The founders were already familiar with Britain's parliamentary system, saw how it lended itself to factionalism (which they distrusted) and sought an alternative form of representative, bicameral government. But the new republic quickly fell prey to factionalism anyway, and I wonder if perhaps that is simply an unavoidable bug/feature in any democracy or republic. At least, America, despite its diverse political spectrum, has only two parties. Whether this is good or bad I really don't know.

In spite of my own partisan views, I find myself in disagreement with a few Democratic Principles, and in favor of some Republican ones (Psst! Don't tell Tom.),but the left/right split in government has extended itself right down into the electorate. It really becomes impractical (unless you are a one-issue activist) to cross party lines and get anything done with the other side.

And how often have we seen posters here in the Zone, if not actually supporting positions they totally abhor, then failing to criticize those on their side that do, simply to maintain solidarity with their allies? I'm sure there are pro-immigration, pro-abortion, anti-gun, atheist, gay, global-warming-believer Republicans out there, but you'd never know it from listening to them. And the Democrats have their own version of the 11th commandment as well. (Although in my opinion, they don't honor it quite as religiously as their Republican counterparts do).

The founders tried, but failed to eliminate factionalism from politics as they did religion. Is it possible at all? Is it even a good idea? After all, just because the founders viewed it with suspicion doesn't necessarily mean it's bad; they were smart, but not infallible.