What Would George Washington Do?

by Jeff Schweitzer

Jeff Schweitzer is a scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst; Ph.D. in marine biology/neurophysiology

What we observe today with Donald Trump as a nominee, and Mitch McConnell obstructing our Constitution by blocking Obama’s candidate for the Supreme Court, is an echo of past times in which our country has seen the ugly side of ideological extremism. We can hark back to the earliest days of our republic to see deep rifts between political factions that formalized into parties battling for our future. Tribalism has always been with us.

In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington warned that the rise of Party politics that he was witnessing:

“... 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 party against another, foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions...”

Warring Factions

Our Founding Fathers, who wished to create “not a system of party government under a constitution but rather a constitutional government that would check and control parties”, would be appalled at what modern American politics has become. Their greatest fears have become reality as a reality TV star is taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

Washington’s specific concern was the increasingly hostile polarization between the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans (no relationship at all to today’s parties). The parallel to current events is enlightening for its similarities and differences.

At stake then were two vastly different views of how America’s future would unfold. Federalists, embodied in Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a strong central government capable of building a nation still in the vulnerable stage of infancy and protecting America’s growing business interests at home and abroad. Federalists wanted to strengthen ties to Britain. The Democrat-Republicans (anti-Federalists) championed by Thomas Jefferson, feared that a strong central government would return the new country to monarchy. The anti-Federalists pined more for an agrarian society than an industrial one, and wished to align the United States more with revolutionary France than with Britain.

Jefferson claimed the Federalists were for the “opulent” classes while he and his supporters were for “the mass of the people.”

This deep divide was one of Washington’s primary worries upon leaving office. In that same address of 1796, he further warned that political parties could:

“...become potent engines by which . . . unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”

Parallels and Differences

Can anybody read that warning from Washington about unprincipled men usurping the reins of government and not think of Donald Trump? Can anybody read those words from Jefferson about the “opulent class” and “mass of the people” and not think of the modern versions of the GOP and Democrats? But the parallels are not perfect by any means; and those differences are telling.

The biggest divergence between then and now is how the two sides view the role of central government. With the glaring exception of a large military, the party of big business today disdains big government. The GOP in simple terms supports the wealthy, with the idea that by doing so all sectors of society benefit. This is the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. Low taxes, less regulation, small government, unfettered capitalism and laws favoring Wall Street over Main Street are all central to the modern Republican Party. This GOP is an offspring of Federalist Party (benefitting the “opulent class”), which ironically began as a means of promoting a strong central government, the antithesis of the GOP.

Democrats, the descendent of the anti-Federalists, again in simple terms, advocate for higher taxes on the rich, more regulation, social programs benefiting the poor, and an emphasis on social justice. With equal irony, the anti-Federalists today in the form of Democrats (“mass of the people”) advocate for a strong central government, the precise opposite of what Thomas Jefferson wanted for the country.

So, while the two sides have flip-flopped on the fundamental nature of states’ rights and role of the federal government, they have been consistent on the other foundational ideologies that can be simplified down to liberal and conservative. In the past, conservatives promoted a strong federal government and liberals advocated for dispersed federal power. The opposite is now true, but what attributes otherwise define liberal and conservative remain fairly constant.

This divide between left and right contains within it a deep irony. American liberalism is centered on the idea of social justice, free speech, freedom of religion, celebration of diversity, and an individual’s fundamental right to free expression, without fear of reprisal or being ostracized. As I have written elsewhere this ideal is subverted by the rise of political correctness, particularly on college campuses. But as an ideology, liberalism is consistent with the promotion of LGBT rights, keeping religion out of politics, and advocating for the poor.

American conservativism on the other hand is founded on three basic principles that contrast sharply with leftist philosophy: liberty and freedom from restrictions of arbitrary force; tradition and order, and belief in god. As with liberals, these ideals are often undermined in practice. A fourth tenet is often cited here, the rule of law, but in reality both sides claim that, and both liberals and conservatives seem to apply this principle only when convenient to their cause.

But in looking at these opposing ideologies, we come to the deep irony referenced earlier. The left wants a big central government, but a small military and a government that stays out of our personal lives, bedrooms and doctors’ offices. The right wants a small government, but promotes a big military and seeks government influence to regulate reproductive choice, sex acts in our bedroom (12 states still have anti-sodomy statutes in force), what bathrooms we can use, and religion in politics to promote a Christian agenda (a majority of conservatives believe the United States is or should be a Christian nation).

Let’s be clear then: both liberals and conservatives want a strong or big government when suited to their causes and a weak or small government when government interference is counter to those causes. They simply want big and small government for opposing purposes. Neither side can claim ideological purity here; which brings me back to Federalists and anti-Federalists. Given the obvious hypocrisy on both left and right on the role of the central government, we see more clearly the genealogy of today’s Parties, with the GOP-aligned cleanly with Federalists and Democrats clearly the progeny of the anti-Federalists. We need not worry ourselves about the reversal in opinions about central government because both sides really claim both sides of this issue.

Room for Hope

This now-obvious parallel between the growing animosity between right and left today and with the Federalists and anti-Federalists in the late 1700s actually gives us some measure of hope. We’ve been here before, right at the beginning, and we’re still standing today.

We seem to cycle through periods of extreme polarization. In the decade following 1830, we had extreme partisanship between the Jacksonians and Whigs. The source of animosity was the same as always (with the added bonus of slavery thrown in): Jacksonian Democrats favored states’ rights and resented any Federal government intrusion into social and economic affairs. Jacksonians represented the “common man” and the poor “living off the land.” In contrast, Whigs were typically wealthy industrialists and nationalists who advocated for a strong central government. The sides fought about religious freedom. Sound familiar?

As a historic aside, we should mention that the Whigs eventually died on the issue of slavery, with the northern contingent opposed to that institution and the southern faction in favor of slavery. This split in the Whigs is what led to the formation of the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as the first presidential candidate of the new Party.

The Jackson-Whig battle is the echo sound of history repeating itself, a replay of the fight between Federalists and anti-Federalists. And the fight never ended, with extreme partisanship rearing its ugly head again in the Civil War, Vietnam War, the McCarthy era, and the civil rights movement. Each time feels like the worst, like the country is being pulled apart, that the end is near. That is precisely why historic perspective is important. The basic issues remain the same as we cycle through periods of greater or lesser tolerance and extremism. We will certainly cycle through this latest period of angst.

We are clearly in a time of ascending intolerance. The likes of Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump represent the right’s radical embrace of extreme partisanship. But as bad as this feels, as close to the Apocalypse as this seems, take solace in knowing that we’ve experienced this radicalism previously and survived. Supporters of Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other passionately. Those behind Andrew Jackson and supporters of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were violent enemies. These opposing forces were every bit as far apart or more than what we see in the vast abyss separating Clinton and Trump. And yet here we are.

Seen from the high perch of history, the future is not as bleak as the present would indicate. In fact, there may be room for actual optimism. It could well be that if Trump loses, and loses badly, we could be witnessing the nadir of this latest cycle of extremism, which could die along with Trump’s megalomaniac dreams. Trump is the natural consequence of the GOP embrace of ignorance as a virtue mixing with obstructionism as a form of patriotism; like a mushroom is a natural consequence of darkness and dung. He does not represent a movement; he is nothing but the product of decay, a process that could well be reaching its end. Few people outside the world of historians remember Henry Clay; fewer will remember Trump. He will be a footnoted curiosity marking the beginning of the end of right-wing ascendancy in American politics. There is room for hope.





Dr. Jeff Schweitzer
 is a marine biologist, consultant and internationally recognized authority in ethics, conservation and development. He is the author of five books including Calorie Wars: Fat, Fact and Fiction (July 2011), and A New Moral Code (2010). Dr. Schweitzer has spoken at numerous international conferences in Asia, Russia, Europe and the United States.Dr. Schweitzer's work is based on his desire to introduce a stronger set of ethics into American efforts to improve the human condition worldwide. He has been instrumental in designing programs that demonstrate how third world development and protecting our resources are compatible goals. His vision is to inspire a framework that ensures that humans can grow and prosper indefinitely in a healthy environment.Formerly, Dr. Schweitzer served as an Assistant Director for International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy under former President Clinton. Prior to that, Dr. Schweitzer served as the Chief Environmental Officer at the State Department's Agency for International Development. In that role, he founded the multi-agency International Cooperative Biodiversity Group Program, a U.S. Government that promoted conservation through rational economic use of natural resources.Dr. Schweitzer began his scientific career in the field of marine biology. He earned his Ph.D. from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. He expanded his research at the Center for Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine. While at U.C. Irvine he was awarded the Science, Engineering and Diplomacy Fellowship from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Dr. Schweitzer is a pilot and he founded and edited the Malibu Mirage, an aviation magazine dedicated to pilots flying these single-engine airplanes. He and his wife Sally are avid SCUBA divers and they travel widely to see new wildlife, never far from their roots as marine scientists..To learn more about Dr Schweitzer, visit his website at http://www.JeffSchweitzer.com
.

To follow Jeff Schweizer on Twitter, please click here.

For Jeff Schweitzer web site, please click here.

Below link to Amazon for Jeff Schweitzer's latest book.


TO FOLLOW WHAT'S NEW ON FACTS & ARTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE!




 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Added 17.07.2018
There are two ways of tackling chronic lifestyle diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes: discover new drugs and treatments or persuade people to make positive lifestyle changes to avoid developing them in the first place. Health coaching is one of the most powerful ways of changing people’s mindsets for the long term. Practitioners are rapidly taking their place alongside executive coaches, life coaches and personal trainers as another means of making us better people through one-to-one improvement sessions.
Added 16.07.2018
Getting rid of loneliness is also about letting go of cynicism and mistrust of others. So next time you meet someone new, try to lose that protective shield and really allow them in, even though you don’t know what the outcome will be.
Added 12.07.2018
From the beginning Donald Trump’s administration has been marred by corruption and outright contempt for the rule of law – with the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey “because of the whole Russia thing”, and persistent efforts to undermine Robert Mueller’s Russia probe; with his refusal to divest himself of private businesses, his attacks on judges who rule against him, and much else besides. Trump’s shameless claim to unbounded executive power manifested itself recently in repeated calls to deprive unauthorized immigrants of their due process rights. The conditions in migrant detention centers are horrifying and photos from one facility in McAllen, Texas showed children being held in cages. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Facebook report, this border facility is an enormous warehouse “filled with cages. Cages for men. Cages for women. Cages for mamas with babies. Cages for girls. Cages for boys.”  Such an unconscionable state of affairs makes the current exhibition of Alberto Giacometti at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City all the more electrifying. The show features more than one hundred and seventy-five sculptures, paintings, and drawings, spanning more than forty years and across all the various media with which he worked.  
Added 12.07.2018
I sometimes meet with apologies from venues when a piano’s action may not be serviced to top form. I reply with a smile that such apologies are unnecessary, for in my youth I had to pull up as many keys as push down upon them when playing on battered uprights before elementary school children. In those days I played as often with my palms up as down, like a day at the gym dedicated to both push and pull. Once, however, just before a recital in a private South Carolina home, I encountered a woman whose main concern was – though my naked hands were plain before her – that I remove any rings I might be wearing before playing upon her piano’s vulnerable ivories.
Added 12.06.2018
Extract: “Nothing is beautiful except what is true,” Cézanne once said, “and only true things should be loved.” As the philosopher Jacques Derrida put it: “The truth in painting is signed Cézanne.” Perhaps it is this above all else that makes him the indispensible painter for our times, this era of so-called ‘post-truth.’ For Cézanne “painting was truth telling or it was nothing.” That is what it meant to paint from nature, to be primitive, to be free from all affectation, to be like those “first men who engraved their dreams of the hunt on the vaults of caves…” This is why we need to look and look again at Cézanne. And it is perhaps best that he has come to the National Gallery, to D.C., but a stone’s throw away from where truth is daily made a mockery of, and lies are proffered with breathtaking ease.
Added 06.06.2018
Extracts from the article: "Johnson and Johnson recently announced that it was halting a clinical trial for a new Alzheimer’s drug after safety issues emerged. This latest failure adds to the dozens of large, costly clinical trials that have shown no effect in treating this devastating disease. The growing list of failures should give us pause for thought – have we got the causes of Alzheimer’s all wrong?".............."Another option is to look at the risk factors for developing Alzheimer’s. One of these is type 2 diabetes." ............"Testing these [diabetes] drugs in animal models of another neurodegenerative disorder, Parkinson’s disease, also showed impressive effects, ............These new theories bring a fresh view on how these diseases develop and increase the likelihood of developing a drug treatment that makes a difference. To see any protective effect in the brain in a clinical trial is completely new, and it supports the new theory that Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are caused, at least in part, by a lack of growth factor activity in the brain. These new theories bring a fresh view on how these diseases develop and increase the likelihood of developing a drug treatment that makes a difference."
Added 01.06.2018
Extract from the article: "The most common defense of truth is the pragmatic one – namely, that truth works; that true beliefs are more likely to get the job done than those that are not true. The pragmatic account of the value of truth is not wrong, but at the same time it is not enough. Truth is not valuable for solely instrumental or extrinsic reasons. Truth has intrinsic value as well. When we reduce the value of truth to instrumentality, it is a very short step to saying that we just want beliefs that work for us, regardless of whether they are true or not."
Added 14.05.2018
During the first century of modern art, Paris was a magnet for ambitious artists from all over Europe. Remarkably, the current exhibition at Paris’ Petit Palais tells us that “Between 1789 and 1914, over a thousand Dutch artists traveled to France.” Prominent among these were Ary Scheffer, Johan Jongkind, Jacob Maris, Kees van Dongen. But of course most prominent were Vincent van Gogh and Piet Mondrian.
Added 10.05.2018
The Jewish Museum in New York City is currently presenting the work of Chaim Soutine (1893-1943), featuring just over thirty paintings by one of the most distinctive and significant artists of the early twentieth century. Focusing on still life paintings, of which he was a master, "Chaim Soutine: Flesh" includes his vigorous depictions of various slaughtered animals - of beef carcasses, hanging fowl, and game. These are dynamic works of great boldness and intensity, and taken together they constitute a sustained and profoundly sensuous interrogation of the flesh, of carnality - of blood, skin and sinew.
Added 08.05.2018
The impact of air pollution on human health is well-documented. We know that exposure to high levels of air pollutants raises the risk of respiratory infections, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer as well as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. But there is growing evidence to suggest that air pollution does not just affect our health – it affects our behaviour too.
Added 05.05.2018
 

The May bank holiday is intimately linked to labour history and to struggles over time spent at work. In the US, May Day has its origins in the fight for an eight-hour work day at the end of the 19th century.

Added 01.05.2018
Quote from the article: "Who is talking about how globalized the world was between 1880 and 1914 -- until war broke out and fascists subsequently determined the course of history -- and the parallels between then and now? Globalization always had a down side, and was never meant to last forever -- but the gurus chose not to talk about it. It is always just a question of time until economic nationalism reappears, but the gurus have done a poor job of addressing the nexus between economics and politics, and its impact on business, which is the real story."
Added 29.04.2018
"......if we did manage to stop the kind of ageing caused by senescent cells using telomerase activation, we could start devoting all our efforts into tackling these additional ageing processes. There’s every reason to be optimistic that we may soon live much longer, healthier lives than we do today."
Added 29.04.2018
Many countries have introduced a sugar tax in order to improve the health of their citizens. As a result, food and drink companies are changing their products to include low and zero-calorie sweeteners instead of sugar. However, there is growing evidence that sweeteners may have health consequences of their own. New research from the US, presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference in San Diego, found a link with consuming artificial sweeteners and changes in blood markers linked with an increased risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes in rats. Does this mean we need to ditch sweeteners as well as sugar?
Added 25.04.2018
Female doctors show more empathy than male doctors. They ask their patients more questions, including questions about emotions and feelings, and they spend more time talking to patients than their male colleagues do. Some have suggested that this might make women better doctors. It may also take a terrible toll on their mental health.
Added 25.04.2018
The English-born Thomas Cole (1801-1848) is arguably America's first great landscape painter - the founder of the Hudson River School, the painter who brought a romantic sensibility to the American landscape, and sought to preserve the rapidly disappearing scenery with panoramas that invoke the divinity in nature. The Metropolitan Museum of Art's "Thomas Cole: Atlantic Crossings" is an astounding exhibition featuring a painter of extraordinary power and vision, underscoring his environmentalism and the deep sense of loss that pervades many works as he reflects on deforestation, the intrusion of the railroad, and the vanishing beauty of the untrammeled wilderness.
Added 23.04.2018
Quantitative evidence from three independent sources — auction prices, textbook illustrations, and counts of paintings included in retrospective exhibitions — all pointed to the fact that some important modern artists made their greatest work late in their careers — Cézanne, for example, in his 60s, and Kandinsky and Rothko in their 50s. But the same evidence indicated that other important artists produced their greatest work very early — Picasso, Johns, and Stella, for example, all in their 20s. Why was this was the case: why did great artists do their best work at such different stages of their careers? I couldn’t answer this question until I understood what makes an artist’s work his or her best.
Added 19.04.2018

People of all ages are at risk from diseases brought on by loneliness, new data has revealed.

Added 09.04.2018

I was a senior university student in Baghdad, Iraq. It was March 2003, and over the past few months, my classmates had whispered to each other about the possibility of a US-led invasion and the likelihood that 35 years of dictatorship and tyranny could be brought to an end.

Added 26.03.2018
In 1815, 69-year old Francisco de Goya painted a small self-portrait. Today it hangs in Madrid’s majestic Prado Museum. Next to it are the two enormous paintings of the uprising of May, 1808, in which Madrid’s citizens had been slaughtered by Napoleon’s troops, that Goya had painted in 1814 for King Ferdinand VII, to be hung in Madrid’s Royal Palace. One of these, of the execution of Spanish civilians by a French firing squad, is now among the most famous images in the history of Western art.