"Party Spirit is the Madness of the Many for the Benefit of the few. This precious few in the United States....each insist upon their own Sect being exclusive Patriots & therefore alone to be confided in. And the general Mass of us the People, who sometimes distrust them all, are looked upon either as very stupid, or very indifferent to the Welfare of our dear Country and its all glorious Constitution. These gratuitous Guardians of the public Weal are perpetually sounding in our Ears the momentous Crisis of our Affairs, which according to their knowledge, Belief & most honest Fears, is continually occurring, and that the Country would be lost if it was not prevented by their disinterested Labours. And thus the Public is to be kept in an unceasing Sate of Ferment, Alarm, & Jealousy that these People may talk, write, & falsify with Impunity."--Boston lawyer William Tudor, Sr. to John Adams, 20 May 1818In the above letter excerpt, William Tudor, writing in 1818 to John Adams, critiques the nature and practices of American political parties and their posture toward the American people. In 2-4 pages (Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced, 1" margins):1. Considering and citing specifics from Volkomer, explain how the party system that Tudor lamented to Jefferson developed in America.2. Then, at this site or using this playlist, after you have watched both Republican and Democratic presidential campaign commercials from a presidential election year of your choosing, explain (mentioning specifics from those ads), whether, in your view, the evidence of those modern T.V. ads fits well with William Tudor's 1818 complaint to John Adams that each major political party is constantly creating an exaggerated sense of national crisis, so that they it can implausibly represent its candidate as a messianic figure, as the only antidote to the nation's ills. In the ads that you watched for this and other assignments this week were political parties still doing that sort of thing? Was, and is, "party spirit" still "the madness of the many for the benefit of the few?"

Each of you must post a critique of the Lawler Reading. Be sure to clearly indicate which Luddite view you are critiquing. In this article Lawler presents views of different anti-Democratic Liberation Theory thinkers (LUDDITES are anti- Democratic Liberation Theory thinkers) (see my Lawler NOTES for a breakdown of LUDDITE views). Which of those different views do you find most flawed or most correct and why? Quote Lawler article please. Each of you on the team should provide a short paragraph (1/3 to a half page, longer is okay, shorter will lose points) discussing one of the LUDDITE criticisms of Democratic Liberation Theory. In that paragraph, state what the Luddite criticism is and then say if you agree or not and explain why you agree or not.Your paragraph should look like this:Luddites view here. Agree or not. Why agree or not. Give some extra examples from life that reinforce your assessment. (1/3 to a half page) (Quote Lawler article please, but not more than one sentence: if you quote more then your paragraph should be more than half a page)HINT: if you choose a passage you agree with, you must work much harder, giving examples that really grab attention, otherwise, your critique will sound dull, just head nodding. Better to look for passage or view you do not agree with & say why you do not agree.