James Madison, arguing on behalf of the Constitution (that he himself authored) in the Federalist #10, warned that there were two methods of curing “faction” (partisanship) in a republic; either by removing its causes, or by controlling its effects. As to how to remove the “causes of faction,” Madison noted this can be achieved either by “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence”, or “by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”
But as Madison – certainly by his own words no fan of partisanship – noted, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”
And as to the feasibility of fostering universal opinions, “The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise,” since “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, differing opinions will be formed.”
What exactly does Barack Obama mean by being President of a “post-partisan” America? I mean, looking at the facts, Obama has one of the most partisan records in the United States’ Senate. As Senator McCain has noted, “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.” Do voters think Obama will just stop being left-wing if and when he becomes President? Up until now, Sen. Obama hasn’t been able to rise above his runaway ambition, and he hasn’t been able to rise above partisanship. Suddenly, he’ll Change…himself?
Perhaps he intends to either “abolish liberty” with the help of a liberal supermajority in Congress, or with the help of his activists nationwide, he’ll “give to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Whose opinions, whose passions, whose interests, you wonder? Those of modern “liberalism”, of course. It is already well-known that liberals would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated; they’re in favor of “net neutrality” measures. This is code, mind you, for information regulation.
With newspapers in droves declaring themselves openly for Obama, and most major news networks and news anchors holding pretty steadily to a liberal line, it will be difficult for an ordinary, free-thinking citizen to get unbiased news about an Obama Administration, under it. And if the liberals have their way, the success of conservative talk radio will be challenged, and dissenting opinions – those opposed to the left-wing liberal agenda – will slowly but surely be repressed, even silenced. Debate will be stifled.
Is this the sort of “Change” that America is in for? I certainly hope not, because if it is, then we will no longer be the sort of Republic the Founding Fathers wished for the United States to be.
In his great and celebrated work, Democracy in America, written and published following a tour of the U.S. in the early 1800s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the danger American democracy would face from a “tyranny of the majority”. We could very well see such a tyrannical majority’s ascendance in the near future; since when have Americans celebrated any sort of tyranny?
Publius Brutus Cato 