
Originally Posted by
jcb
To be accurate, Limbaugh wanted a failed attempt at liberalism, not necessarily a failed presidency. He wanted liberal policies not to be enacted.
As for the wisdom of our political predecessors in establishing the two-party system, I would argue the exact opposite. The two-party system created Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Fox and MSNBC.
And George Washington agrees with me - here's text from his farewell address:
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."
And, more to the point:
"The disorders and miseries which result (from the two-party system) gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), 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.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Rather prophetic, I would say.