"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people." - Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.
Sep 01
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle”
~Thomas Jefferson
"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people." - Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson, 1801.
RSS feed
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 5:02pm
Republicans and Democrats are the main political parties that exist today. George Washington wasn't in favor of political parties because they could blind views by an opposing party. We think even though political parties may keep us close minded, it offers insight to similar views and helps strengthen our beliefs.
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 4:05pm
I strongly believe what Jefferson is saying is true. United we stand divided we fall. We haven't fallen yet, but things aren't perfect. I feel the government spends more time trying to cap on the other party and make their own party seem superior than dealing with the issues. Haven't we learned from civil wars that a country should stand strong together. No matter what you do, people will have different opinions but a country stand strong together.
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 3:59pm
jefferson was correct in this statement. often political alignment and party agenda overtakes the true goal of politicians, which is to make our country better for its people. ignorantly people often vote the party line without thinking of its agenda our message, if party lines were dissolved people would likely vote and act on their own morals and improve our country by focusing on the needs of the people rather than the party.
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 3:54pm
The two party system is no longer an effective division of government. Less focus is on the people and more focus is being put on party control and remaining in power. if there were no political parties and people voted solely based on their own beliefs and morals our government would likely be more efficient and successful with more focus on the needs of the country and people rather than the selfish needs of the career politician.
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 2:47pm
It is very difficult to have one party. People are different and, therefore, are likely to disagree about politics. Subdivisions would occur anyway so it is better that people are allowed to choose their party that matches their beliefs. That way they are able to exercise their right to their own opinion.
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 12:03pm
I believe Thomas Jefferson and Dickinson are correct because we do need to have diffrent parties but we also need the different parties to work together.
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:59am
I agree with Jefferson and I think that both parties should be put together. That way we could still elect a president but both parties could bring out all their positive points and throw out their negative points. Having two parties is definitely hurting democracy.
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:57am
We need to come together and bring both of our ideas, stand points ect. ect. together. It would make America a united country, as it is supposed to be. But without the parties, everything would be to mixed up.
Sat, 10/11/2008 - 4:23pm
I believe that what Mr Jefferson was alluding to was the blind faith that develops in people within a certain Party. Every citizens concern should be the security and prosperity of the Country. Political Parties begin to behave like rivalries between Soccer teams. There is no compromise, only absolute adhrence to the philosophy of the "Party". All others are wrong, excluded and admonished. This "Partisanship" will be our undoing.
Sat, 10/11/2008 - 12:56pm
Huzzah! Amen my fellow American and Patriot.
Mark Currier
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 3:08pm
tehe seems to be pretty solidly on target but for one problem. Stated, "...the better educated the people, the better the quality of government." Unfortunately the enemy considered that they could by taking surreptitious control over the education, media, and entertainment they could ever so surely move the country into the morass of socialism.
This week the congress of these United States passed the most massive piece of socialism since the launch of the Great Society.
Someone should be going to jail. Both senators and congressmen have been the recipients of massive political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even some who chair or sit on the committees that determine their future. The government set out to ignore, by legislative actions, the free markets in mortgages. Yes, there were some areas that needed to be corrected, but the corrections went way beyond the needs.
Now we are saddling the people with a massive amount of debt and both parties are responsible. 171 patriots stood tall in the House and 25 stood tall in the Senate.
LeRoy Paul. Saddened by the votes this week.
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 12:08pm
Mr. Jefferson believed the ONLY way to have a government that worked for the good of the people was to have a citizenry that wanted the good for our COUNTRY. The government can only be reflective of the people. So we come full circle once more -- the better educated the people, the better the quality of government. If the mentality of the citizenry is a dependent mentality, demanding the government supply all their needs, then they shall no longer have a Republic where they, the people, are in charge, but a controlling state. Inevitably, the state must raise taxes higher and higher in order to supply the ever growing need and we know where that leads (witness USSR). Thus the political party that promises the most giveaway programs, pitting the rich against the middle class and the poor, will rise to power. And, as we have seen, the political party that puts the party first before the good of the country will say and promise anything in order to gain power. Which is exactly what Mr. Jefferson and before him, Mr. Washington feared. An American in Florida
tehe
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 12:07pm
England's parliament is bicameral, and comprised of members of the labor and conservative parties.
So, no. Monarchy is not at all like parliament.
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 12:07pm
(hand on forehead)
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 12:03pm
Ah I see... it would be just like Parilment. One party with combined amount of power. But i think checks and balances wouldn't allow them to come to too much power. So I still think that one party/divison wouldn't change very much.
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 11:57am
A country with only one political party sounds a lot like a monarchy.
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 11:56am
I mean worse or better* than what we have now
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 11:54am
How so? How would one group be worse than what we have now? I don't think it would make much of a differnce if we only had one party or divison.
Fri, 10/03/2008 - 11:47am
With only one party our country would be corrupt.
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 3:18pm
I agree with you. But i think our "great nation" started when we founded the constitution.
Thu, 10/02/2008 - 3:12pm
This is a horrible statement! The thing that started our country was our freedom to vote for the people we think will help make our country better.
Mon, 09/29/2008 - 1:40pm
wow, you are one very smart person with a great point of view.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 12:07pm
No matter what party you are a part of, when something bad happens, we should band together as one group of Americans, to solve the problem, or fix things that need to be fixed.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 4:52pm
This statement is true; the greatest good CAN be by healing multiple party divisions and combining them into one so that we can take a step to come together as american people to help our country come together in times of economic disruption, war, natural disasters, etc.
Wed, 09/24/2008 - 3:52pm
Democrats and Republicans are fighting eachother. They need to start working together to resolve the issues that face us.
Tue, 09/16/2008 - 3:22pm
Thanks, Ed Kline, for pointing out the dubious use of the term "democracy." I was about to point it out as well, before I read the responses. I think that this word should be used with particular caution. I view most current usage of the word "democracy" as a political attempt to erode Jefferson's principles and point the country toward a more socialist future.
GJ - Monroe, Connecticut
Mon, 09/15/2008 - 7:21pm
Party division is a natural developmental phase in democracies. It is what will eventually bring the country to bitter rivalry, bloodshed, dissolution of our "republic" and tyranny. "Sic semper tyrannis!"
LeRoy Paul with a thought from 1776
Thu, 09/11/2008 - 10:13am
In 1794 Noah Webster warned, “...that nothing is more dangerous to the cause of truth and liberty than a party-spirit. ...As the tendency of such associations is probably not fully understood by most of the persons composing them in this country, and many of whom are doubtless well-meaning citizens; it may be useful to trace the progress of party-spirit to faction first, and then of course to tyranny.”
He made these statements in the application to the young American republic in relation to what was happening in France. (Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730–1805; Volume 2; The Revolution in France, Considered in Respect to Its Progress and Effects; Application; pages 1271 - 1280.) (No spelling corrections were made in respect for the author and the contemporary usage.)
Can anyone refute his warnings as valid? We have arrived at a point where congress serves itself ahead of the country and where even when the parties agree they refuse to act for fear that the other will get equal or greater credit for taking the needed action.
Fri, 09/05/2008 - 2:47pm
Mr. Cline - Thank you. In fact, well done, and, I agree with you. An American in Florida
Fri, 09/05/2008 - 2:24pm
American in Florida: By “party divisions defined by non-essentials,” I meant that two political parties, such as the Republicans and Democrats, would agree on the fundamental sanctity of individual rights, but differ on how to implement legitimate government functions without suborning constitutional principles. For example, two (or more parties) might disagree on term limits, or on the correct amount of compensation that senators and representatives might have a right to claim from the general budget, or on purely administrative details concerning the legislative or judicial branches of government.
From another standpoint, a staunchly principled party devoted to the strict adherence to the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional assertions, would always be in opposition to any party that advocated socialism, fascism, or any other collectivist form of government. Such an opposition, then, would certainly be defined by essentials and the fundamentals of Constitutional law. I hope I have clarified this point for you or any other readers.
Ed Cline
Fri, 09/05/2008 - 1:51pm
I find this to be one of the most ludicrous statements Jefferson ever made. He was no fan of democracy or of bipartisan politics. He hated the strength given to the federal gov. under the constitution. Jefferson himself is responsible for the two party system we have today.Conservatives have been blocking the central power of our country ever since, to protect the southern customs such as slavery at first, and to increase the wealth of mega-corporations today. Progressive Americans like Alexander Hamilton supported the constitution then as they do today, defending it from self interested hypocrites like Jefferson and Bush.
Jimmy Napoli
Hamiltonian
Thu, 09/04/2008 - 5:48pm
Mr. Cline - I think I agree with what you say. I qualify my agreement because I am not sure what you mean "party divisions would be defined by non-essentials and not propound wholesale violations of individual rights or encroach on the sanctity of the Bill of Rights." I will appreciate your clarification. An American in Florida
Thu, 09/04/2008 - 10:49am
What astounds me about this and other discussions in answers to the questions about "democracy," is that no one has questioned the use of the term "democracy." When Benjamin Franklin, after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, was asked what kind of government the convention had created, he did not answer, "A democracy, if you can keep it," but "A republic, if you can keep it." The most fundamental distinction between a democracy and a republican form of government, is that the former means mob rule -- catering to the mob's or majority's prejudices or appetites, at the expense of a minority -- while a republic, as the Founders conceived of one, would protect an individual's right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. "Party divisions," under the first form of government, simply means competition among warring factions for power and the growth of government over the lives of the citizens; under a republican form of government, party divisions would be defined by non-essentials and not propound wholesale violations of individual rights or encroach on the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.
Finally, I wish people would be more exact and more fastidious in the usage of their political terms.
Ed Cline
Wed, 09/03/2008 - 4:55pm
Mr. Jefferson believed the ONLY way to have a government that worked for the good of the people was to have a citizenry that wanted the good for our COUNTRY. The government can only be reflective of the people. So we come full circle once more -- the better educated the people, the better the quality of government. If the mentality of the citizenry is a dependent mentality, demanding the government supply all their needs, then they shall no longer have a Republic where they, the people, are in charge, but a controlling state. Inevitably, the state must raise taxes higher and higher in order to supply the ever growing need and we know where that leads (witness USSR). Thus the political party that promises the most giveaway programs, pitting the rich against the middle class and the poor, will rise to power. And, as we have seen, the political party that puts the party first before the good of the country will say and promise anything in order to gain power. Which is exactly what Mr. Jefferson and before him, Mr. Washington feared. An American in Florida
Tue, 09/02/2008 - 7:13pm
Thomas Jefferson definitely had the right priority, unity first. I think that the party system definitely hinders unity of the American people. For generations it seams that we have voted for a candidate because of his or her party affiliation rather than their moral character or stance on the issues. It seems that a persons party has become more important than his character. It is time to heed Mr Jefferson's advice and put unity first.
Tue, 09/02/2008 - 3:50pm
I think that it is important to look at all sides of an issue. It is good when several people look at the possibilities and then come together with a decision. Our country was founded on freedoms--speech being a very important one. Therefore, I think that having the opportunity to think rationally about a subject, debating it, and then resolving it, is the best way to operate.
Mon, 09/01/2008 - 9:58pm
I like the fact that we have differences in opinion (political parties). It does slow tings down, but is that necesarily a bad thing when it omes to government? Our government was to be of the people for the people. We would not want any rash decisions to be made law. Multiple opionions and questions about those opinions often bring a more well thought out solution forward.
~jim
Mon, 09/01/2008 - 5:22pm
i think Thomas Jefferson was right we do all need to come together as one because it doesnt make since to be fighting and killing one another
Post new comment