Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Junior]

[Manner of Speaking]

[Gopher]

Thanks for your contributions to this thread, Manner of Speaking.

[Manner of Speaking]

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

As Washington was about to retire near the end of his second term as president, he called on Alexander Hamilton to write and James Madison to edit a Farewell Address for him to present as a last service to the country. (There is no doubt at all that the ideas in the Address are Washington's.)

I've selected the excerpts that relate to the ideas people have posted. (The whole Address is available on the internet and is very well worth 20 or 30 minutes of your time.)

***

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection....

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....

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 finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. 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 is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

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.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear....

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

...Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests...

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

My follow-up post disappeared. I actually had something to say.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I hope this doesn't come off as a quibble, but 'overcome' is not a good word choice. From my reading, the consensus was that self-interest, lust for power and susceptibility to corruption were considered permanent parts of human nature. Government couldn't change it, but could be, they hoped, structured in such a way as to control the bad effects.

Each of the Founders had his own view of 'the people'. Franklin was one of the most democratic, in our sense of the word, but still not exactly what we would accept. Maybe the best example of that is he argued (and won) for a unicameral legislature in Pennsylvania. Nearly all the states, as well as the Federal government, became bicameral because of the concept of checks and balances and division of power. Jefferson was also 'radical' in that he argued for a republic of farmers, based on the common belief that the suffrage should be exclusive to property holders. He just set the standard lower than most. No good example comes to mind, but John Adams was one of the most conservative of the Founders.

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Mr. Nowhere Man,

Thank you for the response.

(With the civilities out of the way... Onward!)

So are you saying that because of the single election of 2000 when the electoral college didn't reflect the popular vote, you are justified in not voting for any office for 10 years? When you were a kid, did you take your ball bat home when you didn't get your way?

I lived in a county that hadn't gone Democratic since FDR took it in '32, long before I was born. It didn't stop me from voting.

You're just being dismissive of your state legislature because you can't justify not voting for your representative. Since you won't bother, neither will I.

Have I ever written my Congressman/Senator? Of course I have. And governor and State legislators. I've even shaken the hand of a president wannabe and just a wannabe or two. Had a short conversation with Bill and Tipper in '92 on their bus tour. Fairly certain my sister and one or both of her kids are in the Gore snapshot collection.

[Ya-ta Boy]

If you were to get on a soap box about redistricting and gerrymandering, I'd be right behind you. That issue is the real problem in national government today (along with financing of campaigns), but you insist on only dealing with superficial problems like the number of people serving in Congress.

I have told you before what I think about the size of Congress and I see no reason why I should waste my energy repeating what pretty much everyone knows, except you. You are not dealing seriously with the core issues.

That refers to this:

[Nowhere Man]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Nowhere Man]

That, sir, is condescending drivel.