Comments on: Washington’s Wisdom on Factions

By: Gregg Frazer

Gregg Frazer — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:30:40 +0000

Washington neither “massacred” any of his countrymen nor countenanced such an action. If the reference is to the atrocities which occurred in the southern states during the Revolution, that was an internal matter and done without Washington’s order or approval.

Madison DID caution against factions in Federalist #10. He defined them as being “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He then spoke of the “mischiefs of faction,” but said that we cannot eliminate faction, so the best we can do is to control its effects. In short, he cautions against factions AND against accumulation of power by any one faction.

By: Jdack

Jdack — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:44:49 +0000

“If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand”

Mark 3:25

are we not a divided house at this point of political term-oil?

By: DickF

DickF — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:52:35 +0000

When we consider factions in politics it is not best to look to Washington who spoke to the ideal that never was and never has been. We are better served to consider Madison in Federalist 10 where he recognizes that we will always have factions, Austrians v Keynesians, Chevy lovers v Ford Lovers, imports v exports, you name it. Madison cautions not against factions but against the accumulation of power by factions that allows them to rule over others. Only by the dissemination of power over the broadest possible base will we control factions. Democracy has power not because of the wisdom of crowds but because of the dissemination of power.

By: Joseph Huang

Joseph Huang — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:22:35 +0000

besides, that’s an ad hominem attack. whether i have wisdom or not has no bearing on whether Washington has wisdom. that’s just shooting the messenger.

By: Joseph Huang

Joseph Huang — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:13:43 +0000

it takes wisdom to recognize wisdom

Washington has wisdom

anyone who doesn't believe in Washington has no wisdom.

okay, now let's see if this logic is valid.

it takes wisdom to recognize wisdom

Washington has no wisdom

anyone who believes in Washington has no wisdom.

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:13:40 +0000

What “criminals or traitors”, except by defining them as such for not supporting the rebels? If that is to be allowed, the rest of Washington’s call is empty, because you can define the people you want to marginalise as “not really Americans” – it’s the “no true Scotsman” argument, just as I said.

By: fundamentalist

fundamentalist — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:03:22 +0000

PM Lawrence: “Washington calling for “indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest â€¦ ” is sheer chutzpah.”

I suppose you take great pride in thinking you have caught the great Washington in an exhibition of hypocracy, but you’ve done nothing but violate the principles of honest interpretation. Washington clearly didn’t intend his call to apply to criminals or traitors. The nation must alienate them in order to survive.

Washington demonstrated extraordinary wisdom in his leadership and organization of the federal government and the world rightfully acknowledges that in viewing him as the greatest US president of all time. However, there is a serious problem with such great wisdom: wisdom requires wisdom in others in order for it to be recognized. It takes one to know one. People lacking in wisdom look at the wisdom of people like Washington and see foolishness, or power grabbing, or other devious motives, but not wisdom.

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:00:45 +0000

Washington calling for “indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest â€¦ ” is sheer chutzpah. That is just precisely what he and his crew had so recently done in massacring or exiling so many of his countrymen who merely would not join them – never mind resist them – and forcing the remainder to lie low until they faded away (some in upstate New York were still secretly toasting the King as late as the 1830s, and as late as the 20th century enough family tradition still continued that an upstate New York family could christen their son, later a famous ornithologist, Roger Tory Peterson). And please don’t try to rebut that with any variation of the “no true Scotsman” argument; even if true, it would also undercut Washington’s argument here.