PDA

View Full Version : Was Thomas Jefferson the Founder of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?


Anarchist420
08-22-2010, 07:21 AM
Was Thomas Jefferson the founder of the Democratic Party? Or was it Andrew Jackson?

I know that historians call Jefferson a Democrat-Republican, but others say he was the founder of the modern Democratic Party. Also, Jackson was a Democratic-Republican, but he later founded the modern Democratic Party.

The Democratic-Republican split into 2 factions: the National Republicans which became the Neo-Whigs, which then became the Party of Lincoln; and the Old Republicans (of which I am one) which became the modern Democratic Party.

Is it more true to say that Jefferson was not a Democrat but rather they have their roots in his D-R party, or is it more true to say that he outright founded the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party (the original name for the D-Rs was the Republican Party--which drove out the Federalist Party)?

Finally, in your opinion, would Jefferson be ever so slightly closer to a Republican today, or would he be ever so slightly more a Democrat?

IronWing
08-22-2010, 07:38 AM
We would have to more or less ignore Jefferson's political writings of the time and look at his statements concerning values/ethics. Jeffersonian democracy is not something that any modern party would embrace. However moving Jefferson to modern times, it is possible that he might not embrace it either. Noting the shifts in values in the modern parties there is no gain to be derived in trying to trace party lineages from the 19th century to the 21st.

Anarchist420
08-22-2010, 09:11 AM
Thanks for the kind reply:) Anyway, you have a good point in your last sentence. I also think that Jefferson and Hamilton would be singing different tunes in relation to democracy if they were alive today, as Washington and Adams would get at least 90 percent of the popular vote if they ran against Jefferson today.

I'm sure that Hamilton would favor democracy today, and Jefferson would be very much against it.

Carmen813
08-22-2010, 09:33 AM
No.
Honestly, I don't know enough to make an informed opinion. As far as I remember, Jefferson basically favored no government, so I don't think either party fits.

Craig234
08-22-2010, 09:35 AM
Since Washington, we've had 2 major parties. This started with the bitter divide (then) between Jefferson and Adams, forming the two parties.

Later, Adams party went away and was replaced by the Republican party. I'd say Jefferson was the 'father of the Democratic Party'.

One thing that hasn't really gone away is that Adams was the more pro-rich pro-central banking type figure, while Jefferson was the more 'man of the people'.

You can't really trace much back - the country was a highly agrarian society then (90%+) and had few issues in common to our modern society, really.

And frankly, while Jefferson is very popular for some, views on some others like on economics seem widely recognized as problematic.

I think Jefferson was in ways a sort of pseudo-Libertarian - which for me is not a compliment. He was also part populist. Liberals love his rebuking Adams on the right to criticize, though.

Tristicus
08-22-2010, 09:42 AM
Poasting in an Antichrist420 thread.



Republican.

Bateluer
08-22-2010, 09:49 AM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.

Jaskalas
08-22-2010, 10:07 AM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.

A proper answer.

ProfJohn
08-22-2010, 10:13 AM
The Republican party did not start until the mid 1800s so he was certainly not a Republican.

nick1985
08-22-2010, 10:29 AM
Green party

MovingTarget
08-22-2010, 10:32 AM
I'd say the direct lineage would show that he was a "Democrat", but that label is irrellevant. Any comparison to the modern day parties to their counterparts prior to Roosevelt is useless at best. The parties have changed too much in terms of their constituencies, platforms, contemporary issues, etc.

WhipperSnapper
08-22-2010, 11:17 AM
Couldn't it be said that Abraham Lincoln was the "father (or at least the step-father) of the Republican Party"?

K1052
08-22-2010, 11:47 AM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.

Probably, though some of them would probably look past it since the country itself has reached heights unthinkable to even them. Hamilton was really the only one who truly had a vision even close to what the nation would one day become.

XZeroII
08-22-2010, 03:17 PM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.

I'm pretty sure that disgusted is way too nice of a word. He would probably shrivel up and die.

soundforbjt
08-22-2010, 03:23 PM
Tea Party! ;) Just ask Glenn Beck!

LunarRay
08-22-2010, 04:23 PM
Jefferson is quoted as saying:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

And,

" A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

Those statements tend to point toward a current Democratic Platform, in my opinion... Notwithstanding the bit about unregulated 'Business'.. I think the philosophy is that; but for the evil of the rich... the poor and the worker would prosper in equal measure with the investor and the rich...

CADsortaGUY
08-22-2010, 05:46 PM
Jefferson is quoted as saying:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

And,

" A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

Those statements tend to point toward a current Democratic Platform, in my opinion... Notwithstanding the bit about unregulated 'Business'.. I think the philosophy is that; but for the evil of the rich... the poor and the worker would prosper in equal measure with the investor and the rich...

Uhhh... the modern Democrats don't abide by the "hall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned" part of Jefferson's philosophy.



The answer is "neither".

LegendKiller
08-22-2010, 05:53 PM
Uhhh... the modern Democrats don't abide by the "hall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned" part of Jefferson's philosophy.



The answer is "neither".

Nor did Jefferson. There are numerous examples of his actions and sayings not being congruent.

He nearly bankrupted the country with the LA purchase (while expanding the power of the presidency and government). He also wanted to publicly educate students, also establishing UVA.

What I find humorous is that people attempt to pigeonhole somebody who was far more intelligent and dynamic to fit in any one mold. It is a human downfall to assume that somebody has to tow a single line when it comes down to politics, however, humans crave order and that results in making people fit into a mold.

LunarRay
08-22-2010, 08:07 PM
Uhhh... the modern Democrats don't abide by the "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned" part of Jefferson's philosophy.



The answer is "neither".

Well... Both Jefferson and Madison were staunch anti federalists... I see Hamilton as being quite to the Right (especially as it applied to the Constitution) as well as Adams and Washington... I think Jackson moved the party into a simplified Democratic party which seems quite the same in general principles today... Not that they follow the dogma with any degree of regularity but... Seems I'd call him a Democrat in today's climate.

But, I'm not sure but think, had Burr created his utopia in the West (including Iowa) I might be calling Jefferson a Republican... :) (See US v Burr)

cwjerome
08-22-2010, 08:49 PM
Well... Both Jefferson and Madison were staunch anti federalists...

Calling Madison anti-federalist is like calling the pope a protestant. Madison was THE federalist.

werepossum
08-22-2010, 10:22 PM
Tea Party! ;) Just ask Glenn Beck!

Actually my first thought was Tea Party. But I have to agree with Ironwing and others that Jefferson in the modern world would not necessarily be Jefferson in his own time, so the question probably is not answerable with any expectation of accuracy. Charity for instance in his time was basically food and shelter and a set of clothing once or twice a year, enough to allow one to more or less participate in the day's society and easily provided by one's church. Churches would have a very difficult time providing a modern equivalent (medical care alone would likely bankrupt small churches) so Jefferson might well alter his views on the proper role of government.

And the Louisiana Purchase was bloody brilliant.

LunarRay
08-22-2010, 10:30 PM
Calling Madison anti-federalist is like calling the pope a protestant. Madison was THE federalist.

James Madison?...

Some of the writings suggest as early as 1790 he and Jefferson created the party (Democratic-Republican) to thwart the Federalist (party) moves. So in that context I'd call the Pope a Baptist... Now, after Jefferson's tenure as President or about 1809 I'm not sure what to call Madison... He did write a bunch of the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay... More a Constitutionalist, I'd guess, but still...

soundforbjt
08-22-2010, 10:32 PM
Actually my first thought was Tea Party. But I have to agree with Ironwing and others that Jefferson in the modern world would not necessarily be Jefferson in his own time, so the question probably is not answerable with any expectation of accuracy. Charity for instance in his time was basically food and shelter and a set of clothing once or twice a year, enough to allow one to more or less participate in the day's society and easily provided by one's church. Churches would have a very difficult time providing a modern equivalent (medical care alone would likely bankrupt small churches) so Jefferson might well alter his views on the proper role of government.

And the Louisiana Purchase was bloody brilliant.

I was joking about the Tea Party, GB always talks about Jefferson (and the founding fathers) on his show all the time and always picks and chooses his (Jefferson's) words or actions that back up Glenn's views. He would never reference anything else that disagreed with his views. His little "history lessons" shows are hilarious and usually contain false facts. A radio dj as a history teacher.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!

First
08-22-2010, 10:51 PM
He was a Republican party member but both parties are significantly different since mid-19th century. I'd say he was clearly more liberal than conservative, but from what I remember reading about him very middle-of-the-road.

Anarchist420
08-23-2010, 10:22 AM
I'd say Jefferson was more paleoconservative than liberal, although just slightly. His views on economics (slashed welfare and warfare spending, paid off a 1/3 of the Federal debt, opposed a central bank), make him more conservative than liberal, as well as his views on secession and immigration (he protested the alien and sedition acts, but he still wasn't pro-birthright citizenship, as he said that being a citizen requires loyalty to your country). He supported the supremacy of the States over the national govt.

He also believed in an absolute right to firearm ownership. No liberal believes in an absolute right to firearm ownership.

Hamilton was the one that was for multiple taxes and more welfare spending than Jefferson. He also supported a central bank making him an economic fascist, which is like more democrats take today than republicans do today. The democrats generally are the pro-rich, pro-central banksters; they just lie about it and say they're the party of the people. The republicans aren't a world of difference, but in general, they care more about the poor and middle class than the democrats do.

CallMeJoe
08-23-2010, 10:32 AM
...No liberal believes in an absolute right to firearm ownership....
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Anarchist, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

PricklyPete
08-23-2010, 10:35 AM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.

Agreed X 1000

soulcougher73
08-23-2010, 10:39 AM
I'd say Jefferson was more paleoconservative than liberal, although just slightly. His views on economics (slashed welfare and warfare spending, paid off a 1/3 of the Federal debt, opposed a central bank), make him more conservative than liberal, as well as his views on secession and immigration (he protested the alien and sedition acts, but he still wasn't pro-birthright citizenship, as he said that being a citizen requires loyalty to your country). He supported the supremacy of the States over the national govt.

He also believed in an absolute right to firearm ownership. No liberal believes in an absolute right to firearm ownership.

Hamilton was the one that was for multiple taxes and more welfare spending than Jefferson. He also supported a central bank making him an economic fascist, which is like more democrats take today than republicans do today. The democrats generally are the pro-rich, pro-central banksters; they just lie about it and say they're the party of the people. The republicans aren't a world of difference, but in general, they care more about the poor and middle class than the democrats do.

Are you talking about when he was alive no liberal believes in absoluate right to firearm ownership, or are you talking about modern day liberals? You have to take into context the difference of firearms of today vs. the muzzle loaders of Jeffersons era. He may just change his mind when he thinks of average citizens totting around AK-47s and Rocket Launchers :P

werepossum
08-23-2010, 11:22 AM
I was joking about the Tea Party, GB always talks about Jefferson (and the founding fathers) on his show all the time and always picks and chooses his (Jefferson's) words or actions that back up Glenn's views. He would never reference anything else that disagreed with his views. His little "history lessons" shows are hilarious and usually contain false facts. A radio dj as a history teacher.....LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I got that, the smiley let me know it was a joke and a slam at Beck. I was just making the dual points that Jefferson's positions probably do fit best in the Tea Party when lifted whole, and that the modern world is sufficiently different from Jefferson's world that his reactions to it (and any subsequent evolution in his positions and principles) are probably unknowable. Perhaps a true Jefferson specialist could venture an educated guess, but it would be just that. I can't speak to Beck as I'm not home that early and his radio show conflicts with Boortz. I see Beck on O'Reilly occasionally, if I'm home that early and it's not Monday. I generally like him and he seems to do excellent research, but also seems to draw some rather nonlinear conclusions. But that's from seeing him maybe once a month for five minutes, hardly an informed opinion.

JohnOfSheffield
08-23-2010, 01:54 PM
Was Thomas Jefferson the founder of the Democratic Party? Or was it Andrew Jackson?

I know that historians call Jefferson a Democrat-Republican, but others say he was the founder of the modern Democratic Party. Also, Jackson was a Democratic-Republican, but he later founded the modern Democratic Party.

The Democratic-Republican split into 2 factions: the National Republicans which became the Neo-Whigs, which then became the Party of Lincoln; and the Old Republicans (of which I am one) which became the modern Democratic Party.

Is it more true to say that Jefferson was not a Democrat but rather they have their roots in his D-R party, or is it more true to say that he outright founded the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party (the original name for the D-Rs was the Republican Party--which drove out the Federalist Party)?

Finally, in your opinion, would Jefferson be ever so slightly closer to a Republican today, or would he be ever so slightly more a Democrat?

No, and not a tea party variety libertian either.

You can't transcend time with shit like this, the world is A LOT different today and his views would be other than those he held in that time, perhaps he wouldn't even be a politician but rather say "this nation is retarded, i'm going to the UK" :D (last part being a joke, don't mean to hurt ya'lls patriotic sensitivities)

cwjerome
08-23-2010, 09:11 PM
James Madison?...

Some of the writings suggest as early as 1790 he and Jefferson created the party (Democratic-Republican) to thwart the Federalist (party) moves. So in that context I'd call the Pope a Baptist... Now, after Jefferson's tenure as President or about 1809 I'm not sure what to call Madison... He did write a bunch of the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay... More a Constitutionalist, I'd guess, but still...

Dude, Madison was the ultimate federalist and philosophic leader of the federalists. You are muddling the terms and confusing the issue. There were federalists and anti-federalists at odds over the new Constitution. It was a philosophical difference over the Constitution... what you are mixing are political parties, a separate idea. The Federalist Party (upper case F Federalist) was a product of Hamilton and gave rise to the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison. Saying Madison was anti-federalist is a major misrepresentation of the term.

StageLeft
08-23-2010, 09:56 PM
I hope no founding father would find the current political climate/either party acceptable.

TastesLikeChicken
08-23-2010, 10:20 PM
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.
He'd also probably have a heart attack over the fact that people could no longer own slaves and that women can vote.

We are all victims of our own time. A liberal of today may be the conservative of 100 years down the road, and vice versa.

LunarRay
08-24-2010, 12:24 AM
Dude, Madison was the ultimate federalist and philosophic leader of the federalists. You are muddling the terms and confusing the issue. There were federalists and anti-federalists at odds over the new Constitution. It was a philosophical difference over the Constitution... what you are mixing are political parties, a separate idea. The Federalist Party (upper case F Federalist) was a product of Hamilton and gave rise to the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison. Saying Madison was anti-federalist is a major misrepresentation of the term.

Dude, Madison WAS as you said before oh.... 1788-89, I'd think. But, as I said, by 1790 he broke from Hamilton (THE Federalist), joined Jefferson and together they brought about a new party... This new party opposed the key policies of the Federalists. Now, that IS historically accurate.
The Federalists and THEIR party are the same thing... the ideology is the same and the bodies are the same.

In reading his commentaries in the Congressional Record (House of Reps) I think you'll find ample movement from the key Federalist policies toward a more ummmmm Republican type thinking (at that time, Republican).

I often wondered if Justice Jackson hadn't contemplated Madison's arguments over separation of powers when he wrote one of the five concurring opinions in Youngstown v Sawer... 343 US 579 (1952)... (Some things stay ingrained in the mind for seemingly ever..)

And, my name ain't 'Dude', Dude!:D

cwjerome
08-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Dude, Madison WAS as you said before oh.... 1788-89, I'd think. But, as I said, by 1790 he broke from Hamilton (THE Federalist), joined Jefferson and together they brought about a new party... This new party opposed the key policies of the Federalists. Now, that IS historically accurate.
The Federalists and THEIR party are the same thing... the ideology is the same and the bodies are the same.

In reading his commentaries in the Congressional Record (House of Reps) I think you'll find ample movement from the key Federalist policies toward a more ummmmm Republican type thinking (at that time, Republican).

I often wondered if Justice Jackson hadn't contemplated Madison's arguments over separation of powers when he wrote one of the five concurring opinions in Youngstown v Sawer... 343 US 579 (1952)... (Some things stay ingrained in the mind for seemingly ever..)

And, my name ain't 'Dude', Dude!:D

How someone uses terms means a lot, and improper or unclear terminology makes a terrible mess of things. That is what you are doing. I challenge you to find informational sources that specifically call Madison an Anti-Federalist.

I'll lay it out for you one more time. We had the creation and ratification of the US Constitution which pitted the anti-federalists and federalists. Madison was best federalist theorist and primary author of the Constitution. That is why he should never be called an "anti-federalist."

Only later was the term Anti-Federalist used (by Jefferson) as a political faction/party that was used to oppose some of Washington's policies. Once again, this was a borrowed term used in a completely different context. Soon this Anti-Federalist faction became the Democratic-Republican Party, which Madison eventually joins.

In summary, Madison was a federalist and became a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. To say Madison was an anti-federalist is a major distortion, unless you qualify the statement with a ton of explanation, and even then it's pretty misleading.

LunarRay
08-24-2010, 02:16 PM
How someone uses terms means a lot, and improper or unclear terminology makes a terrible mess of things. That is what you are doing. I challenge you to find informational sources that specifically call Madison an Anti-Federalist.

I'll lay it out for you one more time. We had the creation and ratification of the US Constitution which pitted the anti-federalists and federalists. Madison was best federalist theorist and primary author of the Constitution. That is why he should never be called an "anti-federalist."

Only later was the term Anti-Federalist used (by Jefferson) as a political faction/party that was used to oppose some of Washington's policies. Once again, this was a borrowed term used in a completely different context. Soon this Anti-Federalist faction became the Democratic-Republican Party, which Madison eventually joins.

In summary, Madison was a federalist and became a member of the Democratic-Republican Party. To say Madison was an anti-federalist is a major distortion, unless you qualify the statement with a ton of explanation, and even then it's pretty misleading.


Well.... the noted historian Wood (can't recall his first name) would agree with you... and Banning too.
I, on the other hand, and a number of others who look at the inferential dynamics of What he ment by what he said and, etc. with regard to the Federalist Papers, his numerous writings and notes, Congressional records and the Constitution itself adpot the version of Madison that sees him breaking away from Hamiltion and Washington's Very strong Central Government and the policies into law that that envisioned. He did move back (assuming he moved away) after he became president.. and especially over the war of 1812. I'd call that move and he even said it himself to be over the Need for National Security.

Wikipedia is not my favorite choice of resource. I prefer the books on the subject but they are, the ones I've held onto, packed away but here is a summary of what I agree is Madison... Also interesting is a Mathews/Wood critque of each other's take on Madison... I've that somewhere if you are interested in that...
I would also make note of what it was when Madison got older and even up to his death... changing what he wrote, trying to get copies of his letters sent to folks, attempting to forge Jefferson's writing and all sorts of examples of his trying to change history's view of him... guess he got a bit nutty... Maybe cuz he was quite worried about Dolly and their lack of funds..

"... Many historians argue that Madison changed radically from a nationally oriented ally of Hamilton in 1787–88 to a states'-rights–oriented opponent of a strong national government by 1795 and then back to his original view while president. Madison started the first transition by opposing Hamilton..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

WildHorse
10-18-2010, 09:45 PM
``

Scotteq
10-19-2010, 09:03 AM
The "Answer" is that what is now called the Democratic~Republican Party by historians disintegrated in the early to mid 1820's. One part (eventually) became Democrat, one part became Whig, and the rest went their own ways.


And yes - Thomas Jefferson (and the rest of the Founding Fathers) would likely be disgusted with the sh*t that passes for politics today.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party


Jefferson formed the party to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists, a party created a year or so earlier by Hamilton to promote the Treasury policies of the Washington administration. The new party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France (until Napoleon became a dictator after 1799). The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's measures (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional. The party was strongest in the South and weakest in the Northeast; it favored states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and investors.

The presidents selected by the party were: Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), James Madison (1809–1817), and James Monroe (1817–1825). After 1800 the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. Since the Federalists had practically disappeared by 1820, there was little incentive for organizational vigor. In 1824, the party was deeply divided and most Republican congressmen refused to participate in a nominating caucus. A rump caucus of 66 congressman nominated William H. Crawford for president. Another faction of the party supported Andrew Jackson. This faction evolved into the modern Democratic Party. A third faction, led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, was known as the National Republicans; it evolved into the Whig Party.





The Democratic Party is often called "the party of Jefferson," while the modern Republican Party is often called "the party of Lincoln."

The Jeffersonian Republican party split into various factions during the 1824 election, based more on personality than on ideology. When the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, House Speaker Henry Clay backed Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to deny the presidency to Senator Andrew Jackson, a longtime personal rival and a hero of the War of 1812.

The Jacksonians held their first national convention as the "Republican Party" in 1832. By the mid-1830s, they referred to themselves as the "Democratic Party," but also as "Democratic Republicans." The name "Democratic Party" has been official since 1844.

Leaders of the Democratic Party have traced their party's lineage to Jefferson and his Republican Party. Martin Van Buren wrote that the party's name had changed from Republican to Democratic and that Jefferson was the founder of the party. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, grandson of Jefferson, told the 1872 Democratic National Convention of his "life of eighty years spent in the Democratic-Republican party". In 1991 the United States Senate passed "A bill to establish a commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the establishment of the Democratic Party of the United States," thus endorsing the view the party was founded by Jefferson (as opposed to Jackson).

The Adams/Clay alliance became the basis of the National Republican Party, a rival to the Jacksonian party. This party favored a higher tariff in order to protect U.S. manufacturers, as well as public works, especially roads. Many former members of the defunct Federalist Party, including Daniel Webster, joined the party. After Clay's defeat by Jackson in the 1832 presidential election, the National Republicans were absorbed into the Whig Party, a diverse group of Jackson opponents. Taking a leaf from the Jacksonians, the Whigs tended to nominate non-ideological war heroes as their presidential candidates.

The modern Republican Party was founded in 1854 to oppose the expansion of slavery into new states. Most northern Whigs defected to the new party. The name was chosen to harken back to Jefferson's party. Abraham Lincoln and other members sought to combine Jefferson's ideals of liberty and equality with Clay's program of using an active government to modernize the economy. The modern ideological party division, with Republicans as the pro-business party and Democrats as the party of economic populism, originated at the time of the 1896 presidential election in which Republican William McKinley defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan.

piasabird
10-19-2010, 09:10 AM
Just choose the quotes that benefit your side.

The part about not taxing employment "Stealing form the mouth of Labor" needs some serious consideration. Excessive borrowing is stealing from the mouth of labor. Who do you think will pay that loan off?

Brainonska511
10-19-2010, 09:17 AM
The "Answer" is that what is now called the Democratic~Republican Party by historians disintegrated in the early to mid 1820's. One part (eventually) became Democrat, one part became Whig, and the rest went their own ways. And yes - Thomas Jefferson (and the rest of the Founding Fathers) would likely be disgusted with the sh*t that passes for politics today.

If you ever get a chance to go to Philadelphia, take a walk through the National Constitution Center, across the street from the US Mint. They have a walk-through exhibit that talks about politics and other issues over the course of US history. What was most interesting, is that politics in the US has always been dirty. Opponents making stuff up about each other, etc...

Scotteq
10-19-2010, 09:22 AM
Yes., Politics has always been dirty...


Nice to know we've made so much progress in 200 years.




And you would be correct in presuming I rolled my eyes as I typed that. :)

Brainonska511
10-19-2010, 09:24 AM
Nice to know we've made so much progress in 200 years.

I thought it was rather comforting that some things never change. lol

Scotteq
10-19-2010, 09:30 AM
I thought it was rather comforting that some things never change. lol

True... There is that... o_O

qliveur
10-19-2010, 09:31 AM
Neither.
I believe most of our founding fathers, Jefferson included, would be disgusted at our current parties today.
Yes, Jefferson would be especially disgusted with the corrupt, bloated, oligarchical mess that the federal government has mutated into, because it's the polar opposite of what he envisioned and hoped for.