<...Federalists, whose heroes are (or should be) John Adams and John Marshall: advocates of a strong central government with broad powers; republicans with a social conscience and a sense of individual responsibility who are now known as (delicious irony) Democrats.

Anti-Federalists of the Jeffersonian persuasion, who abhor governmental intrusion no matter how beneficial it is represented to be, believing instead in the innate goodness of mankind and the natural tendency toward Utopian coexistence and prosperity; perpetual gadflies and state's-rights champions whose ranks include (though they may deny it) George Wallace, and who currently, albeit amorphously, call themselves Libertarians.

Hamiltonians, for whom the business of America still is Business, and mind your own. For them, the golden age of this country was the Gilded Age, when Big Government was permissible because they owned it, but social legislation was not (unless they espoused it themselves in a paroxysm of moral rectitude) because it interfered with profit. There being only one grand old party name remaining to apply, through a tragedy of nomenclature they have inherited the mantle of Lincoln without earning it, and are today's Republicans.

* * *
Oversimplified? Of course it is - it's philosophy! Anyone's opinion beside my own? Not a chance... but, I suggest again, read Ellis and McCullough and tell me you don't see our own generations in the faces of our forebears.



Had to go get my welder's goggles so that I could gaze upon the brilliant haloes around the heads of the Democrats without scorching my retinas. Also had to take a short walk to cool off. Now I can type.

Democrats. I love the term "social concience." Somewhere in the basement of Democratic headquarters is a large, solid gold statue of the first politician who uncovered the Founding Principle of the Democratic Party.

Upon the base of the statue is a plaque on which the following is engraved:

"Here is represented the unknown Public Servant who made the Astonishing Discovery that he could dip his own hand into the public treasury, pass the money around to his fellow man, and although he spent not a nickel of his own wealth, receive from the grateful citizenry the Mantle of Generosity, Good Fellowship, Kindness and Compassion as though he had given of his own substance! In a further stroke of brilliance almost beyond belief, he further discovered that should the people who actually produced this wealth display any measure of Discontent or Grumbling with the loss of this wealth and the Purloining thereof, he could successfully portray them as Greedy, Selfish, and Mean-Spirited, directing the Hatred and Contempt of his fellow man upon them. Upon this Remarkable and Fantastic turn of events has our great success and fortune been founded."

This is a "social concience" in the modern political sense. As for "individual responsibility," I have yet to see a single modern Democratic position that calls this seemingly-archaic term to mind.

And if the closest modern example you can find to compare with Thomas Jefferson is George Wallace (a born-and-bred Democrat, in case anyone has forgotten), I am really at a loss as to how your mind operates. At least Libertarian is a bit closer.

As for your portrayal of Republicans, I don't even know where to start. What the hell do 19th century industrialists have to do with the modern Republican Party? And what about them anyway? While the leftist goal of the destruction of the free market system requires lying about what a free market society might actually be like, the truth about the so-called "Robber Barons" was much different. Some believe they were instrumental in creating our country's wealth. Others at least portray them as complex and ambiguous than the simple monsters they are painted as today. It is also worth noting that politicians swam cheerfully in the same waters. You cannot have corruption between business and government unless the government is a willing partner. It is also worth noting that Teddy Roosevelt, who eventually attacked them, was a Republican.

And what the hell is a "paroxysm of moral rectitude?" Are you saying that charity from your own pocket is by definition morally corrupt and suspect, while "charity" from the pockets of others is somehow holy? This moral inversion is disgusting.

The Republicans are depicted as selfish for daring to think they own their own wealth. They are depicted as racist Klansmen (often on this board), despite a historical record of prying freedom for slaves from the South and civil rights from Southern Democrats. How many Klansmen do you know who were or are Republicans? I can count them on one hand. Robert Byrd, a Democratic ex-Klansman holds a position of great power in Federal government.

Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, was mercilessly raked over the coals by liberals and feminists for mentioning a pubic hair in the presence of one of his employees. Bill Clinton, having stuffed his schlong down the throat of one of his employees in the Oval Office, was hailed by liberals as our greatest President, and worshiped by feminists.

Do you people really think you're kidding anyone?

Right now I would be a lot prouder to be a Republican than a Democrat. And I sure as hell wouldn't mind being labeled an Anti-Federalist, if it puts me in Jefferson's corner.