I am currently reading David Potter’s monumental work The Impending Crisis America Before the
Civil War 1848-1861 (New York: Harper, 1976).
In his chapter titled the Political Parties in
Metamorphosis, I read this passage on political parties. Potter is discussing the Whig and
Democratic parties in the decades before the Civil War. In view of repeated failures of our
modern legislative branch to legislate, (the Super Committee being the latest
example) I found Potter’s words on the characteristics of the American
political parties very interesting.
I keep coming back to this paragraph on page 226.
Relatively
unencumbered by ideological mission, the two parties did not have enough
intellectual focus to offer voters clear-cut alternatives. Thus they failed in one of the classic
functions theoretically ascribed to political parties. But if they defaulted in
this way, they performed admirably another equally important if less orthodox
function: the promoted consensus rather than divisiveness. By encouraging men to seek a broad basis
of popular support, they nourished cohesiveness within a community and avoided
sharpening the cutting edge of disagreement to dangerous keenness. Without ideological agreement as a
basis for cohesiveness, the parties could still cultivate unity, based upon the
practical need that diverse groups may have for one another’s support.
I rarely use this blog as a political forum. However, I truly believe that we are at the other end of the pendulum
these days. There is to much
intellectual focus. The
alternatives are clear-cut nowadays.
But what our leaders seem to posses in abundance in clarity of position,
they forfeit in ability to promote consensus and fail to seek broad basis of
popular support. The American
people clearly recognize the problems.
But our leaders seem incapable of working together to make decisions. Now
this very divisiveness that is so well promoted in the 21st century
could very well mean our decline.
Nothing is getting done. We
cant stand further putting off of the key decisions that need to be made right now.
Henry Clay, John Q. Adams, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, and John Calhoun have
been replaced by Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi,
prisoners of their own special interest keepers. There are many times to hold firm to our ideological
standards but surrendering any idea of compromise or bipartisanship all the
time is unacceptable.
Impending Crisis then or now? But that’s just me.
Posts
