What political ideology/structure do you follow?

Remove all ads!

I'd just like to make an observation about your post, Chandos: You fail to mention that yesteryear's "Republicans" (Democratic Republican Party) are today's Democrats. You're implying that the noble Washington, Hamilton, and Adams were a part of some anti-today's-republicans party... they were not.

Just felt that anyone with little knowledge of US History should take that post with a grain of salt.

Edit: Chandos, they were definitely against the Democratic Republicans. I agree with you. The Democratic republicans, if you remember, "evolved" into today's Democratic party. They are by no means related in anything but opposition to today's Republican party. I felt that this was implied in your post, although others may not feel so. I'm sorry that I was rude, but I became miffed at (Again, this view is limited to mine, as far as I know) the vaguely propagandalike nature of the post. It looked to me like you were trying to imply that the Democrats (Democratic Republicans) of the 1790's and early 1800's are the Republicans of today. I had posted this to qualify the impression that one unversed in US history would possibly receive: That the "Republicans" in your post are, in fact, the "Republicans" as they know them. <End Edit>

Also edited for rudeness and spelling.

[ May 02, 2004, 08:42: Message edited by: Slith ]

 

Vimes - Thanks for putting some words in my keyboard for me, about the "evil Jefferson." Washington, Hamilton, and Adams belonged to the Federalist Party, and as such, they were opponents of the "Republicans." I suggest you do a bit of research on your own and you will discover this to be the case. But I do admit that I consider Washington to be a "noble man." Although I am an admirer of Jefferson also for different reasons.

Oh, and feel free to proffer your lofty advice on how anyone's posts should or should not "taken" by anyone who will listen, as we live in a "free country." Edit: (line removed upon second thoughts by the author).

Edit: I have to post my reply here, since I can't reply to my own post. It was not my intention to draw any parallels at all between the Republicans of today and those of the late 18th century. They were very different, as you point out. I was attempting to make the point that loyalty to a political party has some serious downsides. And that the person behind the ideology was far more important than to which party he/she belonged. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Note: I added your very valid point in a gloss on my already lengthy post.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos - Both Hamilton and Lincoln are my heroes. Both men had the Vision (capital "V") of a united, urban America that was powerful, progressive, and prosperous. Both were fierce abolitionists (Hamilton long before abolitionism was "cool") who believed that a unifying American identity could apply to people of any race. And both had the wit and will to use military might, legal force, and financial instruments to make that vision a reality.

Both, in short, believed that America had a destiny as America - not a collection of American states, not even a collection of American citizens, but a nation that could stand alongside the graying empires of the Old World and be great and glorious and good.

 

Grey - Agreed, and well said! Are you sure you're a conservative? It is a strange "meeting place," where a proud conservative and liberal can agree so profoundly.

What I dislike about Hamilton though is that he was an admirer of England in the late 18th Century, (in itself certainly not a bad thing). But in the post Revolutionary days England was still an enemy of America, and it bothers me a bit that he met in secret with English agents behind Washington's back. Jefferson knew pretty much what was going on with Hamilton, and I think John Adams did also. Both men felt that Hamilton was an "intriguer" and I somewhat agree. But if someone other than Washington had been involved -a man so honest and forthright - it would not have been such a dark stain on Hamilton's character, IMO.

Although Adams was a man of solid integrity, I think Jefferson was as close to an "intriguer" as Hamilton ever was. Both were complex men, of true genius, and I think in their minds the ends justified the means, something neither Washington nor Adams would have agreed with.

Edit: We may really differ on the "military might" agenda though. Washington was absolutely right when he warned his countrymen of "foreign ambitions," and, IMO, he would have been horrified by America's ambitions in the Middle East. He would have never seen Saddam, and the Iraqi people, as a responisiblity of the American people, IMO. Sorry, Grey, I couldn't resist.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

like Xei Win Toh said, "my own"

 

I must admit: I don't know a hell of a lot of American society. I know that I live in Belgium and the political system licks balls. No really, just come and see, a country so small, with such a diversity of political beliefs. It's plain pathetic.

As for myself, I think a presidential state is the most accurate in ruling a country. A king does nothing, and a dictator has too much power.

 

I am politically inept.