The reading had to do with the rise of political parties. Despite "Revolution era Americans" argueing that political parties were "dangerous to the commonwealth" and "anti-republican," Martin Van Buren still formed the first nationwide political party: Jacksonian Democrats. Do you think political parties could have been avoided, or do you agree with Van Buren and political parties are "inseperable from free government"?
With the rise of political parties came new political debates and heated presidential races. Basically any middle-class man could now get into politics and hold high office positions. When European visitors came to the United States they were often disgusted with our politicians. One French aristocrat said "the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed at head of affairs." Do you think this is true? Many politicians at this time seemed to have selfish goals and actions, but the whole country was being united and now almost any man could become a politician if he wanted. Was this a good or bad thing?
The presidential elections seemed odd to me at this time. Before each election, the opposition seemed to try and trick the president into doing something that would ruin their hopes for re-election. For example, the Jacksonians took control of Congress in 1826 and wanted higher tariffs on imported raw materials in order to win support of farmers for the presidential race in 1826. It also led to Adams' fall. It wasn't only Jackson's party though. When Jackson was president, his opponents persuaded the Second Bank of the United States' president Nicholas Biddle to seek an early extension of the bank's charter. They hoped that Jackson would veto the the bill which would split the Democrats right before the 1832 election.
In both of these situations it seems as though the opposition is wanting these government tariffs and bills only for their own good. It seems like Congress was just trying to trick the president into screwing up so one of them could be the next president. And as president, Jackson increased the president's authority and created a spoils system where he appointed his close supporters to high office positions. These actions led to the rise of another political party called the Whigs. Their goal was to put men of ability, talent, and wealth in political power. The Democrats and Whigs battled to office positions fiercely the next couple decades. Do you think you would have been a Democrat, Whig, or neither? Although both parties claimed to speak "for the people" did either actually do that at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
With the beginning of these assumed "proto-parties", I believe it was inevitable that defined political parties would come into play. As was discussed in class, this allowed more middle class people to have the opportunity to become empowered politically. In addition, these uneducated folks could now understand the basic premises of these parties and vote accordingly. I believe this made another small nudge towards a more republican society, yet these wealthy office holders most likely did not feel threated by the middle class for they never feared these men would take up commanding political positions.
The new political parties gave the middle class people a say in what happened. The middle class could now even get elected and have a vote. The communication revolution is tied to the rising political parties because the campaigning used newspapers and such to get votes.
Even though this was a big time for political parties in America, they had been around in Eurpoe for several years before. It gave the middle class more oppurtunities in the political realm. It seems like Americans are always making mistakes in the eyes of Europeans.
I don't think I would have been either a Whig or a Democrat, because I think there were problems with both parties. So that puts people in a position of just picking the lesser of two evils which is why having two major parties is a problem.
I agree that political parties were unavoidable, and though they seem bad in the way that they divide, they actually are a very fundamental part of a functioning government. They help everyone become more politically involved, and in a Democracy, this is absolutely vital. A Democracy is not a Democracy without participation and parties allowed for more participation.
I think it was inevitable to have political parties as well. Even though both parties had problems I think it was good to have them so that different ideas and views were expressed. They allowed more people of different classes to become involved in politics and to understand what their options were.
I believe that the forming of the two political parties was inevitable. The political parties allowed for their to be more representation in the government because the middle class was now having a chance to have a voice in the government. I think that this was a good thing because it allowed for more voices to be heard in the government and the government was appearing to be more like a democratic republic.
I agree with Van Buren that political parties goes along with a free government and the right to choose what political party you want to associate yourself with is a basic freedom that Americans should be given. Without different political parties you would have one national party which would contradict some of the freedoms that were fought for during the revolution and placed in the Constitution.
I think that it was a good thing that mostly any man could run for political positions, it showed the freedoms that were present in the America that for the most part were not present anywhere else. With that being said I also think that many of the decisions made by politicians were made for the wrong reasons. They were trying to get elected or re-elected with their decisions instead of trying to what was right for the American people. By doing this they sacraficed the good of the people for self gain.
Post a Comment