More from our First President

It seems to me that Washington had an almost Nostradamus-like quality in his farewell address. In the quote below, he warns of the political parties becoming too powerful in our Federal Government.

Oh George if you could see us now!

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It 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 part against another, foments occasionally 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. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It seems to me that Washington knew what power political parties could attain, and what they could do to our system of government. I leave you with this question. Is our federal government a government of the people or a government of the parties?

A Thought on George Washington's Farewell

I recently read George Washington's Farewell address. He never gave it as a speech, but it was published in a prominent newspaper. You can find it in various forms. Congress has it available as a PDF document; portions of it with comments can be found on Wikipedia.

I feel that Washington and his writing assistants, Hamilton and Madison, must have had some forewarning of our countries future. This address contains so many warnings about what could go wrong, and it seems to me that most of them have occurred. One of his warnings deals with religion and morality in our country, but let me add here a quote from the address; it speaks for its self. I have added bold to the statements I feel most strongly about.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

I am now of the opinion that court decisions barring the expression of religious principles in public meetings and gatherings such as commencement exercises is in itself a violation of our first amendment rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Court prohibition of prayer, invocations, etc. is in effect creating law "prohibiting the free exercise of religion." It seems to me that not all religions are being treated equally. Christianity seems to have been particularly hard hit. We are a nation founded on Christian principles and these principles are now under attack from within as well as from without.

I totally agree with President Washington that without a religious foundation, our morality is in danger. My hope is that we wakeup in time.