Learning from history

Almost lost at this point in the stultifying mess created by the present Republican administration is any sense of an opposition party willing to confront an administration clearly intent on rewriting or otherwise ignoring the Constitution of this nation. While Bush has attacked such cherished American liberties as freedom of speech and the assurance of privacy via his "PATRIOT Act," endorsed such until now implicitly un-American philosophies as the use of torture and "pre-emptive" war, all the while flaunting his personal relationship with a distinctly fundamentalist Christian "God" in glaring contradiction to the First Amendment, the only substantial criticism of his dismal presidency has come, sadly, from his own party (witness McCain, Warner and Graham's opposition to provisions in Bush's plan for prosecuting terrorists), or else from the Republican appointee-dominated Supreme Court. Sure, Democratic Congressional critics of the present regime do exist–Senators Feingold and Byrd and Representatives Kucinich, Waxman and Conyers come to mind–but their voices come from the fringes of their own party, while presiding nonentities like Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate (the latter the apparent model for the impotent liberal in the fascist comic strip Mallard Fillmore) have whimpered or otherwise rolled over in the face of the Neocon onslaught. (Reid actually voted with the Republican Senate majority for an anti-flag burning amendment, claiming he didn't think it would pass; the resolution did indeed go down, by the whopping margin of a single vote.) In short, Bill Hicks' notion of the two parties as puppets on either hand of the same puppeteer has never seemed more accurate. Now, with Democrats having a chance to regain control of Congress soon–Republicans have owned the House since Newt Gingrich's anti-Clinton uprising in 1994 and the Senate since 2002–and possibly even the White House in 2008, we may get a chance to see if they have any backbone left at all. Aside from the Karl Rove-like timing of the recent Tom Foley pederasty allegations, there is not a lot to suggest they do. In times like these, a working knowledge of history–and of the Constitution–can provide some insight. History is sort of like the Bible: People can find in it what they want. But it does offer comfort by showing that there is a precedent for virtually every situation we may find ourselves mired in. By ignoring history's precedents– and many public school teachers would suggest there is a movement to diminish history instruction K-12–people who oppose the present system lose ammo. There is comfort in knowing that we've been through bad times before, and survived them. And there are useful examples of how those bad times might be confronted. For example, we've had horrible presidents before. We've witnessed assaults on the Constitution before. And this is far from the first time an opposition party has effectively disintegrated. And each time it's happened, some form of cogent opposition has arisen to take the fallen party's place. Of course, by abdicating their role of opposition party, today's Democrats are not breaking any formal obligation: a two-party system is not mandated by the Constitution. In fact, the nation's early history (1789-1800) saw single-party rule by the George Washington-led Federalists. Washington and the framers of the Constitution in general, in fact, were very much against the idea of an opposition party. However, by the middle of second President John Adams' single term in office, such a system more or less created itself. Inherent philosophical differences between followers of the agronomist/quasi-populist, pro-revolutionary France Thomas Jefferson on the one hand and those of the pro-business, pro-England Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton and Adams) on the other led to the formation of an opposition Republican party. (Note: Some study is required to understand how terms like "Republican" and "Democrat" have mutated over the centuries, especially factoring in various Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free Soilers, Bull Moos, et al that arose in opposition to them. More significant is the fact that throughout our history there has always arisen unified dissent to whoever is in power, especially when that power is abused.) In 1798, the Federalist Adams rammed the Alien and Sedition Acts through Congress to the abhorrence of those who read the recently drafted Constitution differently. The acts were direct precursors to our PATRIOT Act, allowing the president to deport anyone deemed to be a threat regardless of the existence of proof (sound familiar?) and which forbade anything being published that might bring Congress or the president "into contempt or disrepute." Jefferson resigned in disgust with what he saw as an assault on the First Amendment that guarantees free speech and freedom of the press, and the party he formed gave voice and organization to dissent. A second party, it seemed then, might serve as an additional check in the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. The once-dominant Federalists shot themselves in the foot after watching four elections of Republican presidents (two apiece by Jefferson and Madison) with a resolution, drafted in 1814, that criticized the Republicans (mired in a seemingly unwinnable war with England) on a number of counts. They were unfortunate to deliver their missive just as the War of 1812 was declared over, with the Republicans spinning a US victory out of the muck of the Treaty of Ghent. It appeared that the country was back to one-party rule. However, a new party arose in opposition to the Republicans when a war hero from its own ranks, Andrew Jackson of Battle of New Orleans fame, established a Democratic Republican–soon after abbreviated to Democrat–wing to oppose what he perceived as big business/anti-commoner leanings of what became the National Republicans. In turn, a new party arose in opposition to Jackson's. His demagoguery–like Bush, he ignored the Supreme Court (notably for those of us in WNC in its ruling that the Cherokee in northern Georgia constituted a nation whose boundaries must be respected) when he felt like it and polarized factions to his left and right, much as Bush is doing today. Those disparate elements–southern Republicans (opposed to Jackson's tariffs), northern Democrats (opposed to his anti-business stance) and social reformers (abolitionists, pro-women's suffrage, anti-liquor, etc.)–united to form a Whig party whose sole bond was a hatred of Jackson. Such a coagulation of divergent interests could not survive, and the Whigs disintegrated after electing only one president, William Henry Harrison, in 1840. The unavoidable conflict over the issue of slavery dominated politics mid-19th century (and did in the Whigs, by and large), allowing a new Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, to defeat a Democratic Party splitting at the seams. After the Civil War, the Republicans supplicated themselves to big business (railroads, steel, oil), assuming the corporate-bitch persona that has continued to this day, while the mostly southern and midwestern Democrats reestablished themselves as the voice of the common, if racist and white, common man. FDR's New Deal attempts to ease common suffering during the Great Depression persuaded African-Americans and other minorities that Democrats were in fact their better bet, and since the 1930s the parties have purported more or less the same image… Despite the fact that Democrats have proven time and again they thirst as lustily for the corporate teat as their Republican "opponents," that they might get around to helping the common man once they're done sucking… That does NOT mean things have to stay this way! Things have never stayed any particular way for too long. And that is history's greatest lesson. So, is it time for a new opposition party? To look back at history, we are overdue. Are there any leaders of the Jefferson or Jackson or Lincoln or FDR ilk (whatever their respective faults, each had charisma, courage and an agenda) out there to initiate such a movement? Or are progressives willing to accept anyone as their leader, since everyone has flaws? That remains to be seen… Are there issues–like widespread (male) suffrage in Jackson's time or slavery in Lincoln's or the Depression in FDR's–with which a new movement might excite the wider populace? What about the throttled First Amendment rights and run-amok president that spurred Jefferson to start his new party? And if today's Democrats seem unable to recognize that the vast majority of the population wants national health insurance and a healthy environment and a government free from corporate puppetry, maybe a new party won't. It remains to be seen. Or, are people so cynical and sick of the bludgeoning culture of corporate corruption driving today's politics that they ignore the rhythms of history and allow this sham to continue? That, too, remains to be seen. But remember that lesson: Things are going to change, one way or another.