Washington's Farewell

Washington's farewell address was written to the American people and appeared in newspapers in 1796, although it existed in draft form as early as 1792. Americans, not Washington gave it the title "Farewell Address". Paragraphs 20-25 are a warning on the dangers of political parties, the entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. 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.

One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.

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.

The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?

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.

Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.

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 passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?

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.

Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.

Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.

Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!

Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.

Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "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". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.

~Finntann~

Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.

I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":

http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5

A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.

And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!