Skip to content

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Three approaches to Independence Day

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fireworks on July 4
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

One country, one constitution, one destiny

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“One country, one constitution, one destiny,” Daniel Webster said in a historic 1837 speech defending the American Union.

This of Fourth of July, 187 years after Webster’s speech and the 248th anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, Webster would no doubt be dismayed to find his quote reconstrued by popular opinion to read something like this:

“Divided country, debated constitution, and as for destiny, we’re going to hell in a hand-basket.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding an upside down American flag

A woman protests Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, by waving an upside down American Flag.

Watchara Phomicinda/MediaNews Group/The Press-Enterprise via Getty Images

Distress signals: The American flag as a political weapon

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum.

Comparing the year leading up to the 2020 presidential election to this year, it’s striking how much has changed in the American consciousness. The divisions that deepened after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection often seem irreparable. Once unimaginable discord with family, friends and neighbors has now become commonplace. This new reality includes a further divide over what the American flag represents.

Keep ReadingShow less
book cover

The road from conflict to convergence

More than ever, Americans need to de-escalate conflict and constructively engage with others to find better solutions to problems. “From Conflict to Convergence: Coming Together to Solve Tough Problems,” a new book by Mariah Levison and Robert Fersh, is an incisive, hands-on guide designed to help citizens do just that.

Fersh is the founder and senior advisor of the Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, a nonprofit organization founded in 2009 to promote consensus solutions to issues of domestic and international importance. Fersh formerly worked for three congressional committees.

Keep ReadingShow less