Bi-Partisan Monopoly, speak your mind!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Scribbler said: Of course, I have every reason to believe the election process is not to be trusted and is loaded with fraud. But there had to be a time, a deciding moment when we installed people in positions of power who made the fraud possible. I say: So whose job is it to fix it, and when do WE start.

I'm sure many here will disagree with my feeling that it has gone beyond the point of no return, but that's a feeling I cannot change.
As you pointed out, we are too fragmented, but we are also far too set in our partisan ways. I mentioned earlier that either side's selling point is how bad the other side is. This develops a HATRED for that "other side" you can see here and on any other political forum. While that is very clever on the part of the politicians it is very stupid on the part of the electorate as hatred is an emotion that goes FAR beyond logic and reason. It boils down to "I hate them. They are evil, and therefore they are not capable of anything good. If you mention anything good they do I will automatically believe it to be a lie."

The fact that the sheep in this country SAY things like "the lesser of two evils" without even REALIZING the frightening irony of the statement should tell you my opinion isn't all that far fetched. TPTB have recognized the right buttons to push and use them effectively. Hate and fear trump logic and reason every time, and you don't need BOTH of them to be effective. Hate and fear work quite well all on their own. Even a reasonable person that doesn't hate the "other side" still has a little fear that the haters might be right.

So we all agree its messed up, but the only real solution I have heard that COULD work so far is revolt, due to the FRAGMENTED nations level of division. I thought the whole aim of the two party system was to keep everyone UNITED? HAR HAR.

Revolt to WHAT? We could take every politician and bureaucrat in the country and ship them en masse to Guantanamo but the SYSTEM will still be here, and so will the fools that let the system grow corrupt to begin with. In other words it will be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" without a major and total overhaul of the structure and policies of government. How many people do you know today who have the combination of common sense, wisdom and foresight the founders did? I don't even think people who know the Constitution fforward and backward could draft a new document to properly address the society we have now.

Republicans are the Chevy guys, Democrats are the Ford guys, and right now they are so busy arguing about THEIR differences, they forgot about the customer base, and I predict record losses. The question is, who will be the Toyota?

I believe at the heart of the Republican/Democrat combo is essentially ONE party with the single aim of keeping all the power and preventing anyone from taking ANY of it away.
Who will be the Toyota? Let me take the auto analogy one step further. Just as you vote for the best candidates for the good of the United States, you always "buy American" for the good of the US auto industry. So, for economy sake you bypass the foreign models and buy a Chevy Geo.

Guess what, the Geo IS a Toyota.

But my Toyota truck was built in California and my previous truck, a Ford Ranger had a powertrain built by Mazda!
Which is another thing that makes the electorate dangerous. Even when they THINK they are doing the reasonable and proper thing without hatred and fear, they are likely to STILL be wrong because the whole of modern politics is a box of shit covered in Christmas wrapping paper and a nice big bow.



Maybe I just shouldn't go online right after I wake up.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Maybe I just shouldn't go online right after I wake up.

Don't sugar coat it like that, tell'em straight.


Actually, I thought that was some of your better work.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Don't sugar coat it like that, tell'em straight.

I guess I AM an old crank after all! :)

Actually, I thought that was some of your better work.

Thanks, but you realize I'd sell my soul NOT to think that way!

I'm waiting for the day when somebody proves without a shadow of a doubt that I am a blithering idiot with an overactive imagination. If that happens, drinks all arond, on me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I guess I AM an old crank after all! :) Thanks, but you realize I'd sell my soul NOT to think that way! I'm waiting for the day when somebody proves without a shadow of a doubt that I am a blithering idiot with an overactive imagination. If that happens, drinks all arond, on me.

Fat chance old man, but I like your spirit. :)


Don't thimk I don't have moments just like you describe, but unfortunately for me, I woke up in 1979, and I have not seen one thing go right since. There is absolutely no doubt left in my mind that "We the People" have been taken over. Power usurped, arguments undermined, game over.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Fat chance old man, but I like your spirit. :) Don't think I don't have moments just like you describe, but unfortunately for me, I woke up in 1979, and I have not seen one thing go right since. There is absolutely no doubt left in my mind that "We the People" have been taken over. Power usurped, arguments undermined, game over.bolding-Scribbler1

Ah well, I'm too cheap to buy the house a round anyway.:)

I also believe we have been taken over, or at least we are right smack in the middle of the process. I was responding to Mr. Vicchio about this same issue earlier. He seems to be of the opinion that since we aren't being dragged out of our homes in the middle of the night there is no problem with our rights nor are they in any danger.
My feeling is that, unless you live in Africa or S. America these changes occur slowly, and often with the full consent of the majority of the governed.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Actually Scribbler, I look at the world without the "sky is falling" mentality that many of you seem to have. Pragmatic would be my claim.

I blame the voters, soley the voters, past, and present for ALL problems with the Government. Everytime I hear "Our elected LEADERS in Washington..." I scream. There are only 51 elected leaders in this country. The govenors of the individual states, and the President. Each has a certain sphere of influence and power. The President is on a 4 year, 2 term limit. Which is how it should be.

Every other elected politician is PURELY a hired representative of the People.

That's how the system is supposed to work. Every other claim about how things are now, the ignorant "State of Emergency" bit on down are jsut that, dodges from reality. When we, as a PEOPLE take back the power that those before us have abdicated to Washington, then things will get better. The only way to do that, is to work the system within, and not make wild claims.

The quickest way to get the Average Joe American to ignore you is to go off the deep end with wild claims of lost rights, tyrrany and empire. They don't want to hear that. Voter Apathy is IMHO the most damaging thing to this country.

You have to motivate people positively, not through scare tactics. Hello, any of you notice the failure of the Dems to use fear and hate to beat the GOP? Start small, start smart, and make reasonable objections to issues. That's the only way you are going to see any positives occur.

Remind everyone that the power is thiers, and they will listen. Tell them they have to listen to you because Bush jr. is instilling himself as King of America... will get you ignored.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Actually Scribbler, I look at the world without the "sky is falling" mentality that many of you seem to have. Pragmatic would be my claim.

I'm more like the sky is in greater danger of falling more now than before than it actually is IN the process of falling, for now anyway. Pragmatic is solely based on your perception of how things are, which is a perception I don't share. It doesn't mean you're right.

I blame the voters, soley the voters, past, and present for ALL problems with the Government.

Agreed, and that is a position I have had my whole life. People will only get away with what they are ALLOWED to get away with. The people in government are responsible for their actions but the people PUT them there. As the electorate put these people in positions of authority with the understanding they will act properly, honestly and responsibly the blame in this case must be shared, however.

Everytime I hear "Our elected LEADERS in Washington..." I scream. There are only 51 elected leaders in this country. The govenors of the individual states, and the President. Each has a certain sphere of influence and power. The President is on a 4 year, 2 term limit. Which is how it should be.

52, if you count the Congress as a single entity instead of a collection of smaller parts. No one congressman enacts a law and regardless of a law being passed by unanimous vote or a simple majority it is CONGRESS that enacts said laws.

That's how the system is supposed to work. Every other claim about how things are now, the ignorant "State of Emergency" bit on down are jsut that, dodges from reality.

I say it is acceptance of reality. The difference is that some are concerned with the situation at this moment while others see the aggregate of this moment and all the moments that led up to now. It's FBI records on people who opposed the Vietnam war leading up to government wiretaps with no oversight.

When we, as a PEOPLE take back the power that those before us have abdicated to Washington, then things will get better. The only way to do that, is to work the system within, and not make wild claims.

Casual dismissal of valid information sources as "leftist" and "liberal" do not make the claims "wild." Solid opposing evidence makes them "wild." However, the right's tendency to attack the messenger and not the message all too many times does not constitute opposing evidence.

The quickest way to get the Average Joe American to ignore you is to go off the deep end with wild claims of lost rights, tyrrany and empire. They don't want to hear that. Voter Apathy is IMHO the most damaging thing to this country.

Partly, but voter CONFUSION is equally damaging. How about claims that if John Kerry was elected we WOULD be attacked again? Average Joe American heard that from a source a lot of them assumed would be honest and fear mongering trumps "wild claims of lost rights" in my book. The mental image of your vote possibly costing you your life is more powerful than some rarely used right being tampered with.

You have to motivate people positively, not through scare tactics.

I refer you to the previous paragraph.

Hello, any of you notice the failure of the Dems to use fear and hate to beat the GOP? Start small, start smart, and make reasonable objections to issues. That's the only way you are going to see any positives occur.

Which we aren't getting from EITHER side! You and I aren't that far apart. The difference is you put your faith in one side where I put mine in neither.

Remind everyone that the power is thiers, and they will listen.

When? Did I miss something? What they "listen" to are sound bites and an endless stream of lies. They have become so used to the lies a lot of them have just opted for the easy out and believe whatever they're told.

Tell them they have to listen to you because Bush jr. is instilling himself as King of America... will get you ignored.

Yeah, like Thomas Paine. He was one of those radicals who wrote ridiculous pamphlets because HE didn't want a king in America either. If there are any like HIM around I hope the FBI is keeping a close watch on them.

[SteveA]

I'd say a common trait that many conservatives tend to share is a belief that the system can be fixed by working within it.

My view is that things won't change until the legitimacy of the whole thing is questioned. Conservatives have been trying to work within the process for what ... decades or more, and supposedly, from media claims, they even have a majority representation in government.

My view is that such claims are BS and individual voters have virtually no influence on their own political environments, except for local and to an extent state governments and that granting legitimacy to anything higher than a state level government is simply handicapping.

Truly our government needs to be giving reasons why people should want to give it an authority over them other than using scare tactics (a.k.a. terrorism). I have no idea to what extent media influences could be intentionally creating a negative perspective of things but truly how many mainstream media sources ever really present questions over some of the fundamentals of our current government. If things get a bit unstable and things need a quick 'makeover', they simply pick a fall guy (Bush in this case, and I agree it's a good place to start) and wait until people forget and the next ignorant generation comes along before turning the heat higher. If governments were operating correctly, we'd hardly ever even need to the know the name of a politician (and truly there are system of goernment that could remove the need for politicians. Even sticking to Constitutional limits on government would remove much of their influence) ... something's wrong when the ride is bumpy.

I believe, Vicchio, we're saying similar things but you still retain a faith that things will work themselves, "like they always have", by letting the system sort itself out. Where has that got us in the last 100 years except continually more of the same. I see it like this - there are two guys, one guy continually asks, "Master, can I be free?". The other always says, "No". My view is to simply stop thinking of the guy as a master and simply expect him to trade for services from you like anyone else. Basically, people should "walk away". If someone chases with a whip, that's a different story. Of course some people prefer you call him master because they're in on the scam and get small part of the 'take'.

I do believe governments can be largely beneficial and legitimate (as in people can generally be expected to support it), but this only occurs when these governments arise from the desires of those under them to create them - the "consent of the people" ... it might sound funky, but seriously votes shouldn't be simply over whether to add yet another law but also over whether a government is even viewed as legitimate. And this shouldn't simply be a vote by citizens but all those who are expected to live by its decisions ... I'm totally serious. I won't claim this has to be unanymous but the ideal is something more than simply 51% percent of the people want to keep it. Of course you can try to make people treat it as legitimate but the more this is done, the less beneficial it wil be and less likely to survive.

(Dang, am I off topic or what?)

[snake]

the political system has always been so, I mean I dont think since T.R. Roosevelt has there actually been 3 legitimate parties who ran. first the federalists, followed by the hawks and whigs...then all three were broken by the democratic republicans, then that party split in two creating obviously the system today, but we did have the progressives and bull moose party's. Point is this will never be europe will more parties than we can count fighting for power...thank god.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would just like to say this.

If it wasn't for the internet being the independent news source, and communication tool that it is, most people would still not KNOW what the problems are, wouldn't KNOW how to address them, and surely would be buying much more of the official propaganda that is coming out of every news network at this moment, except maybe 50% of public television, and all of C-Span.

The reason there is now a growing discontent, distaste for authority and overall divide in this nation, is because the internet is providing answers for people who seek them, and at the same time providing extremist groups, who extend the propaganda to those who seek others of like minds, as opposed to skeptical thought, or debate.

All I know, is that if the internet gets restricted like television and radio, and commercialized to that level, you can say goodbye to the last of the free exchange of information for public good. All you will see is corporate sponsored propaganda, just like the major networks are NOW.

[pubmanager]

I am interested to see the comments of the Libertarians on this issue.

It occurs to me that the rise of the bi-partisan political monopoly, and indeed partisan politics in general, can be seen as analogous to the workings of a free market.

In the begining there was equality, each candidate had equal access to the electorate, dictated only by willingness, energy, popularity and merit. Candidates stood on their own merits and their own politics, raised their own funding and were individually accountable to their electors. As the system evolved candidates found it convinient to enter into voluntary arangements and agreements with each other, shared veiws and a broad consensus on the key issues of the day lead to candidates more formaly identifying themselves under a recognised banner e.g. Liberal, Federalist etc.

The campaign burden was shared and the label made it easier for the electorate to quickly identify the leanings of the candidate. This partisanship had perceivable advantages for both the electorate and the candidates. The candidates by pooling resources and expertise gained access to a wider publicity network, increased fund raising ability and awareness of their candidacy and their broad veiws. The electors saw that by voting for a candidate who had the backing of a wider group of candidates gave that group more influence if elected thus giving more likelyhood of achieving their political aims that would in turn benifit the voters.

As the influence of these formal groups increased with their success the voters confidence in the ability of an independant/small party candidate to deliver also decreased. It becomes a self perpetuating thing. People want the maximum reward for their vote/investment so they vote based on the likelyhood of a candidate being able to do the most good for them. This equasion is based on how likely the candidate is to be elected in the first place, what they plan on doing if elected and how likely they are to achieve any of it, the system favours those who do the best job of winning elections and not neccessarily those who will do the best job. It promotes the stautus quo of power, political influence breeds more capital to buy votes, the weakness of the individual congessman to affect the policies of the larger parties in itself becomes a disadvantage in winning market share/votes.

It can be said that modern politics is the result of a free-market style political economy. The problem is that now the overwhealming majority of political capital is now owned by the two main parties there is no real alternative for voters, if this was a debate about property the libertarians would certainly argue that if there is demand, the market will provide.

The system still allows for equal access to the electorate, aided but not determined by money; each person in the US is able to cast their vote for whom ever they chose. Anyone over a certain age may stand for office, so where is the problem? If there truely was a demand, the system is not prohibiting that demand from being met. The problem seems to be that the alternative product is just not good enough, is badly marketed and does not give good enough return on investment to be successful.

The libertarian veiw seems to be that the system that has allowed the bi-partisan monopoly to dominate is flawed yet the system is organic in form and has grown from a free-market. It is natural for a company to make every effort to secure its future success, it seems that the Rebublicans and the Democrats are better suited to the rigours of competition than their Libertarian detractors. The libertarians argue that the free-market is a cure-all for choice yet the free-market birthed this bi-partisan monopoly.

I realise that this veiw could easily be dimissed as an over-simplification, however it is meant as a starting point for discussion. I am also mindful that when debating property rights, an equally complex issue, with a libertarian I was told "keep it simple, stupid".

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: pubmanager I am interested to see the comments of the Libertarians on this issue. It occurs to me that the rise of the bi-partisan political monopoly, and indeed partisan politics in general, can be seen as analogous to the workings of a free market.

A completely false premise.


There is no "agreement" that what is presented is fair, the process has been taken over through media manipulation. The words "equal time" have passed from the popular vernacular, as has its practice.


"If", and that is a GREAT BIG IF, the Libertarians could be heard, your points may have some merit, but do not assume there is popular concensus of the way things are, most people are completely ignorant of the process, and have let others form their opinions for them, and merely regurgitate them on command.

[pubmanager]

Quote by: Milton Bradley A completely false premise.

Fine, but at least have the decency to explain why you think this in some degree of detail.

As I said quite clearly my post was intended to start discussion.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: pubmanager Fine, but at least have the decency to explain why you think this in some degree of detail. As I said quite clearly my post was intended to start discussion.

The answer was provided, you must have just overlooked it.


Media takeover, plain, and simple.


No person can make an informed decision about anything without being prested the truth. As the truth is absent from the Western Media these days, the presumption that one could get popular concensus, or make in informed decision is ludicrous.


Unless you use the internet, that is.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis...ckingbird.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOCKINGBIRD
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2005/1269

[Milton Bradley]

This http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html is probably a relavent link to this discussion as well, as it proves that even the election process has beem compromised.

[RVonse]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/debates.html is probably a relavent link to this discussion as well, as it proves that even the election process has beem compromised.

I was very dissapointed in the last debates, simply because nothing except Iraq was ever talked about. Almost like a broken record, its like Iraq had to be beat to death on every question at the expense of concern for the economy or other domestic issues of great interest and concern.

As far as the election itself, I still can't understand why so little attention is made of the voting scandel in Ohio. Why are not more people voicing concern over this? I just don't get it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RVonse I was very dissapointed in the last debates, simply because nothing except Iraq was ever talked about. Almost like a broken record, its like Iraq had to be beat to death on every question at the expense of concern for the economy or other domestic issues of great interest and concern.

It was definately a staged, rehearsed event, meant to keep people from having to much information about the potential Presidential candidates. Makes me qonder what they know, that I don't.

Quote by: RVonse As far as the election itself, I still can't understand why so little attention is made of the voting scandel in Ohio. Why are not more people voicing concern over this? I just don't get it.

I think to many peopel are confortable with the fact that even if their party is not in power, they likely will be next time because of all the corruption, and scandle in the news. Just gotta wait four, maybe eight years, and then everything is all good again, because their side of the aisle is in charge again.


I think it speaks volumes about the truth behind the lies. There would not be such an effort to hide the conspiracy if it did not exist.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pubmanager said:
The libertarian veiw seems to be that the system that has allowed the bi-partisan monopoly to dominate is flawed yet the system is organic in form and has grown from a free-market. It is natural for a company to make every effort to secure its future success, it seems that the Rebublicans and the Democrats are better suited to the rigours of competition than their Libertarian detractors. The libertarians argue that the free-market is a cure-all for choice yet the free-market birthed this bi-partisan monopoly.

I say:
Well Pub, let me take a stab at this for you.

First off, Libertarians see the checks and balances of our system of government as the great equalizer, second only to the gun.

In the mid-1800's, we saw a change in the political climate. At that time, how was the political climate? During the years 1850-1910, the United States evolved from an agrarian to an industrial political economy. By the end of the century, industrialization has shifted the focus of the entire political system toward national government power, beginning a trend that continues today. Most, if not all of the major changes that happened during that period were set in law, by the two major parties agendas, and more extreme ideologies.

During this period, we saw much more legislation aimed at easing laws or restrictions on corporations, yet at the same time, increasing encroachment by Executive Power, as well as Legislative power on citizens rights.

The only reason we moved TOWARDS central banking, was due to INDUSTRY pressure, combined with the fact that the Federal Government was severely limited in its ability to make war, thanks to the Forefathers. You have to remember that in the beginning, for the first 50 to 75 years, people like Tom Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry and the others were not only still alive and watching, but also each believed that "wealth", both informational as well as economic, were forms of liberty, as well as possible weaknesses that could allow footholds for corruption. They all spoke strongly of creating personal wealth, and spoke strongly of the need for education to fully realize ones self potential. HOWEVER, they did NOT apply that theory towards government, and in fact spoke against it, and took steps in the Constitution to limit the ability of Federal Government creating or obtaining wealth. They saw that the ability to control wealth, wages and investment was a way to create corruption and tyranny, at least when speaking of governments. They saw education as something only the individual could decide to aspire to, so therefore the individual was left to educate himself, or not. They KNEW that if government controlled either, they would multiply exponentially to engulf the OTHER one, and eventually, power would be usurped from the people by use of force (created by governments ability to obtain wealth relatively unchecked) or by controlling information (through education, or mis-education, or by controlling newspapers, burning books, etc.).

Let me highlight a couple of essential parts from George Washingtons Farewell Address. George was as Libertarian as any Libertarian I have ever met, and after being in the lead seat controlling the nation as President, many WANTED HIM as a King, for they feared of the odds of finding another man so noble who would do such great things with the limited power bestowed on them. Washington refused, and spoke harshly of the IDEA of a King, when he saw no King able to resist the temptation of power, and often doubted even himself in that ability. His wise words on leaving office, could be looked at today as prophetic words of logic being applied to the obvious faults of our system, that they HOPED posterity would address, and do so correctly based on the examples of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolt, and the words within first the Articles of Confederation, but later, the Constitution.

George Washington said in 1796: (Keep in mind, the Bill of Rights ratified December 15, 1791)

(speaking on the power holders, the people of the United States.)
If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained;

(Talking about the benefits of the Union, and the free market it embraces in the American Experiment.)
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

(Speaking on Liberty and the Union, and the common thread of all societies, which is government.)
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

(continued)

[Osborn F Enready]

(continued)

Speaking on the evils of parties, and partisanship.)
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

(Speaking of a clear weakness for parties to overtake the system, in the name of noble causes, and speaking directly to the right of the people to overthrow the government which attempts or succeeds in using these tactics. Keep in mind, at this time in government circa 1796, the Bill of Rights stood proud and unmolested by laws of states, or federal systems. The individual was a whole, and the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, was the "Law of the Land".)
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

(More, directly, at the evils of party mentality and its effects on the union and individual. He speaks of how the "brotherhood" of party can easily be manipulated toward ill effect, using patriotic and individual zeal.)
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 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 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.

(Speaking on the clear, and ever present danger of blind loyalty to party or country.)
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.

(Speaking on the clear intention of our Constitution, and Bill of Rights and seperate branches of government, to EFFECTIVELY LIMIT the consolidation of power to the best of their educated abilities of the time.)
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted 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 necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern;

(Speaking on the evils and manipulation ability of credit, and rendering wise words as to making it a goal to minimize all foreign debts by not incurring them, unless an absolute necessity. When doing so, it is only just obligation that the generation that incurs it, pay it in full. He also speaks of the importance of minimal taxation, only enough to provide NECESSITIES.)
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 exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

(Speaking on the importance of transparency in the system, to maintain and encourage public opinion, as well as warning of the blind loyalist mentality whether in the form of partisanship or nationalism.)
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.