#george washington's farewell address

[aswithasunbeam]

Hey! As you know a lot about the time period I’m wondering if I can ask you a question. From what I’ve seen, John Hamilton’s biography of his father was criticised because it claimed that Hamilton authored many of Washington’s letters (and I gather he was criticised by people who admired Hamilton). Did Hamilton actually author many of the papers under Washington’s name - did people just not want to believe it because of Washington’s reputation or for political reasons?

Hamilton definitely authored a good number of Washington's papers. During the Revolution, Hamilton's job as Washington's aide de camp included the duty to pen letters for George Washington. A quick search of Hamilton's papers on Founders Online shows a total of 889 letters written in Hamilton's handwriting that were sent under George Washington's signature.

What brought much more political controversy was Hamilton's involvement in the drafting of Washington's famous Farewell Address. All those years as Washington's aide meant Hamilton had a great knack for writing in Washington's voice. When Washington determined to step down from the presidency, he sent Hamilton a draft for a Farewell Address that James Madison had worked on four years previously (See Hamilton to Washington, 10 May 1796). Hamilton reviewed Madison's work, but decided instead to send his own version of what he thought Washington ought to say to the public. (See Hamilton to Washington, 30 July 1796). Washington ultimately tweaked Hamilton's draft and also passed it around to members of his cabinet for input, but much of the Farewell Address was in fact authored by Alexander Hamilton.

Because Washington generally tried to remain above the party politics of the time, it being widely known that his beloved last words to the public were penned by Alexander Hamilton would have started a political firestorm.

When Hamilton passed away in 1804, Rufus King went through his papers and took the draft of the Farewell Address that would have proved his authorship, fearing Hamilton's family would publish it to give Hamilton credit for the work. Eliza Hamilton spent years attempting to reclaim the document. She even visited Mount Vernon at one point to look through Washington's papers to see if there was a copy of Hamilton's draft there (see The Life and Correspondence of Bushrod Washington, v. VI, pp.617-18). Ultimately, she had to file a lawsuit against King in 1825 to reclaim the document. Eliza did not, as King feared, immediately make it widely known that Hamilton had authored the Farewell Address. However, she did record a statement to be released after her death where she detailed her own personal knowledge that Hamilton had drafted the Address for Washington. In that statement, she related the following amusing anecdote: "Shortly after the publication of the address, my husband and myself were walking in Broadway, when an old soldier accosted him, with a request of him to purchase General Washington’s Farewell address, which he did and turning to me said, ‘That man does not know he has asked me to purchase my own work.'" (Elizabeth Hamilton’s Statement as to Washington’s Farewell Address, as published in The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton). Her statement was one of the many, many ways Eliza worked during her life to help preserve Hamilton's legacy.

[uwmspeccoll]

Milestone Monday

On this date, September 19 in 1796, George Washington's Farewell Address (which was dated two days before) was printed in the American Daily Advertiser as an open letter to the public, and subsequently published across America that year and reprinted innumerable times over the next two centuries. It is is considered to be one of the most important documents in American history, and every year since 1896, the Senate has observed Washington's birthday by selecting one of its members, alternating parties, to read the 7,641-word statement in legislative session. 

Washington’s address identifies several issues confronting America’s political future. Perhaps the one most relevant for us at this moment is his warning about political factionalism. He warns that factions may seek to obstruct the execution of federal laws or prevent the branches of government from exercising the powers provided them by the constitution. Such factions may claim to be trying to answer popular demands or solve pressing problems, but their true intentions are to take the power from the people and place it in the hands of unjust men:

they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

We hold two early copies of the Farewell Address, shown here. The first, printed in Boston for the State of Massachusetts by William Manning and James Loring in 1805, was intended as a classroom textbook and also included printings of the Massachusetts Constitution, the U. S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. The second, was printed in Exeter, New Hampshire by Charles Norris, and was published along with a printing of the U. S. Constitution. 

View our other Milestones.

[filosofablogger]

A Prescient Warning From 227 Years Ago

Yesterday, a timely article in History.com caught my attention.  It delved into George Washington’s farewell speech in September 1796, just prior to the end of his second term in office.  At that time, there were no term limits and President Washington could have run for a third term and likely won.  But he had been in poor health for some time, and he felt that if he sought a third term, then…

[we-never-stop-fighting-kb]

Hamilton interpretation of Farewell Address

GW: "friends and fellow citizens"

AH, writing: "...friends...fellow citizens...and Jefferson"

GW: no

[odinsblog]

Since the founding of the United States, politicians and pundits have warned that partisanship is a danger to democracy. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, worried that political parties, or factions, could "allow cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men" to rise to power and subvert democracy. More recently, many political observers are concerned that increasing political polarization on left and right makes compromise impossible, and leads to the destruction of democratic norms and institutions.

A new study, however, suggests that the main threat to our democracy may not be the hardening of political ideology, but rather the hardening of one particular political ideology. Political scientists Steven V. Miller of Clemson and Nicholas T. Davis of Texas A&M have released a working paper titled "White Outgroup Intolerance and Declining Support for American Democracy." Their study finds a correlation between white American's intolerance, and support for authoritarian rule. In other words, when intolerant white people fear democracy may benefit marginalized people, they abandon their commitment to democracy.

The World Values Survey data used is from the period 1995 to 2011 — well before Donald Trump's 2016 run for president. It suggests, though, that Trump's bigotry and his authoritarianism are not separate problems, but are intertwined. When Trump calls Mexicans "rapists," and when he praises authoritarian leaders, he is appealing to the same voters.

Miller and Davis' paper quotes alt right, neo-fascist leader Richard Spencer, who in a 2013 speech declared: "We need an ethno-state so that our people can ‘come home again’… We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy."

Ethnic cleansing is impossible as long as marginalized people have enough votes to stop it. But this roadblock disappears if you get rid of democracy. Spencer understands that white rule in the current era essentially requires totalitarianism. That's the logic of fascism.

(continue reading)

[fatherof1789]

opinion on modern day america

My dearest August Worstmonth,

I am very disappointed in the state of modern-day America. I cannot say with certainty that I did not expect our grand outcome, but I would've thought it would happen much later than this.

To ensure that America could live steadily for as long as it could, I, George Washington, wrote a farewell address alongside Alexander Hamilton, giving advice to the country and letting all of my words deliver before my death.

In that letter, I explicitly talked about some of the things I feared and advised against. Firstly, we need to ensure isolation and not be involved with the affairs of other countries, however increase our connection with them in regards to trade to boost our economy. Also, be wary of political parties because they are just abominations whose only purpose is to divide us and get us to ignore our American identities. As well, be responsible with our money, and make sure not to make debt a problem.

What have I come back to? We have constantly messed with the affairs of other nations, including two massive worldwide wars, and many of this fiddling has gotten us a massive territory that we don't need.

What have I come back to? The Federalist and Republican parties died, but with them emerged numerous new parties, including a Democratic and Republican party who both honor practically the same thing and neither do anything for our economy or anything that's actually important for our country.

What have I come back to? We are currently trillions of dollars in debt, all because we were irresponsible and too confident in our abilities to see the destructive nature of ourselves.

Despite the many who say otherwise, America wasn't a bad and evil country. It had good potential. It had a government and people who were caring. And yet, look at us now.

I must say, I'm ashamed. But please, do not be depressed. Use this very fact as an opportunity to improve it. Go out, vote for the one who will do you justice after some good research, and don't vote for any third parties because they will always lose. I applaud you.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Brigadier General L.W. Stotesbury delivers the National Defense Day address in front of the Sub-Treasury Building, September 12, 1924. The statue of George Washington, who bid farewell to his troops on these steps, stands above the crowd.

National Defense Day was designated as a day of patriotism, practice, and preparedness, to be “observed in a most practical way and with all the fervor and enthusiasm of which red-blooded Americans are capable.” It saw the debut of the National Defense Test, an experimental network linking 18 radio stations from coast to coast.

Photo: NY Daily News via Getty Images/Fine Art America

[officialyourdailyinspiration]

by Ben C. Dunson | At the founding, and for most of America’s history, the moral formation at America’s schools and universities included instruction in religion. George Washington warned, for example, in his Farewell Address that we must not “indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Massachusetts’ Constitution speaks similarly: “The happiness of a people, and the…

[jayjuno]

Do we need political parties? Being Independent in America

Do you know which political party the first President of the United States belonged to? 

It’s a trick question.

Not every American President was affiliated with a political party- some were unaffiliated.

George Washington was not a Democrat, nor was he Republican- he was Independent. 

What is that? What does it mean when a person is Independent, politically speaking? Well, when a person isn’t affiliated with any political party, they are called unaffiliated, non-partisan, or Independent.

Washington was the first Independent President of the United States of America, and he remains the only one elected as an Independent. Think about it- how many Independents have we had in the White House since his second term ended in 1797?

George Washington was against political parties altogether. Did you know that? 

Did you know that the first President actually spoke out against political parties? That he’s still the only U.S. President to never be formally affiliated with any political party throughout his entire career? Sure, the Federalists coopted his image and his ideas for their own purposes, but that was done without his permission or endorsement. Washington never joined the Federalist Party- he was never a Federalist.

If he was alive today, he would tell us to renounce both the Democrat and Republican parties. For him, there was no red vs blue after the American Revolution- there was only the newfound unity between formerly rivaling states. 

Donald Trump represents everything Washington feared and warned us about in his Farewell Address- he explained how someone like Trump can use a political party like the Republican Party (GOP) to gain power for himself and for his family and friends. This is despotism and it must be avoided at all costs, warned the first President.

To understand how George Washington felt about political parties and how they contribute to division between Americans, read the following excerpt from Wikipedia:

“Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the country as a whole. These warnings are given in the context of the recent rise of two opposing parties within the government—the Democratic-Republican Party led by Jefferson, and Hamilton's Federalist Party. Washington had striven to remain neutral during a conflict between Britain and France brought about by the French Revolution, while the Democratic-Republicans had made efforts to align with France, and the Federalists had made efforts to ally with Great Britain.

Washington recognizes that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups such as political parties, but he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and to take revenge on political opponents.[4] He feels that disagreements between political parties weakened the government.

Moreover, he makes the case that "the alternate domination" of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and "is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." From Washington's perspective and judgment, political parties eventually and "gradually incline the minds of men to seek security… in the absolute power of an individual",[1] leading to despotism. 

He acknowledges the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but he argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups, raise false alarms among the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.”

You see? George Washington never wanted us to follow political parties. He wanted all Americans to be Independent. 

When he wrote about how a political party can make us want to blindly follow one individual? He was warning us about men like Donald Trump. 

When he mentioned that political parties had a tendency to provide foreign nations with access to the government? He was warning us about men like Putin. 

Do the Democrats and Republicans serving in the US congress right now know how he felt about parties? They should, since they listen to his Farewell Address every year in which he denounces them in great detail. 

Reading and understanding the Farewell Address can be difficult since Washington wrote it in the 18th century, so feel free to watch this modern abridged translation on Youtube- https://youtu.be/4mWD3T83hE0

It’s essentially a warning against the dangers of political parties. They know this, yet Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. keep trying to make Americans feel like we have to choose parties anyway.

We don’t have to choose between two political parties- we don’t have to choose parties who care more about holding onto power than they do about public service.

We can be Independent. 

----------------------

WORKS CITED:

Read or download George Washington’s Farewell Address for free here- https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

Wikipedia excerpt for George Washington’s statements on the dangers of political parties within his Farewell Address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#Political_parties

Wikipedia section on American Independent politicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_politician#United_States

Wikipedia on George Washington’s Presidency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_Washington

[robotonthemoon]

Washington

The older I get, the more prophetic this seems:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." —George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17th, 1796

Disclaimer: this is not a way to say "both sides" or anything, as a queer former republican I will state flatly that the parties are very much not the same

[alittlemxchievous]

If you liked/endured the Federalist Papers, check out George Washington's Farewell Address. He warns about the dangers of a two-party system and. Fucking nails it.

Ive read it. He isnt wrong.

[stoicbreviary]

Stockdale on Stoicism 33

The Stoic demand for disciplined thought naturally won only a small minority to its standard, but those few were the strongest characters of that time. 

In theory a doctrine of pitiless perfectionism, Stoicism actually created men of courage, saintliness, and goodwill. Rhinelander singled out three examples: Cato the Younger, Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus. 

Cato was the great Roman Republican who pitted himself against Julius Caesar. He was the unmistakable hero of our own George Washington; scholars find quotations of Cato in Washington's Farewell Address—without quotation marks. 

Emperor Marcus Aurelius took the Roman Empire to the pinnacle of its power and influence. 

And Epictetus, the great teacher, played his part in changing the leadership of Rome from the swill he had known under Nero to the power and decency it knew under Marcus Aurelius. 

—from James B. Stockdale, Master of My Fate: A Stoic Philosopher in a Hanoi Prison 

IMAGES: Cato the Younger, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus

[yr-obedt-cicero]

btw ive never went to read too much about eliza, almost all I know about her is from the musical (i know), so, having curiosity sparkled by your post talking about how people see her as an idiot person, can you tell me some things about her? thank you!

Sure!

Elizabeth was affectionately nicknamed “Betsey” by Hamilton.

And she was not a self-pittier. Elizabeth dealt with many deaths of loved ones throughout her life. March 1801, Elizabeth lost her sister, Margaret Schuyler (Or more well-known as; Peggy), after a long course of ailment. And her brother, John, too. Her eldest son, Philip Hamilton, died that November in a reckless duel, which was a deep cut into the family emotionally. Her mother also having died. And then, Hamilton himself followed just three years later, in his own duel against his political rival, Aaron Burr. Having fallen into the deep and harsh financial straits, Elizabeth then experienced her father's death in November 1804. With barely little, she had to utilize anything and everything to keep her remaining family afloat. A slight inheritance from Philip Schuyler helped with that, as did the private raising of money from Hamilton's friends that enabled Elizabeth to stay in the house she and Hamilton had shared for a few more years.

She was also a excellent and devoted mother! She was always mainly staying at home with the children while Hamilton would travel for work. But even after her husband's death, with her still relatively young children; Elizabeth kept the family together and well. She continued to raise Little Phil (Philip Hamilton II) and Eliza Hamilton Holly by herself, with, of course, the hell of her sons.

She even still took great care of their mentally ill daughter, Angelica Hamilton, who suffered from a mental breakdown from the shock of her eldest brother's death and mentally regressed into a “delusional” or “child-like state”. Elizabeth stayed with her for years, until she would grow too old to properly care for her, Angelica was eventually placed in the care of a Dr. MacDonald of Flushing, Queens, where she remained for the rest of her life. But even in her will, she begged her children to be kind and considerate to Angelica.

Elizabeth would even travel days to go and see William Stephen Hamilton, who had moved half across the country, just to visit him.

In 1798, Elizabeth had accepted her friend's, Isabella Graham, invitation to join the Society for the Relief of Poor Widows with Small Children, which had been established the previous year.

Two years after her husband's death, in 1806, Elizabeth — along with many other women including — founded the Orphan Asylum Society. ESH was appointed second directress. (Or vice-president) In 1821, she was named first directress, and served for 27 years in this role. Elizabeth raised many funds, collected needed goods, and oversaw the care and education of over 700 children. Until she had to resign, having left New York in 1848.

Elizabeth, alongside her two sons, James Alexander, and John Church, defended AH's against his posthumous critiques in several of ways, including by supporting his claim of authorship of George Washington's Farewell Address, and by requesting an apology from James Monroe over his accusations of financial improprieties. As well as her son's raising funds to try and have monuments constructed for their father's legacy. Elizabeth even petitioned Congress to publish her husband's writings in 1846. Elizabeth would continue to be dedicated to preserving her husband's legacy, which is considerable when his legacy had nearly be swept down the drain due to the popular disliking towards him after his passing. She sorted through all of Hamilton's letters, papers, articles, and writings, with the assistance of her son, John Church. And remained assisting, sven through many setbacks in getting John's biography getting published. With his mother's help, JCH would go on to publish History of the Republic of the United States America, and would set the bar or reference use for future biographies of Alexander Hamilton, that would grow as time went on. The writings that nearly every historian have today by Hamilton, can be attributed to efforts from Elizabeth. As in the June, of 1848, Elizabeth was in her nineties, she made an effort for Congress to buy and publish her late husband's works. Then in the following August, her request was granted and Congress bought and published Alexander's works, adding them to the Library of Congress and helping future historians of Hamilton have access to his works today.

She adored and felt attached to Hamilton's writings so much so; that she wore a small package around her neck containing the pieces of a sonnet that Hamilton had wrote for her during their courtship. At some point during that winter of 1780, he had written her a love sonnet. Unfortunately, it's unknown where the romantic poem now remains. But, Allan McLane Hamilton, the grandson of Alexander and Elizabeth Hamilton — and the son of their youngest child Phil II — had it in his possession, amongst many other family papers, in the early 20th century.

In his biography of his grandfather, The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton, he described the immense significance of the poem to Elizabeth;

“Few letters remain which enable us to mark the advance of Alexander’s wooing, but a little verse is in my possession which was found in a tiny bag hanging from his wife’s neck after her death, and which she had evidently always worn, and it was quite probably given to her when they were together this winter [1779-1780]. What is apparently a sonnet was written upon a piece of torn and yellow paper, fragments of which had been sewn together with ordinary thread.”

(source)

Hope this helps!

[chaosdisorganized]

Tumblr mobile pissing me off because I was going to make a political post about abolishing the two party system and I had a screenshot of George Washington's Farewell Address and Tumblr fucked up the formatting.

Anyways here's the link

Here's the screenshot I took, maybe Tumblr won't fucked it up this time

Ahh it worked. I was going on a long rant about how to abolish the two party system and what we as voters should do to rise against its corruption but Tumblr ate the post after fucking up that screenshot. Fucking hell. Not that anyone would even listen to me anyways I know my political beliefs are kind of out there and bizarre but uhh vote 3rd party, stop supporting and upholding the two party system, we will never see true meaningful government reform if we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for centuries. Needless to say I hate all the president candidates for 2024 and I wish the US would stop supporting the two party system which continuously breeds corruption in our government. Thanks.

[mariacallous]

The stakes for the 2022 midterm elections just got a lot higher. American democracy and majority rule, a cornerstone principle of our democracy, are on the ballot.

The recent decisions to overturn Roe v. Wade and to allow gun owners’ to carry a weapon in public reveal a Supreme Court far out of touch with the views of an overwhelming majority of Americans.

The attempted coup by former President Trump and his cronies, exposed by Republican witnesses at the explosive hearings of the January 6 special committee, represents the greatest threat to American democracy since before the Civil War.

And the continued success of pro-Trump election deniers in Republican primaries this year coupled with the reticence of far too many Republicans to renounce Trump’s brazen and illegal efforts to overturn 2020 election demonstrate that threat is ongoing.

“Our democracy is on a knife’s edge,” warned conservative judge J. Michael Luttig in testimony before the January 6 committee.

How can democracy in America, the constitutional republic that has been a model for free people everywhere for nearly 250 years be suddenly in trouble?

First, the vitality of any democracy depends on the ability of democratic institutions to keep pace with changing times. But in the last quarter century, important democratic institutions like the Senate, the Electoral College and the Supreme Court have not kept up with changes in our culture and the electorate. That failure has resulted in a structural imbalance in national politics.

Second, a vibrant democracy must be a nation of laws, not of men. We’ve had unscrupulous politicians throughout our history, but until now we’ve always been able to stop the rise of “cunning, ambitious, unprincipled men” who, George Washington warned in his farewell address, would “usurp for themselves the reins of government.” Trump, his cronies, and, to a lesser extent, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have shown themselves to be the kind of men Washington warned us about.

The root of the institutional imbalance is in the structure of the United States Senate. Our founding fathers were men of great foresight, but in drafting the constitution, they could hardly have imagined the chasm that divides today’s America between the fast growing, populous, increasingly diverse states along the two coasts and the more numerous, more homogenous, less densely populated, slower growing states in between.

Because the constitution allots two senators to each state, regardless of population, the senate has in recent decades taken on a decidedly small state bias. For example, California, the nation’s largest state, and Wyoming, the nation’s least populous state, both get two senators despite the fact that California’s population is eighty times larger than Wyoming’s.

That means that more than 39 million people in those 21 states have 42 votes in the Senate while the same number of people in California have just two. Since California votes Democratic by large margins, if those 44 senators were allotted on a per capita basis, they would overwhelmingly tilt Democratic by a margin of about three to one, or 33 to 11. But because each state gets two senators, and a majority of those 21 states vote Republican, the actual tally is 25 Republicans and 19 Democrats. That’s a swing of 28 seats. If you believe in one person one vote, the small state bias clearly puts Democrats at a significant disadvantage.

Just to break even in the Senate, Democrats need to win more of the national vote for Senate than the Republicans. With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats.

Political data analyst David Shor projects that to have an even chance of holding on to the Senate this year, Democrats need to win the national vote for Senate by four points. If they win 51% of the national vote for Senate this year, they’ll likely lose a seat—and control of the Senate. And Shor’s model projects that in 2024 if the Democrats win that same 51% majority, they could lose seven seats.

The small state bias in the Senate carries over to the Electoral College since each state gets an Electoral College vote for each of its senators. So small states get proportionately more electors. As a result, political analyst Nate Silver estimates that a Democratic candidate must win the popular vote by at least three percentage points to have an even chance of winning in the electoral college.

That reality has never been more evident than in recent presidential elections. In the 25 presidential elections in the 20th century, not once did the candidate who lost the popular vote win the presidency in the Electoral College. But in the six elections in this century, that has already happened twice.

The Supreme Court by design inevitably lags behind the public will. Because justices have lifetime appointments, at any one time, the majority of the justices will have been appointed by a past president and, thus unlikely to reflect current majority opinion. The recent Roe and gun decisions are prime examples.

The three justices who cast the deciding votes in both cases were appointed by former President Trump who lost the popular vote (in 2016) by nearly three million votes and were confirmed by senators who represented less than 45% of the electorate. Trump, elected by a minority of voters, had three court appointments because McConnell manipulated Senate procedures to block confirmation of a justice appointed by President Obama, who twice won a majority of the popular vote.

In the best of all worlds, the two parties would get together to reform and modernize our institutions to eliminate their biases. But with today’s polarized politics, that’s not going to happen.

Instead, Republican leaders, as evidenced by McConnell’s manipulation of the Supreme Court confirmation process and Trump’s attempted coup, have exploited these institutional imbalances in order to cling to vital levers of power even though their coalition now represents a minority of voters.

Think about this: the Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, the longest winning streak for any party in American history, yet they have won the presidency only five times.[1]

The chances of changing the small state bias are slim to non-existent. Representatives from small states cannot be expected to amend the political deal that gave them such outsized power in the first place, particularly if, as most pundits predict, the Republicans, who benefit from it, win control of the House and Senate this year.

The only alternative is for Democrats to appeal beyond party lines to voters concerned about democracy and majority rule, even small state conservatives, and win House and Senate seats not only in traditional Democratic areas but also in districts and states that ordinarily vote Republican.

Admittedly, with voters dissatisfied with President Biden over high inflation and rising crime, that’s not likely to happen. Even in years that the political environment favors Democrats they have to over perform just to break even. But it’s not impossible as the Democratic sweep in the post-Watergate election of 1974 has shown. That was the last time the fate of our democratic system was on the line.

To win in normally hostile territory, Democrats will need to find new allies among all voters who want to preserve our democracy—independents, suburban voters, moderate and anti-Trump Republicans, and hardworking ordinary Americans—voters who would normally vote Republican but are appalled at the actions of Trump, his extremist MAGA supporters, and the McConnell Supreme Court.

That will require the Democrats to ditch their normal base-oriented midterm election strategy. They need to make this fall’s election about preserving democracy and majority rule. Democrats need to open their tent to all voters who share that grand purpose—regardless of party or ideology. Pressing partisan Democratic agendas, and pet programs will have to wait until our democratic system is secure. Progressives will have to understand that Democrats will not defeat Republican extremism by offering extreme ideas of their own.

The late Democratic political commentator Mark Shields once said that politics is about looking for converts, not punishing heretics. 2022 is not a year for ideological purity tests and punishing heretics. For the sake of our country, our democracy and the principle of majority rule, this year more than ever Democrats need to find more converts.