The Wells Brothers' Election Non-Endorsement: October 2020

by David R. Wells and Lawrence H. Wells
26 Oct 2020

Why Trump must be voted out of office in 2020

What's wrong with Trump

Before the 2016 election we wrote:

CHARLATAN (char'la tan) – A quack; a pretender to knowledge or ability.

FRAUD (frốd) – (3rd definition) A cheat; impostor

- Webster's New International Dictionary, (second edition)

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

The neat, plausible, and wrong solution to the problems of 2016 is Donald Trump. We believe he is unfit to be President. An important reason is that he clearly has given no thought to... pretty much anything except himself.

Since then Trump has done nothing to improve our opinion of him. Indeed we would now add the following: Arrogant, braggart, bully, corrupt, deliberately divisive, incompetent, liar, narcissist, race baiting, reckless, selfish, and willfully ignorant. If we had to summarize this with only one word, we would choose a word we have never before associated with an American President: Appalling.

Trump is incapable of admitting error, which brings to mind a slogan from one of his historical precursors: "Il Duce ha sempre ragione". Students of history will recall that things ended quite badly under that particular regime.

Trump's deliberate divisiveness brings to mind the old strategies of Divide and Conquer, and Divide and Rule. The nation would do well to remember the words of an earlier President:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - A. Lincoln, 1858

Whether unintentional or intentional this divisiveness of course plays right into the hands of our opponents, particularly China and Russia. If we are busy fighting ourselves, they can do as they please, often to our detriment. Again, we should listen to voices from our past.

"... A house divided upon itself - and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us." - Abigail Adams, c.1812

Even when we agree with one of Trump's policies we're dismayed with his inept implementation. His approach to China's unfair trade practices is a good example. China's trade practices have been a significant problem that goes back to at least the Clinton administration. The George W. Bush and Obama administrations did little to address this problem, in part because (1) China's economy is now comparable in size to the US economy, which gives it considerable ability to counter any steps the US might take; and (2) The US economy has become overly dependent on China, so any serious effort to address the problem will involve some economic pain. But clearly something had to be done. Given the size of China's economy it is obvious that the only approach that has any chance of success is to coordinate our actions with the the other major industrial powers, who not surprisingly don't like China's unfair trade practices either. Instead Trump chose to first start a trade war against the other powers - our allies - thereby insuring that we would have to deal with China alone. Predictably this did not work. Trump's recent trade deal with China looks distressingly like the sort of deals negotiated by previous administrations: We allow China unrestricted access to the US markets in exchange for unenforceable promises to buy more US commodities, and to stop stealing our intellectual property. To us it looks like China sold us a famous bridge. Again.

Trump's incompetent leadership during the current COVID-19 pandemic is so glaringly obvious that it hardly needs to be restated here.

In many ways Trump is behaving like a typical politician, just louder and more transparent. He done little or nothing to solve the problems that he exploited during his 2016 campaign, and often seems more interested in not solving them so he can exploit them again in 2020. Trump sometimes said he intends to "drain the swamp" of Washington. But if we continue the "swamp" analogy, he looks more like a python in the Everglades....

Giving the Devil his Due

Trump's stated policies are sometimes correct, just as a stopped clock shows the correct time twice per day.

As stated earlier we agree that China's long standing unfair trade practices had to be addressed. Unfortunately his actions on this issue have been predictably ineffective. In 2019 the trade deficit with China was very nearly the same as it was in 2016.

Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden: The most likely alternative?

We're not enthusiastic about Joe Biden. On the positive side his past positions have generally been center-left rather than far left. While we might disagree with some of the positions he's taken, if he were elected we could accept them as "the will of the voters". Our main concern is his apparent ability to overlook ethical lapses. An obvious example is that he doesn't seem to understand that some of his son's business dealings, while probably legal, do not pass the "smell test". His remarks during a 1 Nov 2019 interview by PBS NewsHour demonstrate this.

Our bottom line: Given a binary choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, we'd pick Biden. But we'd need to hold our noses. And the choice isn't necessarily binary. There are other parties, and “write in” votes are an option.

The two-party "system" is broken, and probably irreparably.

Once political parties represented particular ideas about policy and political principles. For the two dominant parties, this is no longer the case. While both parties pay lip service to principles, in practice both are primarily concerned with maintaining their power, and helping their friends. Both are far too willing to put party ahead of country. One does not look beyond the political fights over recent Supreme Court nominees to find evidence of this. In the current fight over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, both parties unabashedly make exactly the opposite arguments that they made during the 2016 fight over the Merrick Garland nomination. The problem is less with the nominees themselves than with the degeneration of the nomination process. Twenty years ago nominees like Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett would have been confirmed easily with bipartisan support.

Another indication that both major parties are primarily concerned with maintaining their own power is the rampant use of partisan "gerrymandering" to create "safe" districts for their incumbents. Both major parties do this whenever they can.

Both parties rely on fear mongering to motivate their voters instead of offering actual policy choices. In an election the positions of both come down to "If the other party wins, disaster will surely follow! They will [insert something you think will frighten your party's base here. If you're a Democrat, something like "destroy the environment" or "take away a woman's right to control her own body"; if you're a Republican, something like "take away your 2nd Amendment rights", or "restrict your right to practice your religion"]! Another common election argument used by candidates from both parties is "I might be a bum, but the other candidate is even worse!"

And once in power, both parties all too often govern as if opposing viewpoints did not exist. Both will claim to have a mandate from the voters no matter how slim their margin of victory actually was, and then try to use that "mandate" to ram their party's favored legislation through whether the public wants it or not. Perhaps the most extreme examples are the Clinton Administration, which claimed a "mandate" after winning the 1992 election with just a 43% plurality of the popular vote; and the Trump Administration which claimed a "mandate" after narrowly winning the 2016 election in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. This inevitably leads to a backlash, and usually quickly. We saw this in 1994, 2010, and 2018.

We fear that both major parties may be beyond saving. They need to be replaced. Unfortunately this will not be easy.

What's wrong with the Republican Party

They've lost their principles.

In the past the Republican Party generally stood for a set of principles that included:

Most if not all of these principles have been abandoned.

Competent governance

As we noted earlier, even when we agree with one of Trump's policies we're dismayed with his inept implementation. The rest of the Republican Party has done little if anything to counter the ineptitude. We must note the chaos in the Executive Branch. The constant hirings and firings make the Executive Branch seem more like a reality show than a government. Further, the demand for personal loyalty to the President above all has proven to be a liability. The use of acting cabinet secretaries is highly ineffective.

Rule of Law

The willingness of the Republicans in the Senate to excuse President Trump's blatant misuse of the power of his office for personal gain clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party has abandoned this principle.

A limited role for the Federal government, as defined by the US Constitution

In the past many conservative Republicans advocated a very literal interpretation of the US Constitution known as "strict constructionism". This countered the prevailing liberal concept of interpreting the Constitution flexibly. Yet many Republicans supported Trump's radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment on “birthright citizenship”. They've either supported or remained silent on Trump's radical reinterpretation of the meaning of its phrase "counting the whole number of persons in each State". Apparently they now believe that a president can amend the Constitution with an executive order. It will be interesting to see if they continue to believe this when a Democrat is elected President. (And sooner or later a Democrat will be elected. The political cycle always turns, eventually.)

Fiscal restraint

The Republican Party has championed a balanced Federal budget at least since Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House. Under the Trump Administration the Republican Party has totally abandoned the notion of a balanced budget. The Federal deficit has grown every year since Donald Trump took office. This year it is on track to exceed $1 trillion for the first time since the end of the Great Recession of 2008. Trump's 2020 budget proposals project deficits above $1 trillion through 2022, and over $700 billion at the end of his (projected) 2nd term. When President Obama left office the deficit was $665 billion, and trending down.

The Democratic Party cannot be credibly blamed for any of this. The Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress until January 2019, and continues to hold the Senate.

Engagement with the rest of the world through robust diplomacy and international institutions

We need support from our traditional allies if we are to confront China. Under the best of circumstances, this is not easy. Many of our traditional allies were quick to betray us to make a quick buck. Trump’s bullying tactics have not only failed to bring our traditional allies into line, it has made them question the reliability of the Untied States.

A strong national defense to deter potential aggressors

On the surface it might appear that the Republican Party has not abandoned this principle. But when one looks below the surface it becomes clear that the reality is quite different.

It is true that defense spending has increased substantially since the end of the Obama administration, at least when measured in "current year" dollars. When measured in inflation corrected "constant dollars" defense spending is still up, but by only 2%. And as a percentage of GDP defense spending has actually fallen, from 3.17% in 2016 to 3.07% in 2018. (2018 is the most recent year for which actual rather than estimated spending data is available.)

Things look much worse when we examine what we've actually gotten for our defense dollars. We will save the details for a later article as the discussion will be rather lengthy. As a quick overview we will simply report the "overall military power" ratings from the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 editions of the Heritage Foundation's Index of US Military Strength:

Service

Fiscal Year 2016 Overall Military Power rating (from 2017 Index of US Military Strength)

Fiscal Year 2019 Overall Military Power rating (from 2020 Index of US Military Strength)

Strategic nuclear forces (Navy and Air Force)

Marginal (3 of 5)

Marginal (3 of 5)

Army

Weak (2 of 5)

Marginal (3 of 5)

Navy

Marginal (3 of 5)

Marginal (3 of 5)

Air Force

Marginal (3 of 5)

Marginal (3 of 5)

Marine Corps

Marginal (3 of 5)

Marginal (3 of 5)

(The Heritage Foundation has not published the 2021 Index of US Military Strength yet, unfortunately.)

The Heritage Foundation ratings combine Capacity, which is essentially the quantity of manpower and equipment suitable for the assigned missions; Capability, essentially the quality of that equipment and the health of the underlying weapons procurement and development programs; and Readiness, which is a combination of how well individual military units are manned and trained, and how well their equipment is maintained.

We also present little of the underlying data that we found particularly disturbing:

The number of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) is did not change between 2016 and 2019, and Army end strength is 1.75% lower. The number of the Army's newest and most capable Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), the M2 Bradley, has fallen by 2,847.

The number of Navy carrier air wings decreased from 11 to 10 between 2016 and 2019, while the number of fighter aircraft fell from 878 to 576. We now have fewer carrier air wings than aircraft carriers, meaning one of our carriers is effectively an aircraft-less carrier. The total number of commissioned ships has increased from 232 in June 2016 to 252 in September 2020. On the surface this seems encouraging, but a closer look reveals that 15 of the new ships are Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) which are of limited value. The six new Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers are far more useful, but we must note that the Burke class is a rather old design that dates to the Reagan administration.

Free (more or less) market economics

The Trump Administration has championed protectionism and tariffs. While these are sometimes needed to counter the unfair trade policies of other countries (notably China), history has shown that they usually lead to slower overall economic growth. And tariffs are after all a form of taxation, paid by you the consumer.

The Trump Administration has also tried to prop up favored industries, notably the coal industry. While they like to blame the industry's decline on excessive regulation, it is actually mostly due to the availability of inexpensive domestically produced natural gas. Coal fired power plants are being replaced by natural gas fired plants simply because gas is cheaper than coal. Government intervention can't change that fundamental fact.

We also must note that despite Trump's hyperbolic claims these economic policies have not measurably improved the economy. Real GDP growth between 2017 and 2019 continued at the same unremarkable 2.3% pace seen between 2013 and 2017, despite greater economic stimulus in the form of larger Federal deficits and near zero interest rates. (We're excluding 2020 from this analysis to keep the current COVID-19 related recession from skewing the results.) Employment trends between 2017 and 2019 are also virtually identical to those seen during the 2nd term of the Obama Administration.

Having abandoned their principles, they have nothing to offer except fear and pandering.

At worst today's Republican Party panders shamelessly to the worst side of human nature: Fear, hatred, and bigotry. At best it tolerates those who do the pandering. This is neither the party of Lincoln, nor the party of Reagan, Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, Bush, Ford, or even Nixon. Nixon at least knew how to conduct foreign policy.

We think it might be time for the Republican Party to go the way of the American Party of the 1850s, and for much the same reasons.

What's wrong with the Democratic Party

Rampant intellectual dishonesty.

The Democrats too often seem unwilling to publicly admit that they favor a policy that might not be popular with the general public. Their approach to immigration policy is a good example. Most Democrats running for national office claim to be against "open borders". Yet most of those in office have consistently supported policies that at best tolerate illegal immigration. This amounts to a de facto open borders policy. We'd have far more respect for Democrats who favor an open borders policy if they advocated for it openly, and at least tried to make the case on its merits.

This brings us to a second form of intellectual dishonesty. If the Democrats are unable win a policy debate on its merits, they usually will try to "re-define" the issue. Their approach to marijuana "legalization" is a good example. Marijuana legalization was initially unpopular with the voting public. The Democrats were unable to gain much support with the reasonable "pragmatic" argument that keeping marijuana illegal creates problems with smuggling and its associated violent crime that are worse than the problem of individual marijuana use. They seemed unwilling (probably for ideological reasons) to make a "libertarian" argument for legalization on the grounds that an individual should have the right to do something that does not harm anyone else. Instead they argued that marijuana should be legalized for "medicinal purposes". The fact that there is no hard science to show that marijuana is a safe or effective treatment for any disease was conveniently swept under the rug; anecdotal "evidence" was substituted for hard scientific data data. (Evidently the "pro science" Democrats only support science that agrees with their policy positions.) Once they managed to pass "medical marijuana" legislation in some states - conveniently ignoring the fact that marijuana is still illegal under Federal law - they set about passing state laws to "legalize" recreational uses of marijuana (again ignoring Federal laws against marijuana use). This is a classic "camel's nose in the tent" strategy.

At this point we must give an honorable mention to Bernie Sanders. While we disagree with most of his policies and probably wouldn't vote for him, we appreciate his honesty. He is one of the very few politicians on the Left who argues for his positions honestly and on their merits instead of merely trying to stifle debate by putting his opponents in some "basket of deplorables". He is also one of the very few on the left who is honest enough to openly say that socialist policies are expensive, and must be funded through higher taxes on everyone.

Hypocrisy

This goes hand-in-hand with intellectual dishonesty. Our previous comments on intellectual dishonesty note how the supposedly "pro science" Democratic Party is willing to ignore the complete lack of scientific evidence supporting medical uses of marijuana, and how a Democratic Party that claims to be against an "open borders" policy consistently favor policies that amount to de facto open borders. These are also forms of hypocrisy.

There is of course a well known and even more glaringly obvious example: When President William Jefferson Clinton accepted certain "favors" from a female junior member of his staff, no nationally prominent Democrat publicly uttered the phrase "sexual harassment".

Another sign of hypocrisy is the Democratic Party's willingness to tolerate corrupt political leaders within its ranks. We do not need to look past our home states of New Jersey and New York to see the glaring evidence.

Intolerance

The Democrats, particularly those on the Left, often accuse the Right of intolerance. Yet in our experience the Left is at least as intolerant of differing views as the Right, and probably far more so. The Left simply has better P.R.

If we disagree with someone on the Right, the response is usually something like "You're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're completely wrong. Let's discuss it over a beer." The Left on the other hand will often try to label their opponents as some "deplorable" whose views are abhorrent and therefore unworthy discussion. The issue of illegal immigration is a good example. Anyone who even suggests that illegal immigration is actually illegal is immediately branded "anti immigrant", and possibly racist. This is obviously intended to suppress a legitimate policy debate about US immigration law and its enforcement. In some cases the intent to suppress debate is quite open, as in this October 2019 case involving Harvard's student newspaper. The paper was not advocating for (or against) the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agency; it was merely seeking the agency's comments, correctly applying Jim Lehrer's 3rd Rule of Journalism: "Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

Let us not forget that it was the political left that invented “political correctness”, mainly to suppress opposing viewpoints. Once the radicals of the 1960s had achieved safe, tenured positions at various universities, they worked to ensure that anyone who disagreed with them could not be hired. They would label the Curriculum Vitae of people who were known to agree with them with the letters “PC” so that the human resources people would know who to hire. Before long, many university faculties became liberal echo chambers. In such environments, political orthodoxies can be enforced easily, and opponents (real or imagined) demonized. Positions become more extreme.

Willingness to tolerate corruption within its ranks

We do not need to look beyond our home states of New Jersey and New York to find glaring evidence of this. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's administration has been plagued with corruption scandals, particularly within the economic development agencies that Cuomo removed from the oversight of the state's Comptroller. (Of course the Governor was shocked, shocked to discover that his appointees practiced corruption in the absence of independent oversight.) And Governor Cuomo can always be relied upon to support state government ethics reform, as long as it does not apply to the Governor's office.

Republicans and conservatives can have problems with corruption too (Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Chris Collins are recent examples), but they (usually) do a better job of cleaning house. Donald Trump is of course the major exception.

By comparison, consider the regimes in Newark, Detroit, Chicago, Jersey City, Rochester, etc.

What we think the Democratic Party should do if they want to defeat Trump

The Democratic Party cannot win the 2020 general election with only the support of its base. If it wants to win in November, it needs to earn the support of centrist voters who are highly skeptical of the far left policies favored by its base. It needs to earn the support of people like us.

The first step is to at least recognize the problems with the Democratic Party that we described in the previous section. The second step is to recognize that the issues that Donald Trump exploits are real, and in the past the Democratic Party has failed to address them. The Democratic party must not simply write off voters who care about these issues, as it has done in the past.

So far the Democratic Party has avoided the obvious mistake of choosing a far left candidate who cannot win the general election. As we noted earlier Joe Biden is a fairly conventional center-left Democrat that center-right voters can at least tolerate.

If the Democratic Party wishes to earn the votes of centrist, center-right, and principled conservatives - voters like us - it must run with platform that we can support, or at least accept.

The real test will come if Joe Biden wins and the Democratic Party gains control of both houses of Congress. Should this happen they must not simply force through divisive policies favored by the party's left wing They must recognize that our views are worthy of respect even if they disagree with the party's position. They must be willing to work with people who may disagree with the Democratic Party's policies. They must instead be able to find areas where we can agree, and focus on those areas of agreement. If they fail to do this, their victory is likely to be short lived.

A lurch to the far left might appeal to a segment of the Democratic Party's membership, but it is not likely to go over well with the broader electorate. The December 2019 election in the UK should be a cautionary tale for the Democratic Party. The Labour party campaigned on a far left platform that included higher taxes to fund increased public spending; expanded government services (among them free education, free broadband internet service, free bus service, and free "personal care"); re-nationalizing certain industries; a shorter work week; and a "green industrial revolution" leading to a "zero carbon emission" economy by 2045. It was decisively defeated by the Conservative Party led by the unpopular Prime Minister Boris Johnson. This was the worst defeat for Labour in 80 years. Those on the left wing of the Democratic Party will no doubt counter that Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was a problematic candidate (which he was), but this ignores the fact that the opposing party's leader wasn't personally popular with the electorate either. We believe skepticism of Labour's far left platform was more important than the individual failings of either party's leaders. We believe the situation is similar in the United States.

What's wrong with the News Media

A healthy press is vital to a functioning democracy. The news media needs to do a better job.

Too much emphasis on getting the story fast, too little on getting the story right

Part of this problem is over-reliance on "social media" and similar fast but dubious sources. Twitter is particularly bad at generating outrage through false impressions based on limited data that's taken out of context. The well known January 2019 confrontation near the Lincoln Memorial is a good example. A short video clip of apparently reprehensible behavior generated "social media" outrage which was picked up by the mainstream news media. When a longer video that showed the entire incident was made public, it became obvious that the real story was more far complex. Some of the mainstream news media did note that the initial reporting was inaccurate, and that the initial misleading twit (oops, I meant tweet) was posted by a political pressure group with an obvious axe to grind. CNN and NBC also reported that there was evidence that the initial tweet was artificially amplified in an intentional attempt to mislead Twitter users. But the damage was already done.

Slanted reporting,unintentional or otherwise

The mainstream news media rarely make things up out of whole cloth, but they often "cherry pick" only facts that support their desired narrative. Last year's coverage of the death of Ambassador Joseph Wilson is an excellent example. NPR's report is typical. Note that the discussion of the leak that exposed that his wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent does not even mention Richard Armitage, who admitted to being the source of the leak. This was widely reported at the time. [CNN report] [CBS report] [New York Times report] [Washington Post report]. Instead it discusses I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr's conviction for for perjury and obstruction of justice, and implies (though doesn't actually say) that he was responsible for the leak.

Another method favored by many news media outlets is using euphemisms or other carefully crafted language designed to promote the favored viewpoint.

Example: Virtually overnight all mainstream news media outlets first replaced the phrase "Illegal immigrants" with "undocumented immigrants", and later just “immigrants”, obfuscating the fact that entering the US in a manner that is contrary to US law is in fact illegal. "Undocumented" is obviously intended to create the impression that it is instead merely a bureaucratic paperwork problem. (We must concede that the older phrase "illegal aliens" was loaded in the other direction. ) This obfuscation also devalues those who made the effort to come to the United States legally. All of this brings to mind Newspeak from George Orwell's 1984. Newspeak was based on the notion that thought can be controlled by controlling language. It's hard to think something if there are no words for it. Big Brother seems to be alive and well......

The perils of news as business

One reason for the general decline in the quality of journalism is that most commercial media outlets now treat their news departments as a profit center rather than a service to its viewers. This should not be surprising. Commercial media is not in the business of delivering quality content to its viewers; it is in the business of delivering your eyeballs to advertisers. This business model provides an overwhelming incentive to present short, attention grabbing stories. The Outrage of the Day reliably grabs attention, so this is what gets reported. Serious discussions of policy issues can be rather dry, so they are not presented.

What the Media should do to fix its problems

We note with some sadness the passing of Jim Lehrer (1934-2020). All of the news media, including PBS and NPR, would do well to review his rules of journalism:

1. Do nothing I cannot defend.

2. Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.

3. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

4. Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.

5. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.

6. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.

7. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything

8. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be allowed to attack another anonymously.

9. “I am not in the entertainment business.”

An Appeal for Civility

If you didn't read it already, Sen. McCain's final statement is well worth reading. Most of the news media only read excerpts.

If we are to honor his memory, then perhaps the best we can do is talk to each other, especially those we disagree with, in a civil fashion. Listen to them too. Most of your "opponents" are reasonable people, not 3-headed monsters. Don't let the forces of polarization win. Polarization is exactly what the enemies of democracy want. Polarization will be our undoing. As Abraham Lincoln (paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 12:25) famously noted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

We need to re-learn how to disagree with each other without turning the other side into an enemy.

At this point we will give an honorable mention Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Republican-Libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Despite their many differences they were able to find an area of agreement on criminal justice reform. Their long term joint effort culminated in the December 2018 passage of the First Step Act of 2018. ( At first glance this link will appear to point to an unrelated bill. The relevant portion starts with Title 1. Yes, our system is a bit convoluted, often bringing Bismarck's comment about law and sausage to mind. But we digress.) The rest of Congress should follow their example.

We will close with the immortal words of Harry Tuttle, the outlaw plumber from the movie "Brazil": "We're all in this together, kid."

What would the Founding Fathers say?

"AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. ... It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."

"... a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

"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."

- George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)


Click here to return to the Wells Brothers home page.