this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
860 points (98.6% liked)

Political Memes

5452 readers
2761 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Why... WHY did you succumb to this problem that we foresaw but did nothing to prevent!?"

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

To be fair, most of Washington's concerns about political parties were about tribalism more generally.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Was about to say, this is the result of the voting system they adopted, we're just stuck with it for the moment

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Washington was not a dictator, and decidedly so?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 34 points 6 months ago (1 children)

To be fair, the two party system was a natural evolution within the government structure created by the Founding Fathers. Whether or not any individual president was a fan or not would never have prevented it.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 39 points 6 months ago (10 children)

Yeah, but they didn't have game theory then. Democracy was kind of new too. Basically all non-monarchists were allies, because they literally had to fight actual kings to rule themselves.

It's not the founders' fault that they didn't foresee all future problems. They included the ability to amend the Constitution. It's our fault for not doing that. Originalism makes no sense because the founders wanted us to change what they had done and improve it.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s not the founders’ fault that they didn’t foresee all future problems. They included the ability to amend the Constitution. It’s our fault for not doing that. Originalism makes no sense because the founders wanted us to change what they had done and improve it.

The Founding Fathers: "We're not gods or kings. That's literally the opposite of what we fought for."

Originalists: "OMG God-King Founding Daddies pls rule me from beyond the grave"

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hmm isn’t this 40k as well?

The Emperor of Man: “Gods don’t exist, use logic and science!”

The Imperium of Man: “All hail the God-Emperor, where are the 1000 sacrifices?”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

A lot also said every 20 years the Constitution needed rewritten, because expecting such a powerful document to remain relevant over such a long period of time was unthinkable to them...

[–] Fedop@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 months ago

Iirc, №10 of the Federalist papers is specifically about how an overly strong federal government would lead to a 2 faction system, suggesting that the smaller states could more easily maintain multi-faction representative groups. But over the centuries, the federal government has become more proportionally powerful, which is a fact I'm sure all the non-monarchists would be horrified by.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 25 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This was already seen well before he was even done being president. By 1800 it's obvious the 2 party dysfunction was well in motion.

I think that podcast American Elections: Wicked Game tells some of that story pretty well of the early political fighting and party divisions.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And both the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans were awful.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Lotta people trash talking Washington but I don’t think ever actually read anything about him or read anything of substance he’s written.

But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

….

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

….

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

And probably the most relatable to today:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. 

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. 

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Y’all should read his farewell speech. It’s like he was a time traveler, and why this meme says “I told you so”.

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The real dumb thing about Washington was that he foresaw the danger of parties (not that hard, considering England had had parties for over a century by then) but thought just warning people not to do it would suffice to stop their formation.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What can you realistically do to stop the formation of parties without trampling on other rights? Cooperation and organization are effective means of gaining power so parties were always going to form.

Reforming campaign finance rules and abandoning first-past-the-post voting is more a long the lines of what I would do to make elections more democratic, rather than try to ban parties.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I heard that motherfucker had like... thirty goddamn dicks.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He'll save the children but not the British children

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

He once held an opponent's wife's hand. In a jar of acid. At a party.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Political parties in general. The problems specific to a two-party systems weren't understood yet. Being that the United States was figuring out how a modern democracy should work as it went, that's not surprising.

[–] lemmyhavesome@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

The founders went for a "winner takes all" system, and the two party system emerged from that, as an unforseen (but natural) consequence.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

How? He looked at history, and every two-party system that came before.

[–] FiniteBanjo 14 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Washington is a broken clock right twice a day, tbh. That guy owned half the slaves in Mount Vernon. He didn't have any idea how to fix society, modern middle schoolers could debate him and win.

[–] lseif@sopuli.xyz 10 points 6 months ago

tbf, middle schoolers are from the future for him

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] suction@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Many countries without the two party system have the same problems though

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

In such times, the lessons of history seemed less distant.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

This where entrenched lobbying, corruption and bribery has taken us. Corporations are NOT "people."

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Don’t you say that about my FOunDinG DaDdy!!

load more comments
view more: next ›