An Immoral Monopoly, Part I

by Sam Huntington

Our country today is spiraling into the terrible abyss of perpetual discord. For the past 150 years or so, we divided ourselves into two camps. Democrats evolved from anti-Federalist sentiments, and Republicans who sought to instill the checks and balances of a federalist system of government. By this time, one might think that such matters are long settled—and this would be true were it not for the fact that both political parties continue to redefine what it is they stand for. For the purpose of this discussion, however, what a faction calls itself is less important than how it behaves.

Many people regard James Madison as the father of our present Constitution. At the time of the convention, he was a staunch federalist, even though in time he would realign himself with Jefferson and the so-called Democrat-Republicans. Writing under the shared pseudonym Publius, Madison constructed Federalist 10 around the notion that one utility of a well-constructed union would be its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. From his extensive reading, Madison warned us that political faction is the source of social instability and injustice —in the ancient republics, and within emerging American state constitutions.

Judging from how our society has evolved over the past sixty years, Mr. Madison could not have been more correct. It is hard to know whether our transition away from a free society was a matter of inattentive citizens, or whether it was part of a grand scheme to deny citizens exposure to civics education. Regardless, it would seem that most Americans today are completely oblivious to the fact that we have arrived at this critical junction.

In another time, Democrats and Republicans confronted one another through forceful debate. It was often not a pretty sight, but such was the intention of our founding fathers. Congress, a deliberative body, should debate issues, squabble loudly, refuse to budge on matters of principle, eventually give a little ground, and then finally find an area of agreement. Political agreements must hinge on national interest—as opposed to what is good for the career of politicians or one political faction.

Then one day, politicians in Washington began to discuss how the congress was gridlocked. “Congress isn’t doing the people’s business,” they argued. Except that gridlock is doing the people’s business. Few things in government require a decision right this minute, and even someone educated in today’s public schools should be wary of a politician who wants to “move an issue” along. We must always wonder, “To what purpose does this matter need to be moved along?”

James Madison supposed that whenever a society acknowledges freedom as an essential element of politics, there will develop a natural diversity of opinions and interests. Diverse opinions flow naturally from reason, passion, and unequal faculties. This is easy to understand and embrace, but we must now ponder, what happens to a society whenever citizens take their liberty for granted and no longer give much thought to their natural rights?

Herein lies the foundation of our modern calamity: uninformed citizens, uninvolved citizens, and acquiescence to the institution of Marxist ideology within what was once the Democratic Party. To help achieve this general acceptance of un-American principles, it has been necessary to repudiate such notions as civil debate, which Democrats have replaced with rules for radicals, including personal attacks and intolerable labels. It is not the purpose of Marxists to engage us in meaningful debate; only to silence political opposition.