our bipartisan-ship is sinking
The American Revolution is one of the most talked-about times in American history, and for good reason; the masterminds behind it were some of the most intriguing personalities ever seen in politics. The political structure in that era was just as interesting as the people. When George Washington was president, he was able to float above party lines and make final decisions separately from Congress, the Federalists, and the Republicans. John Adams tried to mimic Washington's decisive leadership, but after his presidency, Thomas Jefferson took the role of a partisan president and, other than brief stints of feigned bipartisanship during the Reagan era, America never went back. Why did this happen? Why have we not had presidents like Washington, who were so focused on doing right by their country that they could not be drawn into a two-party, us-and-them mindset? As shown by Joseph J. Ellis' analysis of the John Adams presidency in Founding Brothers, our sharply divided two-party system has made it impossible to have even a remotely non-partisan president in office.
Once Washington left office, John Adams tried his hardest to rise above the Federalist-Republican debate and benevolently rule the land like Washington did. But, as Adams wrote to his friend Benjamin Rush as his public life was ending, "Mausoleums, statues monuments will never be erected to me... Panegyrical romances will never be written nor flattering orations spoken, to transmit me to posterity in brilliant colors. No, nor in true colors. All but the last I loathe." (220) Unlike Washington, Adams was not America's favorite war hero and did not have the unbridled support of the entire nation. The primary problem was unchangeable: he was not George Washington. While his political savvy rivaled the best thinkers of the time, he did not have the physical attributes to play the handsome, stoic leader who always knows right from wrong. Similarly, his contributions to the revolution were mainly behind closed doors. While Washington led troops across the Delaware, Adams was busy drumming up support for the cause with his passionate speeches in secret conventions. If Washington embodied the revolution, Adams was the tongue, directing the oral rhetoric behind Washington's noble front.
Yet even if Adams were a publicly revered leader like Washington, his fellow politicians still wouldn't have taken kindly to his non-partisanship. When Adams ditched party backing to run the country as he saw fit, it was bound to end in disaster, as Ellis writes: "At the domestic level, Adams inherited a supercharged political atmosphere every bit as ominous and intractable as the tangle on the international scenes... His vice president was the leader of the opposition party; his cabinet was loyal to [Alexander Hamilton]... It was a recipe for political chaos." (187) With all of these pressures stacked up against him, one wonders how Adams won the election against Jefferson in the first place. With Federalist backing, though, he was able to squeak into office with Jefferson as his vice president. Once in office, Adams began to make his own decisions, which lead to his cabinet shifting its loyalties to Hamilton. The Republican party, on the other hand, was loyal to Jefferson, so both parties opposed his presidential decisions. Without the Federalist party loyal to his cause, and with the Republicans ardently in support of Jefferson, Adams was caught in the middle of a heated political battle that he couldn't possibly win. In a government ruled by two all-powerful parties, there was no room for a president like Adams to ease the tensions between them.
Looking at the political landscape today, it seems even more unlikely to have a mediator as a president, rather than a "party man". Democrats and Republicans disagree on all kinds of issues, and their monopoly on modern media has made it nearly impossible for independents to rise in the political system. What's more, the political pressure on congressmen to vote along party lines makes it nearly impossible for an independent-minded Democrat or Republican to get near the presidency. Currently, there are only two independents in the Senate, with a few other senators who don't always vote along party lines. With this kind of mindset in Congress, Presidents are certain to act as their party wants them to; they have done this their entire political life.
While the idea of a non-partisan president like George Washington is appealing in several ways, would it be good for our country today? It certainly seems like Congress needs a figurehead to mediate conflicts between the vastly polarized Democratic and Republican viewpoints. But when we look back on the Revolution, the reason that the United States separated from England in the first place was to escape a monarchical rule. During Washington's presidency, the entire country looked up to him for leadership and judgment, and every major decision came down to his word. He was practically a more humble version of a British monarch, but Congress and the people were too infatuated with him to care. From Jefferson's presidency on, the two-party system has worked just as it was designed; if half of the people in the country disagree with the President's politics, it makes it difficult for him to have the power Washington did. So perhaps Adams was ideologically correct to try to extend Washington's legacy as the benevolent monarch, but the entrenched two-party system of the United States made deeply partisan Presidents an inevitability.
Once Washington left office, John Adams tried his hardest to rise above the Federalist-Republican debate and benevolently rule the land like Washington did. But, as Adams wrote to his friend Benjamin Rush as his public life was ending, "Mausoleums, statues monuments will never be erected to me... Panegyrical romances will never be written nor flattering orations spoken, to transmit me to posterity in brilliant colors. No, nor in true colors. All but the last I loathe." (220) Unlike Washington, Adams was not America's favorite war hero and did not have the unbridled support of the entire nation. The primary problem was unchangeable: he was not George Washington. While his political savvy rivaled the best thinkers of the time, he did not have the physical attributes to play the handsome, stoic leader who always knows right from wrong. Similarly, his contributions to the revolution were mainly behind closed doors. While Washington led troops across the Delaware, Adams was busy drumming up support for the cause with his passionate speeches in secret conventions. If Washington embodied the revolution, Adams was the tongue, directing the oral rhetoric behind Washington's noble front.
Yet even if Adams were a publicly revered leader like Washington, his fellow politicians still wouldn't have taken kindly to his non-partisanship. When Adams ditched party backing to run the country as he saw fit, it was bound to end in disaster, as Ellis writes: "At the domestic level, Adams inherited a supercharged political atmosphere every bit as ominous and intractable as the tangle on the international scenes... His vice president was the leader of the opposition party; his cabinet was loyal to [Alexander Hamilton]... It was a recipe for political chaos." (187) With all of these pressures stacked up against him, one wonders how Adams won the election against Jefferson in the first place. With Federalist backing, though, he was able to squeak into office with Jefferson as his vice president. Once in office, Adams began to make his own decisions, which lead to his cabinet shifting its loyalties to Hamilton. The Republican party, on the other hand, was loyal to Jefferson, so both parties opposed his presidential decisions. Without the Federalist party loyal to his cause, and with the Republicans ardently in support of Jefferson, Adams was caught in the middle of a heated political battle that he couldn't possibly win. In a government ruled by two all-powerful parties, there was no room for a president like Adams to ease the tensions between them.
Looking at the political landscape today, it seems even more unlikely to have a mediator as a president, rather than a "party man". Democrats and Republicans disagree on all kinds of issues, and their monopoly on modern media has made it nearly impossible for independents to rise in the political system. What's more, the political pressure on congressmen to vote along party lines makes it nearly impossible for an independent-minded Democrat or Republican to get near the presidency. Currently, there are only two independents in the Senate, with a few other senators who don't always vote along party lines. With this kind of mindset in Congress, Presidents are certain to act as their party wants them to; they have done this their entire political life.
While the idea of a non-partisan president like George Washington is appealing in several ways, would it be good for our country today? It certainly seems like Congress needs a figurehead to mediate conflicts between the vastly polarized Democratic and Republican viewpoints. But when we look back on the Revolution, the reason that the United States separated from England in the first place was to escape a monarchical rule. During Washington's presidency, the entire country looked up to him for leadership and judgment, and every major decision came down to his word. He was practically a more humble version of a British monarch, but Congress and the people were too infatuated with him to care. From Jefferson's presidency on, the two-party system has worked just as it was designed; if half of the people in the country disagree with the President's politics, it makes it difficult for him to have the power Washington did. So perhaps Adams was ideologically correct to try to extend Washington's legacy as the benevolent monarch, but the entrenched two-party system of the United States made deeply partisan Presidents an inevitability.