George Washington Was Right
We need to put the well-being of the Nation above Party
George Washington had a deep-seated distrust of political parties, which he believed were divisive and harmful to the American republic.
His concerns were most clearly articulated in his Farewell Address of 1796, where he warned the nation about the dangers of factionalism and partisanship. Washington’s views on political parties can be understood in the context of his broader philosophy on governance, unity, and the role of citizens in the democratic process.
Washington’s Disdain for Political Parties
Washington saw political parties as factions driven by narrow interests rather than the common good. He was concerned that parties would serve the ambitions of particular groups rather than the well-being of the entire nation. In his Farewell Address, he wrote:
“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.”
Washington feared that political parties would become instruments of revenge and conflict, dividing the country along partisan lines rather than fostering unity. He believed that the animosity created by party divisions would weaken the government and undermine its ability to serve the people effectively.
Fear of Foreign Influence
Another major concern for Washington was that political parties might make the country more susceptible to foreign influence and interference. He believed that parties would align themselves with foreign powers, creating opportunities for other nations to manipulate American affairs. This concern was rooted in the fact that the United States, as a new nation, was particularly vulnerable to external pressures. Washington warned that:
“It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”
By fostering division, Washington argued, parties would weaken the country’s defenses against foreign manipulation, potentially allowing outside forces to exert influence on domestic policy decisions.
Threat to National Unity
Washington was deeply committed to the idea of national unity. He saw the United States as a fragile experiment in self-government that required the collective efforts of its citizens to succeed. Political parties, in his view, would undermine this sense of unity by pitting citizens against each other based on partisan interests. He believed that Americans should be united by their common identity as citizens of a republic rather than by party affiliations. In the Farewell Address, he famously said:
“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.”
Washington believed that political parties would erode the civic virtue necessary for a functioning republic, leading citizens to prioritize their loyalty to party over their loyalty to the nation. This, in turn, could destabilize the government and weaken the nation’s capacity to govern itself effectively.
Practical and Philosophical Roots of Washington’s Views
Washington’s aversion to political parties was shaped by both practical experience and philosophical conviction. Throughout his presidency, he tried to rise above partisan politics, and he appointed individuals from differing political viewpoints to his cabinet, including both Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.
For example, he appointed Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, as Secretary of the Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, as Secretary of State. Despite these efforts, deep divisions emerged within his administration, particularly between Hamilton and Jefferson, over issues such as the role of the federal government, the interpretation of the Constitution, and the direction of economic policy.
This growing divide within his own administration only reinforced Washington’s belief that partisanship was harmful to governance. He saw how personal rivalries and ideological conflicts distracted from effective leadership, pulling the government away from its primary mission of serving the people.
Philosophically, Washington’s fears were rooted in the Enlightenment belief in reason and civic virtue as the cornerstones of a successful republic. He viewed the rise of factions and parties as irrational and dangerous, leading citizens away from reasoned debate and toward emotional, self-interested behavior. His vision for the United States was one in which rational citizens, guided by a sense of duty to the common good, would work together to promote the nation’s welfare.
Long-Term Impact and Relevance Today
Despite Washington’s warnings, political parties quickly became a central feature of American political life. The very factions he feared — the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans — emerged during his presidency and solidified after his departure from office. While Washington hoped that the United States would be able to avoid the factionalism seen in European politics, the two-party system became entrenched in American political culture.
Washington’s concerns about the divisive nature of parties have remained relevant throughout American history. Many of the problems he identified — partisan gridlock, polarization, and the influence of special interests — continue to shape the U.S. political landscape. His fear that party loyalty might eclipse national loyalty is frequently cited in discussions about the dangers of hyper-partisanship and political polarization in contemporary American politics.
George Washington viewed political parties as a fundamental threat to the unity, stability, and independence of the United States. His belief that parties would foster division, weaken the government, and make the country vulnerable to foreign influence stemmed from both his personal experience and his broader philosophical commitment to reason, civic virtue, and the common good. While his vision of a party-less republic did not come to fruition, his warnings continue to resonate in discussions about the role of parties in American democracy.
Thank you for reading!
If you found reading this worthwhile, you might be interested in The United States Constitution — How it began and how it might end.
