Since we profess that all mankind will rejoice in liberation and strongly protect their God-given rights, out of self-preservation, then why do we live in a nation with so many that would trade it for that security government can offer in return for obedience and dependence? Few people develop naturally to distrust freedom and individual choice. When a people come under great duress they act irrationally and opportunistic leaders take advantage of that vulnerability as history proves. That duress can be caused by an economic calamity, a war, an injustice, or as a tutored fear passed along to children. Those are reasons we find ourselves at times debating with those that don’t understand nor desire the American dream. The parentage of each individual’s political and economic philosophy is of utmost importance in explaining why bipartisanship is elusive now in American government.

I have no wish to bore the reader with a two hundred year history lesson that would break a table from the weight of ink and paper, however I seek through the following few paragraphs to develop a brief narrative regarding the philosophical parentage of today’s Democratic and Republican Parties.

Looking back at the early political parties of our nation it was not a question for them as how government can best solve society’s problems, but how to shackle it so that our people would never face tyranny from our own Federal government. Our Union’s combined strength was sought after by Federalists, through mutual vigilance for an uncompromised Constitutional integrity throughout our land and a strong national defense of our borders, to preserve individual freedom in part because they knew our nation was surrounded by despotic rule and injustice. The debate over whether or not to include the Bill of Rights in our Constitution between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists illustrates that American politicians at the time considered how to best keep this country free from centralized government for the entirety of her future existence. The Anti-Federalists demanded a list of rights to be guaranteed, whereas the Federalists saw the indirect risk of unavoidably limiting our citizens to only those rights. The Anti-Federalists, which included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, greatly feared concentrated power and preferred the majority of governance to remain with the states. The Jeffersonian, or Anti-Federalist, origins of the Democrats continued to materialize in their politics past the first 100^th anniversary of the United States.

At the end of the 19^th Century, the Democratic Party was transformed into what could more easily be described as a Labor party. President Grover Cleveland’s conservatism and the Democratic party platform of 1888 would be unrecognizable to today’s Democrats. Many Republicans left to join his party’s ranks. At the time American conservatives were impressed by the free market system that the Democrats espoused since early in their party’s history, in contrast to the Federalists and later Republican Party’s desire for protectionism to grow home industry and general employment. However President Cleveland made a grave error with federal intervention in the Pullman strike, a railroad union strike, and lost much credibility as a leader that governed Constitutionally. As economic crises took place progressive Republicans and labor-centric Democrats trickled into power. The emergence of the Union leader Eugene Debs, who ran under the Socialist ticket with some success, can further illustrate the rising concerns Americans had for the welfare of “working families.” By President Wilson’s time ambitious political leaders were making far reaching changes to government power and the Republicans gave little protest since they were also changing with their constituents demands. After the stock market crash of 1929 and further economic calamities the American people, anguished by the country’s downturn, were desperate for solutions and demagogues like the Fascist leader Father Coughlin and Socialist leader Governor Huey Long became popular. Elected in this political environment, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his party vocally supported the belief that democracy hadn’t been properly protected or implemented in our nation’s history and was in danger of control from profiteering mega corporations or the super rich. Playing off the fears of the ‘haves’ and ‘have not’ class struggle promoted by the populist Farmer’s Movement and also the rising labor movement, the Democrats claims were accepted as truth by the American people. With Socialism growing in popularity throughout the world programs favorable of further centralized control easily moved forward in midst of the “Great Depression.” Between the early labor movement and FDR’s dramatic reconstruction of our economy the Democratic Party was changed to the party that looked to centralized government for greater economic security.

The new Democratic Party took its ideas largely from across the oceans where political revolutions were taking place. The peoples of autocratic nations, starting in the mid to late 19^th century Europe, were embracing the political philosophies of a collection of writers that demanded the restructuring of government to eliminate all free market and private property rights. International Socialism swept the globe, gaining strength after World War One. “Social Justice” was the campaign slogan for many candidates around the world at this time, which from an American conservative’s perspective comes from the immoral theft of wealth from one to redistribute to another, the supposed placing of people on an equal footing by treating people differently, and the endorsement of government interference in the free market system. Roosevelt borrowed much of his platform, like Social Security, from the British Labour Party’s programs. With little party foundation in the philosophy of inherent personal freedoms, as exists in U.S. culture, the British began experimenting with the “Cradle to Grave” welfare system, which then exploded in scope and development under the recommendations of social reformer William Beveridge that were utilized by Prime Minister Attlee and his Labour Party. This new philosophy on the increased role of government was integrated in a new American culture. The Supreme Court, whose duty it is to defend the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, initially threw out many of FDR’s New Deal programs. Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the interference of his programs by the Supreme Court through the Judiciary Reorganization Bill, which would have added extra members by Presidential appointment. Despite that set back to his agenda over time he filled the Supreme Court with those that would “go along” with his administrations set of New Deal programs. Certainly, there was a great change in the tolerance of the American people for leaders that sought to drift from the limits placed on our early government. The Democrats continue to evolve their social and labor agenda through programs that can be traced to European social reformers and economists. The “hands off” government style was largely abandoned by both parties at the demands of their members.

The Jeffersonian Democrats live on within the Republican Party as well as other minor parties, and are even a small fragment of the Democratic Party but they have no noticeable influence on the direction of the modern Democratic Party, whose gradualist agenda of government intervention is inspired by Marxist philosophy. The Grand Old Party can trace its parentage to the founders, however it was nearly destroyed internally as the Democratic Party was. The Republican Party’s distance from political conservatism was at its greatest under the ‘big government’ administration of President Nixon. However with Buckley’s National Review, Goldwater, and national unrest over a troubled economy mixed with social engineering failures such as the Great Society, American conservatism retook the Republican Party. That refocusing on our founders’ model of government injected new life into the Republican Party throughout the 1980’s. The Republican Party’s platform today reflects largely pre-20^th century American culture and ideals but we have seen the Republican Party continue to wrestle with its direction of policy that sometimes relates little to our founders’ vision. Only time will tell if another conservative movement will successfully invigorate the Republican Party to hearken back to the spirit of the days of “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” and our nations’ founders.

Every generation of U.S. citizens born after our Constitution was written and signed had that document as inheritance. But for those new Americans born before the Constitution our rights were not expected to be guaranteed to us no matter how necessary and natural, and they did not take for granted their precious and fragile rights. Those that realize the shrewd perspective of our founders would not see the American people returned to the clutches of servitude. As the torch-holding inheritors of the great American experiment in developing a country based on the rights of man our bipartisanship will only succeed with those that believe in the validity of that experiment. Many carry a parentage of political philosophy that didn’t come from within our shores and those “children” are unrecognizable to old Uncle Sam. With two visions for our country’s future competing, one natural to its Constitutional inheritance and one adopted from foreign fathers, the Halls of Congress will continue to be packed with combatants ready for battle rather than philosophical brothers.

It is a contemptible lie for the “Religious Right,” judgmental fascists who seek to impose their personal view of Christianity on the rest of the country through political activism, and who now invade and taint the Tea Party and Liberty Movements with hateful sophistry, to amazingly claim to wave the banner of liberty in memory of our Founding Fathers. It is a strange twist of logical impossibility, veritable insanity, to hear a man profess support for the Constitution out of one side of his mouth and support for teaching the inerrancy of the Bible in public schools out of the other. These professed leaders of the Tea Party Movement, these self-proclaimed authorities on natural liberty, are vile hypocrites who twist the facts of history to suit their desire for power and control over the religious beliefs of every American.

The Religious Right Fake Tea Party is led by arrogant prideful theocrats who think they speak with spiritual authority, but clearly they don’t speak in the Spirit of the Lord. Jesus says, “My kingdom is not an earthly kingdom.” The false pastor says, “Vote for so-and-so or such-and-such bill or you are going to hell.” Jesus says, “Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The false pastor says, “If you don’t agree with my religious views, you will not be saved.” Jesus says, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted.” The false pastor says, “I am called by God to run for political office.”

But never mind the evidence of scripture, and the words of Jesus. The fact of the matter is that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation. This nation was not founded by men who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. It was founded by men who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. It was founded by men who didn’t believe in the Trinity. It was founded by men who thought the Bible was hogwash. But even the Christian founders of this nation professed the liberty of men to believe as they wish. They respected the right of men to disagree on matters of religion, the right of all religious sects to exist, that none should be exalted or found superior over the other in the realm of government.

Fundamentalist Christian preachers certainly have a right to believe that their religious views should be imposed on the citizenry of the United States of America through political action. They are American citizens after all and like every other American have a right to freedom of thought and belief. But they cannot under any circumstance claim to support the Constitution and the ideals of liberty as proclaimed by the Founding Fathers of this country. To make such an outrageous claim would be a lie worthy of the Archon himself. In order to comprehend the opinions of the Founding Fathers regarding religious freedom in our country, let us consider their own words.

George Washington, First President of the United States of America, President of the Constitutional Convention, Signed the United States Constitution:

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists…. [letter to Tench Tighman, 24 March 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon]

I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. [letter to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, 10 May 1789]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. [letter to Sir Edward Newenham, 22 June 1792]

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. [letter to Benedict Arnold, 14 September 1775]

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. [letter to Edward Newenham, 20 October 1792]

 It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. [letter to Touro Synagogue, 1790]

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. [letter to Touro Synagogue, 1790]

John Adams, Second President of the United States of America, First Vice-President of The United States of America, Drafted and Signed the Declaration of Independence:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [Treaty of Tripoli, 4 November 1796]

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history… [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments… may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven… it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses… Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. [A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787]

Christianity, you will say, was a fresh revelation. I will not deny this. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud? [letter to F.A. Vanderkamp, 27 December 1816]

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it. [letter to John Quincy Adams, 13 November 1816]

Admire and adore the Author of the telescopic universe, love and esteem the work, do all in your power to lessen ill, and increase good, but never assume to comprehend. [Written in the margin of one his books.]

The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. [letter to Thomas Jefferson, 22 January 1825]

Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States of America, First United States Secretary of State, Principle Author of the Declaration of Independence, Signed the Declaration of Independence:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. [letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 10 February 1814]

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. [letter to Richard Price, 8 January 1789]

Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. [letter to Correa de Serra, 11 April 1820]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. [Autobiography, 1821, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom]

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. [letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814]

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. [Notes on Virginia, 1782]

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. [letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 6 December 1813]

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. [Notes on Virginia, 1782]

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. [letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, 23 September 1800]

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. [letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823]

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. [letter to Horatio G. Spafford, 17 March 1814]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. [letter to Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802]

James Madison Jr., Fourth President of the United States of America, Third United States Secretary of State, Drafted the United States Constitution, Signed the United States Constitution, Author of the Bill of Rights, Author of the Federalist Papers:

That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of impas for such business… [letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774]

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774]

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. [spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. [A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize,.. [letter to William Bradford, 1 April 1774]

It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom…. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. [letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822]

Classical liberalism and present day American political conservatism sprang forth from the Age of Enlightenment. From our thirteen colonies came patriots whose foremost mission became liberty. That recognition and need for freedom was so great it changed the nature of every following generation like an echo. It was a time when we were expanding the trust in mankind and tearing it away from the old ‘god’ of absolutist government. The belief that man needed to depend on government for everything including entry into heaven was shattered. The founders knew that even faith would flourish if it wasn’t mandated by the state, as it was in the European tyrannies they left behind. How cruel and shocking to wake up in such a world where to believe in one’s own freedom was not just unique but dangerous to many societies.

The principles of the Republican Party hearken back to those desires that the original citizens embraced while pounding out the government that would protect their rights. We know that allowing people to exercise their own free will sparks prosperity through the resulting industry they create. By mid 19^th century Americans dissatisfied by the compromising of the rights of man could no longer tolerate the extreme injustice of the institution of slavery and its further expansion. They began to shear away from their former parties to get behind the banner of a party that respected freedom foremost. The belief of Republicans that government existed at the approval of the governed was integral.

The integrity of the party platform is crucial to its durability through the years. It’s frustrating to have one Republican’s inexcusable votes thrown at you like a grenade during a political debate. Some Republicans struggle to maintain adherence to the principles choosing to fight the easy battles only. Others can be opportunists that look to the Republican ticket as a vehicle for the attainment of power. Elected Republican Party members can fail their voters, but the idea that centered the party originally cannot fail since it is simply a defense of man’s natural rights.

The Republican Party cannot evolve past the limits of liberty because it is a drummer boy that keeps the passion for limited government alive so past tyrannies do not become repeated. Those that would suggest ways to make our party ‘big tent’ inevitably propose using the power of government to promote outside interests. They must respect that the power of our government starts with the individual. Republicans look to the guarantee of our individual freedoms found in the Bill of Rights. A true Republican respects the choices and rights of the individual foremost and knows his tent excludes no one.