How prophetic was George Washington when he defined the fundamental principle of political parties stated in his farewell address; “They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction…”
Literature provides even more frightening scenarios than Washington’s prophecy with the Orwellian prediction that “…they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State…”
{mosads}Are we replacing the state with the party and blurring distinction between the state and the party? One only has to look in recent history’s experience with the Soviet Union’s Communist party, Germany’s Nazi party and Italy’s Fascist party. Can the state act in the best interest of the people when we cannot discern the difference between the state and the interest of the party? Do officials begin to make decisions in the best interest of the party and can the state function without the decadent corruption of party politics? Does propaganda begins to take hold to provide a facade for the preservation of the party?
Other political prophets provide more insight. Many of us have heard the statement “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This is attributed to the Nazi Reich Minister of Propaganda, Paul Joseph Goebbles. But, this was just a portion of the statement. Most of us have not heard the sentence which followed this famous quote: “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”
In this next sentence Gobbles continued the political philosophy of modern media manipulation of those you are supposed to serve and the time dependence of the lie as it will eventually threaten the government’s and the party’s credibility.
Gobbles further stated that “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Stalin realized the value of propaganda when he said “Print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party.” The party and the state by extension need to divert attention away from the truth which threatens party control of the state.
But the party also hides behind “safety in numbers.” The party promotes collective responsibility and collective accountability. Therefore no one is responsible and no one is accountable. It is most apparent in the term “bipartisian.” The term is a fabrication of the political parties. It has no substantive meaning for the average citizen. This concept was developed to provide cover for a failed action which the political parties jointly supported. Therefore, there is no political responsibility, accountability or blame for “bipartisian” action.
In the 1930’s many in Germany went along with the party and forgave minor infractions. By the time people admitted the truth, they had become complicit in the “minor infractions;” entrenched in the propaganda of the Nazi party; collectively guilty. Hannah Arendt adroitly observed how collective accountability provided an excuse for the propaganda and lack of accountability in the German Nazi Party “Where all are guilty, no one is, confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.”
In “Mafia Allies,” Tim Newark observed that “Outside the Socialist Party, Mussolini ‘felt lighter, fresher, I was free! I was better prepared to fight my battles than when I was bound by the dogma of any political organization.’”
Even Mussolini felt the pressures to conform to the party’s coercion rather than perform while contained by the political party system. His observation is echoed by George Orwell in that “Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Chris Lowery writes in “Heroic Leadership” that “bad things happen — and heroism evaporates — when leadership becomes confused with surviving, getting ahead, or watching one’s back.” Are “bad things” happening; is “leadership … confused with surviving, getting ahead, or watching one’s back?” In today’s government, how many times do our politicians invoke references to the political parties when discussing issues instead of invoking references to their constituents? Do the facts bore out how much our political “leaders” are confused with party survival, getting the party ahead in the next election or watching each party member’s back?
Isn’t it uncanny how within minutes of an event, party loyalists chant a parroted script for media broadcasts to the cult’s devotees to divert attention, reinforce collective conformance and maintain party unity.
Madison put it simply in the Federalist Papers as “…the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…”
Disturbing as each of these statements is, taken together they outline a calculated control of the many by the few of the political party to impose their will on the masses and make the masses support the faction of the few. Is this not what George Washington predicted over 200 ago about the effects on the government when the interest of political parties outweighs the interests of the people?
The separation of powers, a fundamental principle of the United States Constitution, between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government has been usurped with a separation of party loyalties across the branches of government by party devotion and conformance demands without regard to the politician’s oath of office or their constitutional duties and responsibilities.
When did the transition occur that the demand for party loyalty outweighs the oath of office under the Constitution?
John DeMaggio is a retired Special Agent in Charge and retired Captain in the U.S. Navy. The above is the opinion of the author and is not meant to reflect the opinion of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Government.
The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.