
The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. This is a rather less controversial argument in my mind. Many would argue that the current Republican party does not reflect the philosophy of Lincoln, an argument I would vehemently disagree with, but again that is besides the point. One can easily trace the lineage of the party back to Lincoln, as one can do with the Democrats and Andrew Jackson. In other words, there is a continuous link between these men and their respective parties, a link that has basically gone unbroken since, respectively, 1828 and 1860 (or 1854, if you want to go by the year when the Republican party was established).
The same cannot be said of Jefferson and the Democratic party. The history here is a little more complicated and requires us to backtrack a little bit. Jefferson and Madison formed an opposition party to the Federalists, who were composed of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. To grossly oversimplify, the real opponents were Jefferson and, to a lesser extent Madison, versus Hamilton and, to an even lesser extent, Adams. Jefferson's party was actually called the Republican party, though this bears no relation to the party created over half a century later. Yes, I know some of you have seen Democratic-Republican in your high school history books, but that is largely inaccurate. Perhaps an occasional reference was made to democratic-republicans, but almost all of the literature of and about the era refers to them strictly as Republicans. And, after all, Jefferson did not say, "we are all federalists, we are all democratic-republicans" at his first inaugural.
Anyway, Jefferson was elected to the presidency in 1800, followed eight years later by Madison in 1808, and then Monroe 1816. The Virginia dynasty essentially killed off the Federalist party, if more in name than in essence. Thus the so-called era of good feelings and the seeming abandonment of party politics. Of course the reality was slightly less benevolent than that. There were still significant regional rivalries, and there existed a faction which was much more nationalistic in its approach, while the other faction remained more fixed to states rights.
The election of 1824 fractured the sham of one partyism. I won't go into all the details of the election, much of which most of you probably know anyway, but the elevation of the Nationalist John Quincy Adams over the more popular Andrew Jackson was the final nail in the coffin of national cohesion, sham or no sham. Four years later Andrew Jackson would defeat Adams, and the party for which he was associated would thenceforth be known as the Democratic party. Clay, Webster and others would go their own way and form an opposition party called the Whigs, who would themselves splinter in the 1850's due to the sectional grievances stemming from slavery. Out of that muck the Republicans would rise up as the dominant second party to the Democrats.
This brief recap does not do justice to the complicated issues arising out of the 1820's, but hopefully it demonstrates the inadequacy of calling the Democrats the party of Jefferson. One could perhaps allege that Adams and his cohorts were merely disgruntled Federalists who crashed the party, so to speak, and Jackson merely reclaimed the party from the usurpers, and restored the Democrats to their Jeffersonian roots. But that argument does not satisfy me. I think the two parties that emerged in the mid 1820's were two fresh parties, distinct in many ways from the Republicans of the earlier era. I do concede that the Democrats were much closer ideologically to the Republicans than were the Whigs, and as such it is not wholly incorrect for the Democrats to claim some roots in the Jeffersonian party.
Again, much of this is a semantical argument that has no bearing on the greater substantive argument made by Michael. Of which, by the way, I will just add a few comments. There is much to commend this op-ed, but when he speaks of the "Taliban wing" of the Republican party, he comes dangerously close to discrediting everything he had written to that point. This is a childish, stupid, and absurd label that should not be used by anyone attempting serious political discussion, and merits little more note. Further, the revisionist history of Jefferson as some sort of pacific, non-interventionist President does not neatly jibe with what he actually did in office. The man who successfully guided our Nation through its first war on terrorism with the Barbary states, a war many cautioned he avoid by paying the requested tributes, does not square with the imagery of the so-called pacifist.
There are other quibbles, but I have probably quibbled enough.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 10:50 AM
