Why do so many DUers feel the need to argue with each other?

[Stinky The Clown]

I am amazed day after day at the vitriol that gets spewed on DU ...... not at the Republicans, but at fellow Democrats.

I understand principles. I understand passion.

But *why* must we be witness to screed after screed after screed about every little (and, admittedly not so little) thing that gets said. Dem notables go from hero to goat in a heartbeat. A DUer makes a comment and a swarm feels the need to jump all over the comment and why it is so horrible and evil.

We see the same petty arguments waged over and over and over. No one's mind gets changed. Why do we bother? It only serves to harden views against the position you hold or against the person you support.

Particularly now ..... scant weeks ahead of the midterms, wedges continue to be driven.

If you see yourself in this post, don't bother telling me. That's not what this is about.

Our candidates are who they are. They're lefty-left, left, center, moderate, conservative, corporate, anticorporate, misguided, part of this group or that.

They're ..... ****diverse****.

Deal with it.

Now get in line and pull the rope. All together. As a TEAM.

[SaveElmer]

1. K&R...

I agree 100%

[yorgatron]

2. because most people don't follow 1 simple rule;

"read twice,post once."

[Fridays Child]

5. Thought you were going for the Golden Rule or B*sh's bastardization...

..."like your neighbor like you'd like to be liked yourself."

:rofl:

[adarling]

3. i agree but to a point

I think the arguing shows how diverse and interesting we all are. Not to toot our own horns but the republicans and most conservatives fall in line and that does not create dissension in the ranks. The more people argue the more we challenge ourselves and question whether we believe what we believe. It does get annoying and sometimes petty, but damn't we do not want to become sheep like the republicans and just follow whomever comes first. I think the reason there has been alot more arguing going on is because we are now becoming a bigger online community then it use to be. We are closing in on 100,000 registrations with probably more people shadowing than ever. Don't worry too much, but keep posting your ideas like this, it will help everyone come back down to earth :).

[Greyhound]

22. Discussion used to be engaged in by the repukes, once upon a time,

about 30 - 40 years ago, too. The neocon hijacking made sure that ended, and we failed to recruit those that were purged. Now they sit at home, hoping they don't get laid off and wish for someone to come forward and speak to them. They are the landslide we need, if only we would try.
:kick:

[Fridays Child]

4. I have rarely seen a POV expressed here that was so messed up it...

...warranted an all-out assault. And, when that does happen, the thread is usually pulled. Beyond that, I agree with you. It seems that the concept of civil and friendly disagreement is frequently lost on many who post here.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Threads worthy of all out assualt are not the issue, really

As you say, they're pretty damned obvious.

Now, when a member of the Sharks comes up and says "Go Sharks", every Jet in the place reacxhes for the switchblade.

Same with the Hatfields and McCoys.

Capulets and Montagues ....

Or some thread about a social issue .... gay rights .... women's issues .... Lots of VERY RIGHTEOUS passion on all sides of that kind of thing. It is these threads, actually, where I learn the most. Not so much by getting into the imbroglio as just reading.

The Hatfields and McCoys things ...... ? Not so much.

[madfloridian]

6. You know what? That works both ways.

I feel like this is the third post put up because I posted about the DNC fundraising actually being very very good.

Nobody wins if we forget what truth is.

And don't bother calling me names...there are not any left.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Ah, Mad,

you're such a poopy head! :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

47. Ok, so you thought of a new one.

Funny one, too. You deserve credit for that. :evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

7. how do we choose between unity and change?

some say: we have to pull together ... some say: our party has been infested by a corporate cancer ...

and those, for so long, who have pointed fingers at this cancer, now see Lieberman running AGAINST THE PARTY ... we see Al From cozying up to a republican to get him to run for President as an Independent AGAINST THE PARTY ...

should we fight them or join with them in November? do we need to reclaim our party from forces hostile to our agenda or do we just join together in a group hug? if we win, what will we win?

how do we bring about the changes we need? can we accomplish anything and make real progress if we keep supporting an agenda we disagree with?

when you say "get in line and pull the rope", are we pulling republicans across the center line to our side or are we just hanging ourselves?

cheerleading for the TEAM sounds great; fighting for a TEAM that does not directly oppose our agenda sounds better ... what do we win if we elect people who continue to endorse the corporate agenda? what do we win if we continue to elect people who keep voting over and over and over and over for bush's war? how will "the TEAM" vote when war with Iran is put before them? have they told us yet or are they tap dancing again as they did and still do on Iraq?

i would love to deeply believe in party unity ... i would like to confidently endorse the TEAM ... i'm truly afraid, that in doing so, i am voting for the status quo which i believe we can ill afford ... how do we send a hard message to the Democratic Party that what is is NOT OK? we all want to win; we all should understand the power of unity; but i, for one, am not hearing the kind of statements that talk about the changes we need ... and from some, i am hearing genuine disunity ... again, i cite the "gang of 14"; i cite Lieberman's campaign; i cite Al From and the DLC attacks on progressives ...

if we support unity, it's often hard to see how we are not hiding our heads in the sand and denying that the Party's right wing has launched an all-out offensive for control ... making nice is, well, nice ... to quote Frank Burns: "it's nice to be nice to the nice." ... "getting in line" is one of those Kumbayah phrases that sounds good ... taking back control of a party strangled with corporate money sounds better ...

[Stinky The Clown]

14. My concern was as much timely as anything

I'll get to what you said in a second ..... but first ..... right now we have but ONE purpose: Get Democrats Elected.

(Most of) The primaries are over. The campaigns are now into high gear, but perhaps not yet at top speed everywhere.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be debate. Or passionate debate. But if we debate what is a forgone conclusion - the slate of candidates and the issues they're running on - bewteen now and the midterms, and if that debate causes us to miss but juuuuuuuuuust a tad, what have we accomplished? We have more than enough to warrant our attention. The Repub opposition and the voting system is two full time jobs.

Now ..... back to your points: debate.

That should start the day after the elections .... unless you're still high on the afterglow ...... then you can wait a few days. Actually, from my perspective, I don't want us to view even a complete and total victory in November as the end of it. If anything, its just keeping up. Barely.

There are, to be sure, troubling issues and troubling events and troubling candidates. Its just that its my own view that the time to get them is after November, not now. Essentially, I'm suggesting a two month moritorium.

You and I may not agree on this point: Right now, September 18, 3.00 PM EDT, our ONLY job is to win in November .... with the slate we have and by any means necessary. NOTHING else matters.

After the midterms? Back to work on the other stuff. And that coujld surely include anything that becomes an issue between now and then, whether with their side or our side.

[welshTerrier2]

44. the timing is always a tough call ...

someone says, a year before the election: "warning Democrats - what you're doing is NOT OK with me ... if you don't do x or y, i will NOT support you" ...

that raises the first question: is it OK to NOT support a party that votes against your deeply held beliefs on issues you define as the most important? it's hard for me to accept "no, never" as an answer ... certainly, anyone can disagree with what issues that person identifies and how much weight they should carry ... but to tell someone they MUST vote for Democrats seems a bit over-the-top to me ... we should base our vote on what is best for the country and what upholds our deepest values ... at least that's how i see it ... so, withholding a vote or voting for a third party is valid to me if the reasons are appropriate ...

but, then you get down to those last months before the election and even to the actual casting of your vote ... what's the message? are you saying: "it's OK to fight like hell and try to influence the Party, but, in the end, we expect you to toe the line? what happened to standing behind all those arguments you made last year? and last month? and last week? now, because it's no longer "just talk and debate", we should put all that aside for unity?

that's a pretty tough case to make ... put in the most negative light, the argument could be phrased that you should put aside your deepest beliefs until after the election ...

i'm all for pragmatic voting strategies ... i'm strongly in favor of compromise and balance and reasonableness ... i certainly don't expect to see very much of my personal agenda ever coming to fruition ... ever ... you know much of what i believe in ... maybe in a few hundred years it might happen ... if i'm not busy with other things, maybe i'll stick around to see it ...

so, what do we do with our poor, idealists? do we impress on them the importance of "lesser of two evils" voting? do we tell them we respect their right to dissent but not when it really counts? do we coddle them and tell them that, right after the election, we'll support a few of their little issues and we'll try to get the party to move a little further to the left?

you know, i really do wrestle with all of this ... i'm not hardcore one-sided in my voting strategy around this issue ... frankly, i'm not at all totally comfortable with my position but it is, nevertheless, my position ... i cannot imagine, under any circumstances whatsoever, voting for anyone of any party who has continued to support the damned war in Iraq ... i'm wrestling with this very issue right now about whether to vote for Kennedy for Senate this year ... he is a special case, of course and perhaps i'll still vote for him ... he has NOT, however, shown much leadership on the war and that is extremely disappointing ...

it's hard to separate opposing Democrats i don't agree with long before an election from Democrats I disagree with on election day ... yes, we should fight like hell in the primary but no, we are under no obligation to accept the results ... when election day rolls around, it's up to each of us to weigh how we'll vote ... choosing different approaches for different points in time really asks the question about whether to ultimately withhold support on election day ... it seems to me there is no "one size fits all" answer to that ...

[heidler1]

21. Well said. In this process of throwing ideas against the wall to see what

sticks agreement need not be immediate, but hopefully it will emerge before November. For example you can't expect everyone to believe as I do, "The sooner we get out of Iraq the better" But it is a safe bet that the Democrats will get us out before the Rep. will if the Rep. stay in full power.

[Nictuku]

29. It is one reason I don't post here much

I've been a member of DU for a couple of years now I think, and one of my first few posts was attacked (for spelling). It was a real turn off.

Now, I appreciate DU mostly for helping to keep me up to date on current events. One of the coolest things is when there is a heads up for CSPAN or other programs that I would be interested in watching.

I usually read the first page of most of the threads that interest me, but not much of the comments generally.

[welshTerrier2]

48. your opinion is as valid as anyone else's ...

i always hate to see posts that indicate people aren't posting because of the treatment they've received ... i have no idea whether you and i would agree or disagree on the issues, but my take is that everyone's entitled to a say ...

and as far as only reading the first page without reading the responses, "there's gold in them thar hills" ... i find that the responses are as often better than the OP as not ... of course, that's NOT the case with this particular Opening Poster ...

anyway, be bold; be brave; grow a thicker skin and tell us what you think !!

[KoKo]

8. Are you talking about the DLC and Left of DLC posts? Or, something else?

:shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Not so much

They're a part of it, but there's so much more. I won't cite any threads, posts, or posters here. That's not my purpose.

[madfloridian]

11. This is what the unity posts are about.

I have heard for weeks what a fundraising failure Dean is at the DNC. Ever since I posted this there are unity threads. Any one who reads my posts know I am a good Democrat, but it is important to not let untruths pass us by anymore.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/282

[gratuitous]

10. Should we run each disagreement by you first?

I'm being only partly facetious; certainly I see a lot of tempests in teapots. But I don't try to divine what stake the various folks might have in a dispute, unless it's obvious trollery. Something that I couldn't care less about might be vitally important to someone else. I'll stay out of the way and let other folks who do, as the saying goes, have a dog in the fight settle it amongst themselves. I'm perfectly capable of ignoring an issue that I don't care about.

On the other hand, DU brings a lot of things to my attention that I might not otherwise know anything about, and that's only because people who are vitally interested or involved in them start or perpetuate arguments.

Surely we should all pull together; but in which direction? That's what's being worked out in a lot of these arguments. Though I agree that when the party has selected its candidate, it's time to pull for that candidate. I, too, get impatient with posts that make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that argue that letting things get worse is preferable to taking any action now to ameliorate the damage that's being done to the country. And so I often post in opposition to them.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. You know .... an OP on the most critical issue or the most silly

is okay. Who cares? Say any damn thing you want. The real issue is the flogging to keep posts at the top or to keep posts alive and brewing animosity.

If one posts something that no one else knows, then we learn. If, at the same time, no one gives a shit, the thread should just die. But no. Every time there's a bullshit post that would otherwise die, it just floats and floats and floats and garners attention all out of proportion to its relative worth. I have a post I made last week that hasn't died. I made exactly one reply to it. The rest is the most incessent he said/she said you're nuts/no you are palaver imaginable. Little of it had to do with the essential fact: that BBV was being discussed by the MSM in broad daylight.

At the end, when that one dies, no one will have had their mind changed, everyone will be pissed off, and more factionalism may well result. Meanwhile, the essential ;point was totally overwhelmed by the noise.

What good does that do **at this time**?

[populistdriven]

12. because we are mad as hell & need counseling or an impeachment or somethin

[Stinky The Clown]

40. I get that feeling, too.

Sorta like yellow jackets in the Fall. They're just mad at *everything*.

[elocs]

13. Yes, I have notice this also.

There are certain issues and points of view that seem to become a litmus test which makes you a "true" Democrat. If your opinion does not line up and agree with the point of view of the most shrill and vocal supporters of a particular issue, then they will pile on and accuse you of supporting Republicans and that is the nicest thing they will have to say.

[libodem]

16. We all like information that supports our personal POV

That's human nature. Going out of our comfort zone to explore new ideas is the way we learn, however. It is important to see both sides and know the arguements either way. I suppose that's what makes some of us flip/floppers. I think the Repub's problems begin with being so one-sided and so absolute about their perceptions of reality. We on the other hand are able to evaluate and process new information and form new opinions. We have intellect and that's what makes us better. Repub's have permant imprinting that makes them inflexable and unable to change directions, even if they are going hell bent down the wrong road. I just think we could be very civil with our diagreements here at DU. Someone might learn something and be a better more informed citizen.

[AZBlue]

17. DU has attracted a bitter group that loves to argue and fight.

It's a small group but unfortunately a very loud one. They are here simply to argue, name-call, bitch, complain and instigate. You can see who they are if you look at their posts - within one thread, their argument will change from post to post because they are JUST here to argue. They don't really have a point or a purpose other than that. IMO, they are who the Ignore option was created for because they can otherwise ruin it for the rest of us (who are the majority here at DU, btw).

[pecwae]

33. I learned that in a hurry

when I first started posting. It seems especially bad when one has less than 1000 posts, but I've seen ugly pile ons occur to 1000'ers as well. It's usually the same ones and seems to be done solely for the hell of it with no actual point being made. Funny, many of the posters on my ignore list have been TS'd since I put them on.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. "....... posters on my ignore list have been TS'd since I put them on"

Funny how that works, huh? Your senses and sensibilities must be in pretty good working order. :thumbsup:

[wndycty]

18. K&R

:kick:

[endarkenment]

19. It is a discussion forum?

If all we do is agree with each other it will be a boring discussion forum.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I'm just asking for six weeks or so ..... until after the midterms

We've had nearly two years to fight about issues and candidates. Its been healthy. I can speak only for myself, but I promise you some of my personal views have changed as a result of these discussions and debates. Other of my views have become more clear and solidified. That's all good.

It just seems to me that a short 'truce' while we get OUR side elected is hardly too much to ask.

[Human Torch]

20. I guess my posts bring out the "I want to make you my bitch" in people.

What they soon find out is that they're dreaming the impossible dream.

:evilgrin:

Seriously...I have people drop into my threads who tell me the intent behind my posts (mindreaders?) and accuse me of all kinds of crimes against humanity. They quote things I did not say in my post... someone did that as recently as yesterday. I get accused of "demonizing" people when I copy something from Raw Story or Huffington Post without comment...

Fact of the matter is that there's no shortage of people who come here looking for a fight, and in some ways, we have a segment of the DU population that's no better than the people we regularly criticize over at Freep-town. The stance of the DU Mods is "let us handle it." Life gets a lot easier when you take that advice.

Freeps come to DU, look around, go back to F.R. and post "I need a shower after going over there."

DUers go to F.R., look around, come back to DU and post "I need a shower after going over there."

James Taylor sang "Shower the people you love with love, Show them the way that you feel, Things are gonna turn out fine if you only will."

Humans have a tendency to always want to be right. In order to be "right," it becomes impossible to respect someone else's opinion. You have to tear that opinion down and discredit the person's credibility and then the person who needs to be "right" above all else considers themselves "right." We have folks like that on DU, they have folks like that on F.R....

Truth of the matter is there's all kinds of things swimming around in the big gumbo pot of life...some tasty, some not so tasty, and some that can't even be identified.

I think it was Maya Angelou...or maybe Joe Montana...no, wait, I think it was former Beatles drummer Pete Best...who said "there are all kinds of people in the world, my friend. Some are amazing, beautiful, passionate and talented. Some are assholes. It doesn't take much to be an asshole...just the desire to BE one. Oh, and one more thing. Sometimes they have a gold star and 1000+ posts."

I never go into "attack" mode on DU, and I never go after anyone personally. It's not who I am, and if I don't respect what's good in others, I'm no better than the asshole attacking me.

:patriot:

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Oh yeah. You hit every hot button there!

:thumbsup:

Seriously...I have people drop into my threads who tell me the intent behind my posts (mindreaders?) and accuse me of all kinds of crimes against humanity. They quote things I did not say in my post... someone did that as recently as yesterday. I get accused of "demonizing" people when I copy something from Raw Story or Huffington Post without comment...

Hooooooo-boy is that the truth. Happens all the time. People read a half a post, jumpt to some wild-assed conclusion about what YOU meant and then flame away. Never mind you thought the opposite! :eyes:

Humans have a tendency to always want to be right. In order to be "right," it becomes impossible to respect someone else's opinion. You have to tear that opinion down and discredit the person's credibility and then the person who needs to be "right" above all else considers themselves "right." We have folks like that on DU, they have folks like that on F.R....

All I can add is a heartfelt 'Amen'.

I think it was Maya Angelou...or maybe Joe Montana...no, wait, I think it was former Beatles drummer Pete Best...who said "there are all kinds of people in the world, my friend. Some are amazing, beautiful, passionate and talented. Some are assholes. It doesn't take much to be an asshole...just the desire to BE one. Oh, and one more thing. Sometimes they have a gold star and 1000+ posts."

Opinons and assholes ... everybody's got one. There are some opinions I'd like to trade in for a good asshole. (That quote ....... ? Pete best. ;-) )

[OzarkDem]

23. Sorry Mr. Sparkly

I didn't mean to beat up Webb badly over his remarks about women in the military. But this stuff should be a no-brainer for a Dem candidate.

I support him just the same and I do hope desperately that he wins, but for goodness sakes, we have to get after our Dem candidates to be better communicators on women's issues, especially the non-controversial women's issues - like women in the military. :spank:

Am I forgiven?

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Having an opinion is fine

Defending it passionately is what we're supposed to do.

Beating up a ***DEMOCRATIC*** candidate in a tight race a few scant weeks before an election .... mmmmmm ..... ?

That's not take your issue away. Its real. What was said was said. he thinks (and I happen to agree) that he is past it. You disagree with that to a greater or lesser degree. That's all fine. Take it up with him *after* he wins.

If you and I had that discussion a year ago ..... you'd never have heard a peep out of me.

[truebrit71]

25. We don't. Now stop trying to start an argument...

:evilgrin:

[rinsd]

26. Because its the internet and most of us have no social skills?

[Stinky The Clown]

31. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog .......

...... or a clown.

[bvar22]

28. I have no probelm with this......

...as long as everyone unites behind ME. :evilgrin:

Elect DEMOCRATS in 2006, then kick their lying, warmongering, corporate pandering asses!
:patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

50. it's the only way, you know

an orderly line too, please
no talking

[wyldwolf]

30. when I'm given posts like the following, you have to ask?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2833855&mesg_id=2834064

[Stinky The Clown]

36. I won't respond to thread links to other posters.

Its against the rules.

[wyldwolf]

38. you did, and no it isn't.

Ooops! We're arguing.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I responded to the OP in that thread

'nuff said.

[CarlVK]

32. We are not locksteppers like the neoStalin GOP

That is a formula for rancor.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. The more rancor the better

But misplaced or mistimed rancor will lead to just more belly button contemplation and mental masturbation time. When you're out of power, there's not much else to do.

[geek tragedy]

42. "I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Will Rogers

[ms liberty]

43. It gets rather annoying sometimes, doesn't it?

There are some DU'ers that just can't handle it if a Dem says one thing that they disagree with. One issue position alone sets them off. I don't understand it myself - I know for a fact that none of our Dems are going to believe EXACTLY what I do, I accept that there will be differences. If I agree with them more than half the time, I feel okay with them. If I can agree with them three quarters of the time, I'm over the moon about it! I quit expecting 100% a long time ago!!!

[Spinoza]

46. I think many of us--

like myself--really enjoy a good arguement. How boring DU would be if everyone just agreed with each other. Its fun to disagree, and explain our positions, even if noone is convinced. But I agree ad-hominen attacks are completely counter productive.

[ChipsAhoy]

49. YOU were the one who treated me poorly!

How incredible that you would start a thread like this when you were jumping all over me for having a different view and not walking in lockstep.

And then you made some off hand remark about me trying to rack up post counts. Well, obviously, I don't post here much, Husbandtowhomever --- it's because of posters like you. And now you start a thread like this. Unreal!!

And, by the way, this is a copy cat thread. I posted one like this not so very long ago.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. I treat a lot of people in ways they deem 'poorly'

I also don't usually go off on ad hominum attacks. More likely its swatting at fools.

You don't like what I say ... don't come to my threads. That's easy enough, no?

Now, all that being said .... I gotta tell ya .... I don't even remember you.

[onenote]

55. "swatting at fools"

I think that explains a lot of the posts to which you refer...maybe foolishness is in the eye of the beholder, but imo there are clearly posts that are foolish, or inaccurate, or naieve, and I think its necessary and appropriate for those posts to be answered. To be sure, the tone of the response doesn't need to be hostile, but nuance is difficult to convey and the back and forth has a tendency to get heated.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I also don't see much chance of the situation changing.

[ChipsAhoy]

56. So this is a hypocritical thread?

You would have done better to start an apology thread because everything you wrote is not how you behave.

And I certainly don't post on your threads - and didn't at the time I'm speaking of. However, now that you mention it, I do get a chuckle out of seeing how many threads you start .....

Further, since you claim to treat so many people here poorly, I certainly don't expect you to remember me. You must have a play book of insults you use when people don't walk in perfect lockstep with your particular views.

This is the most hypocritical thread I've ever seen. Laughable, really!

[TheFarseer]

52. I'll tell you why

people are pessemistic about the elections. We all want to believe but we saw the party tank in 2004 and this is all getting so frustrating. So........we don't have much patience for people who disagree with our own ideas about what is wrong. Just my thoughts.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. I don't think you're too far off the mark ......

.... at least for some people who argue. For others .... it seems like they pick fights to .... pick fights. Looking to settle some long forgotten grudge. Whatever.

What's sad is that so many intelligent posts - even with controversial ideas - just sink like stones. I guess its easier to do drive by dissings than to put some thought into making a point.

[welshTerrier2]

54. Hamilton: The Federalist Papers #1

Senator Byrd spent some time on the Senate floor today waving around his copy of the Constitution as he so often does ... during his speech, he strongly encouraged all Americans to read The Federalist Papers ... here is an excerpt from the very first Federalist Paper where Hamilton focusses on both those who dissent about any issue of governance and those who acquiesce ... Hamilton seemed to be exploring the motivations of both groups and assessing how we might view them ... it took me several readings to get the gist of what he was saying in the following passage ... it seems somehow relevant to this thread ...

source: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_01.html

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth.