Federalist Vs Anti-Federalist

        On September 19th, 1796, George Washington warned about the dangers that will face the young republic, primarily ranging from international factions and foreign dangers with his Farewell Address as he prepared to depart the presidency. He made emphasis on the greatness of unity as well making a warning against the party system. He addresses many other points in his farewell address, such as the preservation of the union, religion and morality, and American’s role in foreign policy. Overall, he was hoping that his speech would serve as a guide for the nation. Washington’s main concern with political parties was the fact that he believed that they could distract the government from its main purpose and duty to the people and possibly lead to the elimination of established freedoms. Unfortunately, restraining the hunger for power has failed as shown in today’s politics and political parties.

        Washington’s farewell address warned the nation about faction groups that sought their own good for the price of the rights of others. He was concerned that political parties would cement sectionalism. Thinking about future possibilities, he was afraid that the country would fall under dominance in the hands of one party/interest. Washington didn’t like political parties because he felt that they would eventually be corrupt with power in the hands of a faction of interest rather than in the hands of the people. Another reason why Washington didn’t favor political parties was because he worried that they would ignite a war between the United States and either Great Britain or France. The Federalists were known to be pro-British and the Democratic Republicans were known to be pro-French, therefore, it could be a concern that the parties that fueled the United State would align closely to one of those nations, possibly leading to a war.

        In contrast with the old political set up of Federalists vs Anti-Federalists (Democratic-Republicans), the 21st century is initially split up into left-right politics – liberalism (Democrat) vs. conservatism (Republican). Ever since the United States’ first Presidential election in 1788, strategies for campaigning differed immensely. Although the initial tactics candidates used around that time are still relevant today, those who run for Presidency must overcome various strategies that calls for accountability and exposure. George Washington was a unanimous choice and America’s first exposure to campaigning was in the second election between Jefferson and Adams. Both of them had to obey the oppositions of the public to outspoken campaigning and direct interest. Character appeared to come as a major aspect in which candidate was favored to be the next president. Jumping to the 20th century, the broadcasting of political debates on television changed the way candidates would run their elections. For example, in 1960, television paid a key role to the presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Those who listened to the debate on the radio stood behind Nixon and his arguments, however, those who watched the debate on television saw Kennedy’s charismatic persona as well as how well he handled the debate itself while Nixon appeared nervous and weak, making the debate in Kennedy’s favor. Now in the 21st century, campaigning and presidential elections revolve around social media, which increases a candidates’ appeal beyond television, whether it’s used to spread information or to use is as a source of propaganda.  Although the presidential election system has remained stable throughout American society, the method of campaigning has drastically changed since the late 1700s. After years and years of promoting candidates by slogans and pamphlets, the presence of debates appearing on televisions and access to social media have enforced candidates to participate in this tiresome and costly race to the White House.

...