Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

This post is really just for the Americans. The rest of you have your own unique concerns.


I just finished reading �Founding Brothers: the Revolutionary Generation� by Joseph J. Ellis (published in 2000, it won the Pulitzer). It was fun reading again about how Burr shot Hamilton, how much John Adams hated Ben Franklin, the friendship that turned into a vicious rivalry and then back into friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who then both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.

But there was a chapter on Washington and his Farewell Address that really struck me as especially relevant to today. I want to quote a portion of it.

�The manner in which the Farewell Address was actually composed, as it turned out, served as a nearly perfect illustration of its central message�the need to subordinate narrow interests to the larger cause. Much ink has been spilled by several generations of scholars in an effort to determine who wrote the bulk of the words that eventually found their way into print and then into the history books�[T]he creation of the Farewell Address was an inherently collaborative process. Some of the words were Madison�s; most of the words were Hamilton�s; all the ideas were Washington�s. The drafting and editing of the Farewell Address in effect became a metaphor for the kind of collective effort Washington was urging on the American people as a whole.� [Madison was a Democratic Republican and Hamilton a High Federalist.]

�And so when Washington sat down to draft his Farewell Address, three salient features rose up out of the immediate political terrain to command his attention: First, he needed to demonstrate that, while poised for retirement, he was still very much in charge, that those rumors of creeping senility and routinized ineptitude were demonstrably wrong; second, he wanted to carve out a middle course, and do so in a moderate tone, that together pushed his most ardent critics to the fringes of the ongoing debate, where their shrill accusations, loaded language, and throbbing moral certainty could languish in the obscurity they deserved; third, the all-time master of exits wanted to make his final departure from the public stage the occasion for explaining his own version of what the American Revolution meant. Above all, it meant hanging together as a united people, much as the Continental Army had hung together once before, so that those who were making foreign policy into a divisive device in domestic politics, all in the name of America�s revolutionary principles, were themselves inadvertently subverting the very cause they claimed to champion. He was stepping forward into the battle one final time, planting his standard squarely in the center of the field, inviting the troops to rally around him rather than wander off in romantic cavalry charges at the periphery, assuring them by his example that, if they could only hold the position he defined, they would again prevail.

***
*The reference to �the all-time master of exits� is of course referring to his laying down of power on Dec. 22, 1783 when he could have made himself a Julius Caesar or Napoleon. George III is supposed to have said when he heard Washington would resign his command, �If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.�


Reading that chapter of course made me want to read the full Address again. I had forgotten how many good observations were in it. I decided to print just one part, but there are several other parts that have something relevant to say about today.

Published in the American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796:

Friends, And Fellow Citizens
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 dissention, 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 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�

*****
Reading stuff like this reminds me of just how low current political discourse has fallen. Secondly, it reminds me that the public has a responsibility to rein in the parties when they get too far out, too corrupt or too power hungry.

[Nowhere Man]

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

[PaperTiger]

"He said party spirit is dangerous, and I see that happening today. Both parties are using very heated rhetoric and compromise is way down the list of priorities. Issues that need to be dealt with are being ignored."

"Everyone in the government seems to be focused on how to score points on the the other party and no one seems to be paying attention to governing the country."

"Reading stuff like this reminds me of just how low current political discourse has fallen. Secondly, it reminds me that the public has a responsibility to rein in the parties when they get too far out, too corrupt or too power hungry."

This is exactly what I tried to start a discussion, you twit. Well, now that I've quoted what you consider to be your most credible source (YOU), I suppose my opinion is somehow tolerable. You PolySci gadflies are all the same, unless someone can substantiate their opinion with a glut of footnotes, quotes, and let's not forget....namedropping...it's not worth it to discuss anything with them. You are almost as smart as you are eloquent.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

[PaperTiger]

Don't cry kids, dealing with other people's modes of expression and opinions are all part and parcel of an internet forum. I had no idea I was entering the territory of some secret enclave where I should mind my p's and q's.

Kudos wrote, "My guess is that you wouldn't have as much courage (or even a quarter as much indignation) to enter a chat board on organic chemistry and accost graduates in such studies in such terms." Oh my, the slings and arrows of outraged steakheads, this barb hath *beep*'d my fragile thingamabob. Unlike organic chemistry or other areas hard science, politics is mainly a very soft science and not something you can get many reliable sources for (in a historical, not philosophical context, mind you). You can however, get quite a bit of opinion and speculation, which all the finest minds in philosophy had engaged in words and print....Montesquieu, Hobbes, Rousseau, a great many of the Founding Fathers, Mao, Trotsky, Jello Biafra, George Clinton of Paliament, and the guy with the funny voice from Cameo come immediately to mind (I will now namedrop just to spite you).

My feelings are not hurt. I have smacked larger mosquitos before. If my opinion needs to be identified as such, lest it be mistaken for fact...then your nose might be more at home in some mildewed tome (ah...eloquence AND rhyme!) memorizing the words of some dead guy who might not be able to draw any reasonable connection between his theory and the reality of modern politics.

I don't have disdain for Polysci majors (although employers might) until they start claiming that they are they only people entitled to an opinion on the subject.

If my foot is in my mouth it is because I am very limber and prefer a direct approach to extracting ingrown toenails.

Funny how you guys love to talk about how educated you are and how many books you've read, but the only way you can address the subject I introduced is by attacking me for having an opinion.

[Kuros]