Good Morning, Hap
I'm gratified you have the boldness to take a stance. That puts you ... and your opinion ... in the majority. So far, none of those who are so loud in proclaiming their expertise about our nation's affairs have shown as much courage or forthrightness as you.
If, when you refer to "our system of government", you mean the two-party system that currently dominates our nation's political institutions, I agree. I am, indeed, attacking it.
If, instead, you mean the government set forth in our Constitution, I vigorously disagree. I'm not attacking it, I'm trying to restore it.
I am somewhat familiar with the Federalist Papers, although I can't claim to have read all 85 of them. Of those I read ... including the first ... I did not find any support for the idea that our nation should be ruled by political parties.
Indeed, in Federalist No. 1 (attributed to Alexander Hamilton as Publius) to which you linked us, the author pointed out:
"Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many
other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well
upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a
question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing
could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all
times, characterized political parties."
Having stated your position, you may be content to leave it at that. If, however, you wish to explain why you hold the view that our government "is not broken", I, for one, would benefit. I will, of course, contest ideas I feel are incorrect, but I will yield happily to sounder principles than I've expressed.
Would you be willing, for example, to explain why you think there is no threat to the checks and balances in our Constitution when a single party succeeds in controlling multiple branches of our government ... as happened in the mid-1900's when the Democratic Party was in control, and, more recently, when the Republican Party achieved the same control. You may think either, or both, of these instances beneficial. I don't think either one was healthy, but would be interested in your point of view.
Federalist No. 1. closes with something I wish I'd said and which I repeat now as representing my own sentiments:
"I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay
before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of
good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply
professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of
my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of
by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not
disgrace the cause of truth."
Fred
