In the Second Edition of The Work-Standard, I present some heavy-handed suspicions on the possible influences that James Madison and James Monroe had on the two major Factions inside the Democratic-Republican Party, the “Democrats” and “Republicans” respectively. It is fitting for the Democrats and Republicans to be the embodiments of Madison and Monroe’s legacies. The primary source describing how Madison and Monroe became protégés of Thomas Jefferson comes from an academic journal article entitled, “Jefferson’s Madison versus Jefferson’s Monroe.”
Madison and Monroe were close friends since the American Revolutionary War, which was also how they both developed their political contacts with Thomas Jefferson. Although Madison encountered Jefferson in Williamsburg in the “Autumn of 1776,” he did not become the first protégé until 1779, the same year when Jefferson became the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Madison had been a frequent guest at Monticello, where he spent much of his time at the mansion’s library. He was a “loyal lieutenant,” a political aide-de-camp, of Jefferson, and gained his political experiences working under his mentor’s tutelage. That was also how he got in contact with Monroe, who was being tutored by Jefferson from 1780 to 1781. But unlike Madison, Monroe developed a dependency relationship with Jefferson because of his “financial worries.”
There was a mutual friendship between the protégés Madison and Monroe. The two men had a conflict of interest over the initial absence of a “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution and the absence of “Term Limits” for the President of the United States. Madison and Monroe also began developing a sort of rivalry in the 1790s and 1800s, when Jefferson plotted to usurp to the Federalists and take over the Federal Government. Jefferson preferred Madison over Monroe, even considering the former to be his designated successor over the latter. Monroe tended to be “temperamental,” blunt and even combative at times, which were traits which prevented him from being as charismatic and deceptive as Madison. Madison’s traits, on the other hand, were level-headed, able to find common ground between Federalists and Anti-Federalists while at same time ensuring that Jefferson’s Gestalt (Form) and Weltanschauung (Worldview) will be presented as palatable, even reasonable to everyday Americans.
Despite his many contradictions, from Slavery to the Louisiana Purchase, there are two consistent personality traits associated with Thomas Jefferson and those are his intellectual idealism and his financial materialism. The Intellectual Idealism includes examples like all men are created equal, employing an Isolationism-Internationalism Dialectic to justify the Empire of Liberty, that America should become “an agrarian society of consumers and producers,” and an unreasonable aversion toward the Figure of the Arbeiter and its Technologies. The first two examples are an important area of interest in The Work-Standard and The Third Place; the other two are from another academic journal article entitled, “Thomas Jefferson’s Agrarian Vision and the Changing Nature of Property.” The Financial Materialism is related to the family inheritance of Schuld, the dependency on Slavery to live an opulent lifestyle, and the willingness to do anything for Kapital, all of which are related to the Empire of Liberty.
Therefore, a process of elimination can be conducted by relying on the descriptions of Madison and Monroe. There is a recurring pattern of social behavior among the “Democrats,” the “Republicans” and the “Bipartisans” that are in fact reminiscent of those three men. It can be argued that Madison represents the “Intellectual Idealism,” whereas Monroe represents the “Financial Materialism.” This is discernible in US History as well as within the flux of contemporary events, from the Federal Government to the State and Municipal Governments. The Madisonian Faction (“Democrats”) represent Jefferson’s Intellectual Idealism by demonstrating an overdependency on the authoritative advice of technocrats and experts, an overreliance on public opinion, act as the backers of Social-Democracy and its Reformist tendencies, and excessive compromising with the Monroean Faction. The Monroean Faction (“Republicans”) represent Jefferson’s Financial Materialism by advocating for the Market/Mixed Economy and Fractional-Reserve Banking System as a means of attaining political power, are more concerned than the Madisonian Faction about Federal Spending in relation to the US National Debt, and lack the charismatically deceptiveness and compromising tendencies of the Madisonian Faction, which also affects how other countries perceive the US.
But the most significant and most important parallel that the Democrats and Republicans share as the spiritual successors to Madison and Monroe is over “Slavery,” more specifically the Slave Morality of the Bourgeoisie. Most Americans are familiar with the Chattel-Slavery of the Antebellum South and how it came to an end with the passing of Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV. They are not, however, familiar with the concurrent Indentured-Slavery, and how it has given rise to Slave Morality vis-à-vis the Schuld-Slavery and Kapital-Slavery of Jeffersonian Liberal Capitalism. The most blatant, obvious successor of Indentured-Slavery is the “Internship” because Indentured-Slavery refers to the act of consenting to becoming a slave for the sake of gaining the “experience” of being a slave.
Madison advocated for the expansion of Slavery westward, beyond the Mississippi, creating the precedent whereby entire households will own their own slaves. His motives were consistently economic, as if to imply the presence of an “Incentive” compelling him to justify Slavery as being necessary. That was the implication which occurred to me because it is not surprising to find out that he preferred a gradual abolishment of Slavery by trying to create a flawed situation where the Slave and the Master would stand to benefit. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking fell apart in the infamous Missouri Compromise and that in turn helped contribute to the Civil War becoming not only possible but inevitable.
Conversely, Monroe expressed his existential fears of a possible slave revolt in the US, should Slavery be allowed to continue. He had once been the target of a slave rebellion in 1800, during his own reign as the Governor of Virginia. Slaves led by a man named “Gabriel” were plotting to kidnap Monroe, their random a demand to for freedom. Upon learning of their plot, Monroe ordered militias in the Commonwealth of Virginia to patrol the city of Richmond and stop the plotters before they could carry out their plans. Over the course of two days, the Virginian militiamen had arrested and charged dozens of slaves for their involvement in the Gabriel Conspiracy. Gabriel was eventually found and hanged on charges of insurrection.
Based on these historical observations, my decision to deem the “Democrats” as the Madisonian Faction and the “Republicans” as the Monroean Faction fits neatly with the modus operandi of Madison and Monroe on Slavery. Unlike the Federalist Party members who stuck with Alexander Hamilton, who preferred abolishing Slavery outright, Madison preferred a gradual transition because, behind all of his rhetoric, he genuinely did not want to free the Chattel-Slaves, let alone the Indentured-Slaves. Where he differed from James Monroe was in terms of methods; Monroe, on the other hand, preferred creating a “colony” for the Chattel-Slaves known as Liberia. He did not care about the Indentured-Slaves because he maintained to himself that the Indentured-Slaves will have a much easier time assimilating into the American Way of Life than the Chattel-Slaves.
Arguably the best way to demonstrate how the “Democrats” and “Republicans” had inherited the outlooks of Madison and Monroe on the topic of Slavery to evaluate their positions on American Socialism–Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism, to be more precise. Since the Madisonian Faction and Monroean Faction share the sentiments of their namesakes, they will also be exhibiting similar behavioral patterns regarding Socialism because the historical record of the Old 20th Century has plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. In short, the Madisonian Faction resorts to gradual piecemeal reforms and the Monroean Faction sow gradual social alienation.
From the perspective of the Federalist Party, what seems like the two greatest strengths of the Democratic-Republican Party are also their two greatest weaknesses. The secret to their weaknesses lies within the Freedom-Security Dialectic itself. These effectiveness of those “piecemeal reforms” and “social alienation” is affected by whether the American people reacts to the emotional stimuli of being “unfree and secure” by the Madisonian Faction or “free and insecure” by the Monroean Faction. Another important weakness is the Law of Non-Contradiction. Another is the Intents of Command and Obedience: the Democratic-Republican Party cannot govern these United States if the Madisonian and Monroean Factions are unable to play the roles that Thomas Jefferson had assigned to James Madison and James Monroe.
US History has demonstrated that the Monroean Faction is most effective if they are running the Congress of Parliaments as the “opposition party” with an “Anti-Washington stance.” They cannot simultaneously be the Federal Government and oppose the Federal Government, indicating that they are literally incompetent at even creating a Federalist Anti-Federalism. Their concept of “Limited Government” is restricted to economic and financial contexts like “Federal Taxation” and “Federal Spending,” unable to figure out why familiarity with the technological and cultural specifications of the Work-Standard are important when creating the best-possible economic and financial conditions. The potency of their rhetoric depends on whether terms with terms like “Big Government” and “Small Government” are able to convey static, lifeless meanings, otherwise they will lose their ability to control any narratives.
US History has also demonstrated that the Madisonian Faction is most effective if they are running the Presidency as the “ruling party” with a “Pro-Washington stance.” They cannot simultaneously command the State Governments and obey the State Governments, indicating that they are literally incompetent at creating an Anti-Federalist Federalism. It is important because the State Governments should serve as the Schwerpunkt, the “Focal Point” of the American people and the Federal Government. Their policies are always dictated from the top-down, which explains why so many of their Social-Democratic policies since the New Deal have consistently avoided giving the State Governments their own roles to play. Additionally, there are certain compromises which they can never uphold, just as how there are specific situations they will crack up under pressure. Such circumstances can be made possible by luring the Madisonian Faction into a false security, divorcing themselves from Reality and constantly deferring to technocrats and experts.