True blue liberal Democrat Behar shocked to discover the woke likes dividing Americans

    One month ago, the President of the United States used the power of his office to incite & direct a violent insurrection against our government, based on white supremacy and baseless conspiracies, all to overturn a free & fair election.

    And you all are mad at Bruce Springsteen?

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

    Do you seriously think that Bruce Springsteen hoping for decency, civility, and a common set of values is really a tacit endorsement of white supremacy?


    No, seriously?

    I might need a break from Twitter.

    Nattering nabobs of negativity are making me lose my mind.

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

    Everyone is talking about “the church.” I’m as Jewy as they come and I don’t remember a church in the commercial. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but it did not trigger me as being pro-Christian or anti-religious pluralism.

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

    Furthermore, in no way am I diminishing anyone’s right to feel what they feel. I’m simply arguing that diminishment or marginalization was no one’s intent.

    You may disagree with me. But I’m not going to apologize for not being more outraged by a fucking Jeep commercial.

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

    No offense, but have some of you never seen an American car commercial?

    They’re historically filled with jingoistic, chauvinistic tropes.

    You may have been been triggered by the religious/ heartland imagery.

    But this was one of the least jingoistic/ chauvinistic spots I recall

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

    Or, crazy idea here my fellow white male, you could stop talking and listen more.

    — The Hoarse Whisperer (@TheRealHoarse) February 8, 2021

    You’re right. I must have missed the overt misogyny and racism of a singer driving around in a Jeep.

    — Bryan Behar (@bryanbehar) February 8, 2021

     Meanwhile, I was shocked to discover that Fiat Chrysler thinks Joe Biden's unity message can sell expensive Jeeps as well as win presidencies.


    Some interesting comments I found.

    Bruce Springsteen himself retweeted these two:

    Is this Bruce Springsteen commercial an ad for the Problem Solvers Caucus?

    — Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) February 8, 2021

    That Springsteen ad is not going to make a lot of friends in Trump land

    — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) February 8, 2021

    Astead Herndon not complaining but still not buying the unity thing:

    men in their 40s got a super bowl QB and a Bruce Springsteen Jeep ad I'm happy for them

    — Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) February 8, 2021

    The Daily Show gets it:

    BREAKING: Armed Trump supporters have stormed the church in the Bruce Springsteen Jeep ad

    — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) February 8, 2021

    Right winger trying to reframe and diminish the power of the message:

    Bruce Springsteen is now officially the second-most awkward coastal elite to publicly wear a cowboy hat.

    — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 8, 2021

    Just verification that Behar wasn't imagining things:


    Bruce... overrated?

    Is he even really relevant anymore?

    Life is way way way too short to be so so so serious.




    Thank you for telling us what's relevant. Almost thought for a sec taste is relative.

    Poor PeePee
    He's way way way too so so so serious.

    I think what causes the indigestion about unity is that unity is supposed to be created by Democrats. Democrats are supposed to listen to the concerns of Republicans. We witnessed an assault on the Capitol and multiple Republicans vote against certifying the election. Inside of calls for Republicans to get their house in order first, Democrats are told to compromise.

    Given the behavior we see from the Republicans, there are Democrats who say the heck with compromise.To Republicans unity means doing what the Republicans want to do. We have an impeachment trial starting. What demands are placed on Republicans to commit to listening to the evidence? Republicans will not vote for impeachment. Yet Democrats are supposed to be obligated to bend the knee.

    We are less than a month into the Biden Presidency. People are still pissed. Springsteen does a Jeep commercial and there are tweet snippets. Some guy is labeled "True Blue Liberal" and is surprised people are angry. Republicans censured Liz Cheney, Cindy McCain, etc and it is Woke who are considered crazy.

    The funniest version of this upset was when Van Jones appeared on "The View". Jones, early in Trump's presidency called Trump "presidential" for reading off a teleprompter. Jones said that he cried tears of joy when Biden was elected. Two of the hosts of the show told Jones that he wasn't trusted because he was two-faced.

    There should be unity. There cannot be unity when Republicans censure the sane members of their party or tell their Democrats in Congress to forget the role Republicans played in inciting the crowd that attacked the Capitol. What will Republicans do to create unity?

    Gee I wasn't aware that Superbowl advertising was targeted at Democrats only and was intended to piss many of them off. And Bruce and Tom Nichols just don't get it then when they agree that That Springsteen ad is not going to make a lot of friends in Trump land--they got fooled by Jeep advertising people who really just wanted to piss off the woke?

    Took my cue from Behar, whoever he is

    Do you seriously think that Bruce Springsteen hoping for decency, civility, and a common set of values is really a tacit endorsement of white supremacy?

    Many comments on the original tweet snippet suggest they are more in tune with the Dixie Chicks "Not Ready To Make Nice Now". The "other side" has to take the steps to begin unity.

    Unity will happen when Republicans make amends, or refuse to tolerate bigotry within the party sanctioned by leadership.

    ‘There’s Nothing Left’: Why Thousands of Republicans Are Leaving the Party

    Voting registration data indicates a stronger-than-usual flight from the G.O.P. since the Capitol riot, with an intensely fluid period in American politics now underway.

    I wonder if the "judge" appointed to run the impeachment trial thinks about "listening to the evidence"?

    “President Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant his impeachment and removal; he has emerged as the greatest threat to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation,”


    “Uniting our country happens not through rushing to forgive and forget an act of domestic terrorism. It happens through utilizing the constitutional powers granted to us by the Founders to protect our democracy. We must act together now not just to hold President Trump accountable, but to ensure that no future president, no matter their party, places at risk our democracy in service of their own selfish, illegal, and authoritarian ambitions,”

    45 Republican Senators have already declared the ex-Prez innocent without a trial, and are insisting on not calling witnesses (oddly, they insist the impeachment - the equivalent of a Grand Jury, where often no witnesses are called - is invalid cuz they called no witnesses. Similarly, the Senate avoided witnesses last year. "See no evil, hear no evil, speak lots of evil" - what a bunch of monkeys. Are you a Monkey Man too?

    (you do understand impeachment proceedings are highly politicize, don't you? Clutching pearls at one set of political conduct but not a huge chunk of others strikes me as... politically partisan. Is that you, Jeff? And considering the crime charged is attacking THE VERY INSTITUTION that's holding the trial, with people killed , what exactly do you expect? Rubber biscuit?)

    I do understand the impeachment proceedings are highly politicized.  I also understand that you like to compare it to a real trial when it suits your purposes and and a political process when that suits your purpose.

    Many Democrat Senators have already declared the ex-Prez guilty without a trial.  in fact the judge presiding has already declared as much.   If this were a "real" trial the verdict would be thrown out because of the bias of the judge.  Gosh, I guess that's where you chime in and call it a "political process", not a trial.  When witnesses aren't heard you claim it's really a trial and not a political process. 

    This is the conundrum you find yourself in when you situational ethics and not principles.





    The correct usage is "Democratic" Senators.

    Yeah, people can be so fucking moronic about this shit, signalling "I want you to talk to me seriously, but I'm going to act like a 2-year-old at the same time"

    Wow!  What a rebuttal !!

    It was a correction, not a rebuttal. Your argument is not cogent enough to contest. You seem to be talking about the House impeachment process and the Senate trial at the same time but it is difficult to say for sure.

    Nice dodge.

    On the contrary, I am interested in debating the matter. The Defense for Trump has more or less presented what you argued. Expand upon what is most compelling to you.

    It's not a rebuttal. It's pointing out what stupid juvenile tricks you use. Are you going to discuss something real, or are you here to piddlefuck around and be a distraction?

    Trump spent $50million promoting Jan 6 for weeks, coordinated with dozens of players who coordinated with 100s including Proud Boy's and Oathkeepers, all of his speech except *1* use of "peaceful" was about fighting, taking what was theirs, to be strong, marching to the Capitol to confront Congress. Meanwhile Alex Jones was sure Trump was going with them to the Capitol, which Trump said he would in his speech but then didn't. And with the riot going, Trump the Commander in Chief did *nothing* to stop the plundering of the Capitol, gloating gleefully over the results of his effort to get people rules over fake theft of votes.

    Does that sound worth convicting from impeachment, Jeff? Derilection of duty and premeditatively inciting an attack by 1000s on the Legislative branch? Watching his followers overun the Capitol on TV in his room after filling The Mall?

    Hmm, i always said they have an obligation to weigh the evidence as jurors. Where did i situational ethics that away. I pointed out the political, because many Senators *are* figuring out the political upsides and downs, not the merits of the evidence, even though they've seen quite a lot of evidence already, just not courtroom stamped (and it seems most of the Republicans have said they won't convict - does that role you? those who've felt threatened by the onslaught are under no obligation to recuse not ignore what they saw, again unlike a normal trial). As for the presiding judge, that position is quite a bit weakened over a normal judge - this presider is mainly keeping the proceedings going properly - the prosecution presents the case to the full Senate, not the judge, so you can sleep easy tonight - the world is still in balance, order has been preserved. If witnesses are allowed. (and no, witnesses are not required for a grand jury/impeachment indictment, but usually are for a trial).

    So what you're saying is anybody can be the judge in an impeachment trial.

    Damn that pesky constitution....

    "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

    So OK, Biden is not being impeached.  No problem.


    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    Does that mean that Trump is still the President?  If not how they remove him from office when they are required too...or is it to?  moat?   The "shall" part means something.

    "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

    Who are they going to remove from office?

    Why not indict and convict Trump is a court of law to "incitement to insurrection"...not sure what state or federal code that applies to...or is it too?  Gosh, I hope moat can correct the record.

    They'll convict his ass in a court of law (perhaps both state and federal), but right now they impeached his ass a 2nd time while president, and it's been ruled they can now convict him for those charges in the Senate even though Trump is no longer president. Do you dislike legal rulings, Jeff? Must we re-debatr what's been decided, rather than what's going on now? Trump desecrated his office. He's being tried for that. He *could* have been tried quickly while President, but a) McConnell wouldn't let it happen, and b) it was more fair to Trump and more fair to the American people to take time to gather together real evidence rather than put on a spectacle with too many fresh unknowns.

    Are you trying to tell us that any President upon impeachment can simply resign office and avoid trial? Is it that simple, Jeff? No responsibilities, no repercussions, just hop out if the car heading over the guardrails and go back and do it again? Were the Founding Fathers simply idiots?

    Must we re-redebate?  Really?

    "Instead Rudy, Trump, Rick Perry got away with horrid unethical and illegal behavior, on our dime. Here's more on how Rudy tried to pressure Ukraine. Any excuses for that? Both sides do it, or...?"

    "Do you dislike legal rulings, Jeff?"

    No.  You seem to though.

    Neither you or I are constitutional scholars so I won't debate whether it's constitutional to impeach an ex-president and I don't accept your arguments either. But the overwhelming consensus among constitutional scholars and lawyers  of both the liberal or conservative persuasion is that it is constitutional. In the end the Supreme Court has the final word. So you are alined with the fringe element among constitutional lawyers and scholars. 

    You don't have to debate that, it would be theoretical nonsense as of yesterday. The current Senate has voted that it is constitutional yesterday, and can be done, and they are doing it. And therefore it's the law that it's constitutional. That's it, it's been decided.

    (And in case there is any confusion about the matter: the Supreme Court has no power over them, the Supreme Court is there to interpret whether what they vote for is being interpreted correctly by the rest of government, not to second guess them.)

    And if Jeff doesn't like the situation, he needs to work harder getting a Senate elected that sees more like he does. Them's the rules in this here country. He's been impeached for a second time and the trial is going on right now. Fait accompli.

    I don't like it.  In the future you won't like it.  What goes around, comes around.


    If there's a riot in DC and a mob battles cops to break into the Capitol or the White House and there's evidence that a democratic president encouraged them I am supportive of that president being impeached. What exactly do you think democrats won't like about the precedent set with the impeachment of Trump?

    I agree with your observation that the Chief Justice should be running the trial. You should shoot him an email expressing your disappointment.

    It doesn't seem like you are following the trial. All of yesterday was devoted to whether it was constitutional or not. Trump's team did little to rebut the Impeachment Managers' arguments. Give it your best shot. But as AA points out, it is a theoretical discussion now because the body agreed to continue.

    Some parts of your arguments regarding the separation of the legal and the political are discussed in the Federalist Papers. The standard for convicting a private person was separated from what behavior was permitted in a official capacity. Why? Because a legislative body must be able to expel what they agree to be dishonorable.

    Now, one thing we pretty well do know is the ex-President do fuckall to protect Congress or carry out his duties as President, which means he should be convicted right there with nothing else - that's pretty goddamn important and him walking around the White House thrilled or simply comatose is disqualifying for his position.

    Got a response, Jeff? Or is that not in your "how to talk to Democrats" brief? Does it make any difference whether it's Proud Boy's, the British Navy or Russian troops - if they come attacking the highest halls of our democracy, the Chief Executive's gotta do something, amirite? And if he doesn't, he should have his ass kicked to the curb so bad he couldn't get up, no? Cuz we'd expect that from any cop, any soldier, hell, any nurse or doctor in time if plague. But all anybody expected of the fucktard in chief was that he'd sit around and tweet. What a waste of oxygen.

    Trump was described by those around him as “borderline enthusiastic because it meant the certification was being derailed.”141 Senior administration officials described President Trump as “delighted” and reported that he was “walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”142

    But it’s another five paragraphs before the House brief mentions that Trump was the Commander in Chief.

    During this time, not only did President Trump fail to issue unequivocal statements ordering the insurrectionists to leave the Capitol; he also failed in his duties as Commander in Chief by not immediately taking action to protect Congress and the Capitol. This failure occurred despite multiple members of Congress, from both parties, including on national television, vehemently urging President Trump to take immediate action.

    Yeah, if there were liberal protesters in the street, he'd make sure the Guard was out wafting teargas And (maiming) rubber bullets, but attacking Congress? Threatening Media, the rather special 4th Estate? No doing - this was all good fun to him, revenge for him thinking he had to have gotten more votes, or someone would rig it to give him them.

    Good point on the hopscotch back and forth from impeachment being a ‘political’ process to impeachment being a ‘legal’ proceeding.  One argumentative stand is made when a politician or pundit is talking out of the ‘legal’ side of his mouth and the other when reverting to the political side of his mouth as his case requires. And as usual, both sides do whichever is politically expedient because it supports their decided position at that moment. But the fact is, impeachment is not a trial.

     I think it is obvious that Impeachment and Conviction are in fact both totally political actions carried out with a gloss of legal procedure and is a performance rather than a trial. Some might call it a trial but others might call it Kabuki, others might call it kayfab, some might call it careerists in action. Whatever, it is a performance carried out on public stages every waking hour all over the country. 

     A President can be impeached and convicted for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors''. The same thing would have been better stated and much more clear if the Constitution had said that the Pres could be tried and could be convicted for big shit or for little shit under the procedure it sets forth. If the Pres did nothing technically illegal and nothing in violation of the Constitution he could still be Constitutionally convicted and removed from office just for stinking up the place so bad that nobody could stand working there.  It just takes enough votes. Trump has obviously passed too much gas to be tolerated among people serious about competent government to tolerate, whether they wear a mask or not, but as a group willing to vote in accordance  they are probably in the minority in the Senate, almost certainly not a supermajority. Partisan politics has become, probably always was,  so cynical that the politician’s “ethics” are almost always situational. Of course that is also true in the partisan electorate when making political choices. 

     The de facto trial is in fact in the court of public opinion but the Senate jurors vote, to a large enough extent, based on personal political calculation that the idea of judgment based on pertinent facts/law/values etc is a joke. [Who gets the last laugh is yet to be determined] The Democrats do have the facts/law/values etc on their side though in this case even if for political reasons they get hyperbolic and pompous in their virtue signaling when documenting them.  Trump is guilty of some big shit and an ongoing relentless stream of little shit, but even if the absolute truth of that fact is legally proven it is not Constitutionally required that he be convicted. I decree all this to be, in my learned legal opinion, the last word on the subject.


    I agree with you almost completely.

    A sitting President can be impeached for any reason or no reason.  A private citizen can't be removed from an office they don't hold.

    Maybe they're worried Trump could be relected in 2024?


    “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”  - Al Green




    I disagree. The House managers are not carrying out "kabuki". They are methodically proving Trump's violation of office. It is an insult to their careful work. The jurors - 100 elected Senators - may have their calculations, but those presenting and prosecuting the case are doing an excellent job. The low-rent team that grifter Don settled on to defend him? Not so hot. Penny wise, pound foolish.

    • Rep. Madeline Dean (D-Pa.) is discussing how Trump attempted to pressure local officials in key swing states to suppress residents' votes, including Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania. The former president went so far as to call into a Pennsylvania state Senate hearing and ramble about the election results, Dean says. Trump also famously pressed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to tilt the results in his favor. "Let's be clear, this is the president of the United States telling a secretary of state that if he does not 'find' votes, he will face criminal penalties," Dean says after playing a clip of the call.


        Sara Boboltz   REPORTER 2h ago

        Swalwell points out that Trump's campaign spent $50 million on internet ads to "STOP THE STEAL!" The ads were scheduled to run through Jan. 5, the day before the rally that was his "last chance" to influence the results of the election, Swalwell says. Trump relentlessly promoted the Jan. 6 rally through his social media channels.

      Principles, Jeff?

      There you go mixing up the legal and the political again.

      Let him face criminal penalties if it can be proven that he broke the law.



      Hey Jeff, your portable Constitution's Broken - there's a different set of laws for the President, called impeachment. That's what Mueller noted Trump faced - not criminal trial. So Trump was impeached. The trial for that impeachment is taking place now. While unusual -as impeachments are - the post-office trial for impeachable offenses in office was ruled legal. So fucking deal with it, otay Buckwheat? Now back to CNN/CSPAN.

      Note Trump's guys got in trouble ignoring what was ruled on dozens of times, obsessing over the legal outcomes in their heads rather than the ones in courts and Congress. Are you like that too, Jeff?

      And while they might try Trump for particular crimes, i want it loud and clear that what he did in office was a violation of oath and deserved removal from office. A conviction in an impeachment trial says exactly that. It's up to the House crew to make a convincing argument to 100 political electees in the Senate - deeply partisan - and not a civilian jury if peers. That's how impeachment trials work. Deal with it.

      But you're half right - one doesn't preclude the other

      Face it - it's closer to Nuremburg Trials than a regular criminal trial. Every day brings more and more concrete evidence of all the ways Trump and cohorts had been building up to this big day. Trump's Reality Show played out live on national TV, with months of advance promo - not sure how coy you expect people to be about that.

      5 years Trump made "Fake News" mainstream media an enemy of a cross-section of America - openly & publicly - and on January 6, any reporters near Capitol Hill were targets along with our elected representatives. He owns that.

      If you are going to object to Senator Leahy voicing an opinion before the trial, it should be directed toward his job as a juror, not his job as a judge. That task fell to him after the Chief Justice dodged responsibility for the work.

      Leahy's comments would be better compared to the Republican Senators who swore an oath to participate in a process they then declared to be illegitimate. To be precise, Leahy was pointing to how lame that move was. The quislings have given themselves the right to ignore the evidence in advance.

      Leahy himself doesn't declare how he will vote no matter what. Maybe the brilliant defense by the lawyers for the 45th will show him the error of his understanding.

      Lindsey Graham warned of a bevy of irrelevant witnesses if the Democrats run this as a real trial with real witnesses. Graham has an impressive 4 year run as a Trump lackey - wonder if any Kompromat on him. Tho with the whole party set up to appease, hard to boil it down to 1 guy.

      The witnesses that would be most immediately "relevant" would be those that could confirm the statement by the Defense that Trump was "horrified" by the violence as it broke out. That sort of screws Graham's attempt to dispense with witnesses who would say anything else as political frontage. The Defense has made the issue a matter of discovery. Maybe not a genius move.

      It is too soon to tell what motivates Lindsey. But he is scared shit-less of something.

      the Graham story is certainly such a puzzle I can't help but be interested on a human interest level. Why did he switch from the persona of basher of Trump (some of his comments during 2016 were so spot on, he knew what Trump was all about to-a-T when others didn't) and best friend of John McCain to Trumpie persona? When it's not clear at all that it's not about his constituency preferring Trumpism? I always thought of the South Carolina right as mostly old school conservative and not Trump types (almost to the point where someone like Trump would be taken as a Yankee interloper or carpetbagger. Comes to mind the So. Carolina left is far from radical too.) I went for a quick look for any evidence concerning the latter. Look what I found!  Lindsey Graham, Tim Scott May Face Censure From South Carolina County GOP, Feb. 9. There's only one thing I take as a clue: when I've seen him talk in hearings he seems to have a real bee in his bonnet, hissy fit type stuff, about what he imagines as Democrats dirty tricks, maybe from some incident way back when, seems like some sort of grudge match to the death for him against Democrats in Congress?

      Yes, I have taken notice of the hysteria displayed at hearings. There are surely grudges with Democrats to work upon but once something becomes truly personal, it can be hard to identify who must be destroyed. Graham has lost that effortless contempt that got him into power.

      Your observation about getting cozy with a Yankee carpetbagger could also be said of Jeff Sessions and his support of the Trump. Opportunity is self explanatory and maybe sufficient for the case but there was always something odd about the narrative in both of their cases.


      A politician being two-faced?  I'm shocked.

      I can remember when candidate Harris call candidate Biden a racist.  Now she's his vice-president.


      "If you are going to object to Senator Leahy voicing an opinion before the trial, it should be directed toward his job as a juror, not his job as a judge. That task fell to him after the Chief Justice dodged responsibility for the work."  

      Thanks for the belly laugh.


      Awfully nitpicky seeing as GOP abdicated responsibility to call witnesses last impeachment, which would have avoided Trump's assault on government.

      Instead Rudy, Trump, Rick Perry got away with horrid unethical and illegal behavior, on our dime.

      Here's more on how Rudy tried to pressure Ukraine. Any excuses for that? Both sides do it, or...?

      Uh-huh, Jeff'll be mad

      Situational ethics is so situational.

      "Not trial but political calculation"
      Here's how it could go - including a secret vote, or a post-trial vote to bar from office.

      Here ya go, woke lessons about a "horrific" video:

      How @springsteen and @Jeep created a #SuperBowl advertisement that exalts & perpetuates white christian nationalism. And maybe more later on how this horrific use of religious and patriotic iconography perpetuates white supremacy

      A thread, with verbal/visual translations by me.

      — Rev. Phil Woodson (@phil_woodson) February 8, 2021


      Rev. Phil is an associate pastor...

      He's associated with the First United Methodist Church in Charlottesville Virginia.

      That is the motto of their church.

      He should take that advice.


      This little discussion reminded me of how non partisans or bipartisans often don't hate in return, they just try to analyze what is actually happening

      I don't hate the people involved with all the extreme political trends happening right now. These are insecure people. They lack confidence in their personal identities and they don't know how to manage anxiety. Unfortunately they're taking it on other people and causing chaos.

      — Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) February 9, 2021

      what differs in Springsteen's message is that it is organized around all being Americans, which is a nation-state designation, but a relatively new kind, not built on genetics but of mixed ethnicity and beliefs joined by a common creed, in this case the Constitution (hence, when you chose to become a citizen, instead of being born one, you pledge an oath to it.) Inherent in that, they can still be a sort of passionate "partisanship", as Americans you would all agree to fight against enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic. Hence, you would find Hitler or Osama bin Laden a partisan enemy against Americans, and, as an American, you might find a former president and his followers an enemy if he worked against the Constitution...


      about Eli Merritt

      [....] 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.

      There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume [....]

      ~ George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

      (this is from the magazine of the American Historical Association,

      the woke are pretty much going to have to eat their Springsteen outrage now, it's gonna be real hard to cancel him:

      Latest Comments