Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A Republic, if we can keep it

Part XII: Hyper-partisanship

Portrait of Revolutionary War-era politician

Sen. Henry Tazewell was at the heart of a hyper-partisan dispute that resembles the fighting we see today.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Calls of “Traitor” and “Turncoat” rang down from the Senate gallery. Henry Tazewell was horrified. A Revolutionary War hero with an impeccable political record, Tazewell was now being accused of treason. And for what? For an eavesdrop, a snoop, a moment of pure hearsay. The problem for this U.S. senator? He lived in a political environment in which “name-calling, partisan bickering, and provocation” ruled the day.

According to official reports, Tazewell, a Democratic-Republican from Virginia, was overheard declaring “that if the French nation should land an army in these states, he would join the said army against the government of the United States.” The senator was deeply frustrated with the current administration. Angry even. He maintained that it was the illiberal actions of President John Adams in executing the Alien and Sedition Acts that prompted his offhand and ill-advised comment. But there was more to the story, and there were more bad actors than just John Adams, Henry Tazewell and Tazewell’s snitch.


Assuming the story is true, this patriot and statesman was publicly proclaiming a preference for the French Directory — the dysfunctional, soon-to-be-overthrown-by-Napolean French government — over a United States led by the opposition party (the Federalists). That’s how bad partisan politics had become at the end of the 18th century. Members of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party were willing to risk their honor rather than live under a Federalist regime led by Adams and Alexander Hamilton. And the Federalists were no saints either. Adams’ allies were equally prepared to accuse Democratic-Republicans of treason for such simple sardonic and lighthearted remarks as the one Tazewell was overheard uttering. Things were ugly. A more hyper-partisan, deeply divided America rarely has been felt.

Until now.

Are we facing similar hyper-partisanship today? To be sure, senators are not brandishing bayonets and shouting, “Vive la France,” as far as I can tell. But speaking in alarmingly extreme tones — like Tazewell and his Federalist opponents in 1797 — is now commonplace. One recent study found that hyper-partisan rhetoric is materially rewarded in today’s polarized political climate. Public officials who engage in “name-calling, partisan bickering, and provocation” are far more likely to win and retain seats. News media outlets are far more likely to cover the extreme rhetoric.

Equally disturbing is the spell the two major political parties have over us. Partisan identification is now the single most influential variable in determining one’s personal values. Think about that. Party affiliation has now surpassed age, race, education, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, upbringing and all other factors in shaping one’s world view. Your moral position? Depends on your party affiliation. Your sense of right and wrong? Depends on your party affiliation. Your tolerance for others? Depends on your party affiliation. It seems party platform is the modern equivalent of the pre-Enlightenment religious orthodoxy. The Democratic and Republican national committees have replaced the church as the fount of unquestioned authority. René Descartes’ famous pronouncement “I think, therefore I am” has been replaced by “I don’t think all that much for myself, I just follow the dictates of my political party.”

We are in the Age of Partisanship, not the Age of Reason. Do we need a contemporary Martin Luther to pin 95 theses to the doors of the DNC and RNC? Perhaps. But until another Luther, or Descartes, or John Locke arrives on the scene, consider the seven ideas proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace or the five suggested by the editorial board of USA Today or the five offered by the smart folks at the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley. All are interesting and, together, may shepherd a new post-partisan Enlightenment. We can only hope.

Which brings us back to Tazewell. He would escape prosecution for his treasonous comment, but not without devastating personal sacrifice. His health began to deteriorate and by the fall of 1798 he was so feeble that he could barely complete the journey from Virginia to the nation’s capital in Philadelphia. In his final correspondence to Jefferson, on Dec. 7, 1798, Tazewell continued to denounce his accusers. “[T]here is every reason to believe,” he complained bitterly, “that the [Federalist] party are using their utmost exertions to displace me.” The party of John Adams was still plotting to cancel him, to bury him, Tazewell intoned. His sad death seven weeks later made the whole Federalist Party scheme tragically moot.

Read More

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

artistic animated portrait of Thomas Jefferson

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Part II: Preambles

The band of brothers that met in Philadelphia to draft a fresh Constitution shared one thing in common: They were children of the Enlightenment. It didn’t matter where they came from or what experiences shaped their lives, America’s Founding Fathers subscribed to the ideals of human reason, the rule of law, government by consent, and the all-important “pursuit of happiness.” The Enlightenment was their collective calling card.

That generational camaraderie found purchase in the immortal words of the preamble. “We the People of the United States,” the famous preface begins, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Making promises, or at least challenging ourselves to reach a higher political vista, is pure Enlightenment thinking.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Minnesota to Utah: A Deadly Pattern of Political Violence

American flag with big crack or bullet hole.

Getty Images/Stock Photo

From Minnesota to Utah: A Deadly Pattern of Political Violence

We share in the grief over the weekend’s political violence that claimed the life of Rep. Hortman and her husband Mark, and our thoughts remain with Sen. Hoffman and his wife Yvette as they fight for their lives. This tragedy strikes at the heart of our democracy, threatening not just individual lives but the fundamental belief that people from different backgrounds can come together to solve problems peacefully.

The Minnesota shootings were not the only acts of political violence on June 14th. In Salt Lake City, gunfire shattered a peaceful "No Kings" protest, killing one demonstrator. In Austin, authorities evacuated the state Capitol under credible threats to lawmakers during another rally. In Culpeper, Virginia, a driver was arrested after driving into a crowd of protesters with his vehicle.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stories Matter: How Political Messaging Transforms Protests from Rights to Riots
Demonstrators protest in front of LAPD officers after a series of immigration raids on June 08, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Stories Matter: How Political Messaging Transforms Protests from Rights to Riots

The images emerging from Los Angeles this week tell two very different stories. In one version, federal troops are maintaining law and order in response to dangerous disruptions in immigration enforcement. In another, peaceful protesters defending immigrant communities face an unprecedented deployment of military force against American citizens. Same events, same streets, entirely different narratives. And, as it often does, the one that dominates will determine everything from future policy to how history remembers this moment.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Throughout American history, the story we tell about protests has mattered more than the protests themselves. And time and again, it’s political messaging, rather than objective truth, that determines which narrative takes hold.

Keep ReadingShow less
Flags of the United States hanging in front of the facade of a building
Colors Hunter - Chasseur de Couleurs/Getty Images

What ‘America First’ Really Looks Like

"Your flag flyin' over the courthouse

Means certain things are set in stone

Keep ReadingShow less