PARTISAN POLITICS ARE HARDLY NEW

                  “It’s the Democrats’ fault. They are too extreme on most issues and don’t want to work with anyone else.”

                  “The MAGA crowd is responsible for the ugly partisan divide. They want their way and they refuse to compromise on anything.”

                  “The Democrats simply play to their big city base. They’re not interested in even listening to the other side.”

“The Republicans only care about partisan bickering and they use it to get what they want.”

                  Depending on which side of the politics you favor, you have no doubt heard or read comments similar to those above in the news media or on your social media feeds. To listen to the pundits, whichever side is doing the talking lays the blame for the partisan divide at the feet of their opponents. Or enemies. Each side frets about it and blames the other, but neither side seems too eager to reach across the gulf.

                  Political scientists usually point to Newt Gingrich or even Ronald Reagan for the latest “take-no-prisoners” style of political warfare. Both these politicians espoused the belief that the best way for one side to “win” was to paint the other side as the “the enemy,” not as respected opponents.

                  While I’m no expert in political science, the research I’ve done for my newest novel, ABIGAIL TRENCH—as well as the next entry in the Washington spy ring series—has revealed a much older origin of what we call partisan politics. Almost back to our nation’s founding, though not quite.

When the shape of the new nation finally emerged from the intense debate among political leaders between 1783 and 1788, there was little doubt as to who should head this nation, retired General George Washington. Although it would be foolish to assume the leaders had reached 100% agreement on Washington, it was close. And there was little political bickering about that. However, after the two terms of our first president, the partisan politicking was borne anew.

                  When the election of 1796, both sides squared off giving American partisan politics a roaring start. Two founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who authored the Declaration of Independence together, had very different views of how government should operate.

On the one hand, Jefferson and his party of “Democratic-Republicans” believed in limited central government, in individuals’ rights and government by popular consent. On the other side, John Adams and his Federalist party advocated for a strong central government, was strong on law and order and had a tough stand against criticism of the government, and they believed political power should rest in the hands of landowners.

Two very different perspectives for the new nation, which were broadcast across the country.

Each side even had their own “media.” Jefferson had the National Gazette published by Phillip Freneau. Adams’ Federalists had a paper with the high sounding name of the Gazette of the United States, published by John Fenno. Not only did each paper support the party with their views, they wrote angry pieces attacking the opposition, labeling them with vile names.

For example, Jefferson’s National Gazette labeled the Federalist push for a central bank and centralized economic program as “monarchial,” which was about the worst possible insult for a country that fought a eight-year war, sacrificing 25,000 young men, to defeat a tyrannical monarch.

On the other side, the Gazette of the United States, which was actually funded by the government of John Adams, accused the Jeffersonian Republicans of supporting anarchy, undermining national security and being too radical.

Both papers became “mouth pieces” for their party and, besides running editorials, stories and even poems supporting their viewpoint, both even printed lies and deliberate innuendoes designed to make their opponents look bad. For example, the National Gazette called Hamilton’s financial program  “the source of evil and mischief,” while the Gazette of the United States ran editorials attacking Jefferson “attachment” to a certain female slave.

Does all this sound a little too familiar?

While we decry the political partisanship of today’s parties and the political gridlock it often precipitates, and citizens yearn for more cooperation among their representatives, the truth is this partisan bickering has deep roots. Even though Washington warned the “spirit of party and political factions could erode the nation’s ability to govern itself,” his warning was not heeded even by those who knew and respected him. It should hardly be surprising that, 250 years later, our current system is beset with the same political bickering, name-calling and accusations by both sides.

Washington would say we should know better and do better…and perhaps someday we will.