If you take a dim view of our political parties, you’re in sterling company. So did George Washington.

In his famous Farewell Address, our first president warned us against “the baneful effects of the spirit of [political] party.” A political party, he wrote, “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…” It’s safe to say he was not a fan.

So it’s with some trepidation that I want to speak up in favor of political parties. For well over 165 years, they have played a key role in our representative government. They are the best stage I know for broad economic, political, and social change. It’s hard for me to imagine a democracy without them.

This is in part because we live in a very different country from the one George Washington led. The United States today is not just geographically bigger, but immeasurably larger in both population and diversity.

And that’s where our two great parties, for the most part, have excelled: they accommodate different interests, opinions, and views. Our system does not have enough consensus-building mechanisms; the parties are crucial to this. Strong political parties that can unite groups with different interests have been a source of powerful change in our history.

Of course, more than building consensus within a party is needed. Even though the American people prefer bipartisanship, the parties too often prefer to lambast each other. But legislation passed on a party-line vote rarely stands the test of time. To work properly, our system needs a broader consensus — and party-line votes do not provide it. The really effective legislation in our history — Social Security and Medicare, for instance — was passed with solid, bipartisan support.

Our parties also play a lubricating role in the mechanisms of democracy. They get out the vote and educate voters. They teach many thousands of ordinary Americans what the nuts and bolts of democratic participation look like. They choose, train, and promote candidates who are (for the most part) worthy of holding public office. They play an important role in funding elections, financing the system, and giving candidates a platform. In short, they’re a personnel system for government office.

To be sure, Americans divide rather sharply on their support of political parties — not just on which one they support, but on whether to support them at all. Many avoid identification with a party. Others become ardent loyalists. Still others follow them regularly, but not slavishly. At the moment, more people define themselves as independent than as a member of one or the other party, but the two major parties together still command a majority of the electorate.

I am a member of a party, and have certainly been disappointed in its performance on occasion. Yet I’ve never felt that my disappointment was grounds for abandoning the party. Nor, on the other hand, have I ever felt that my loyalty was grounds for despising the other party. I cringe when I hear a member of either party express hatred or accuse the other party of disloyalty. Both parties are patriotic, both want the best for their country — even if they have different ideas about what “best” means. That’s part of the democratic dialogue, after all.

That’s why I also get uncomfortable with unswerving loyalty to any political party. I think political parties have to earn our loyalty by their performance. And in particular, by their ability to move the nation forward legislatively.

George Washington was right, of course, in pointing out some of the risks of people joining together to form organized parties. But he didn’t fully recognize their role as consensus-builders — their concern with transcending differences and political factionalism and arriving at stances designed to appeal to political majorities both in elections and in legislatures. The most successful party officials I know have made consensus-building a priority, both within their own parties and across partisan lines. In a country as diverse and divided as ours, that’s not a baneful effect at all.      

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana. 

You are being censored. You are being “watched” and rated articles you might read are being withheld from you. If you are on any social-media platform, that is. Welcome to the era of Big Brother.

If you use its service, Facebook rates you. According to what you read and write. It catalogues your comments and opinions for future use against you. It assigns you a rating. That rating will determine how you get treated at Facebook. If you want to learn how you are rated, good luck. Facebook won’t tell you.

If you Google “media bias,” you will be served a long list of articles that claim it does not exist. Instead of the many articles that describe and decry it.

You will be served a graph which places CNN in the middle of the spectrum between liberal and conservative. That should tell you all you need to know about political bias at Google. CNN would not praise this president if he donated his billions to its pension fund. Yet Google pretends CNN is in the middle ground politically. 

One popular author appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. Video clips of his interviews soared on YouTube. From 15,000 to 20,000 viewers a day. Suddenly, Google (which owns YouTube) pulled the plug. It hid the videos. It diverted traffic for them. Next day, the viewership fell to 30. His sin? He opined as to why Hillary had lost the election. Nasty.

Another of his videos was canned. Not because of what he and Cavuto discussed, but because while the program was on the air, a creeper message crawled across the bottom of the screen. It said that Trump called the Mueller probe a witch hunt. This was Google’s reason for killing the video. And for suspending his account.

Numerous public figures complain of the same shoddy treatment. If they wander into Trump or conservative territory with their remarks, social-media giants punish them. 

Recently Apple podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter all suddenly blacklisted the right-wing voice of Alex Jones. In lockstep. They have done the same for several other conservative voices. Obviously, they are collaborating to censor.

Facebook now rates news websites based on the quality of the news they report. “Quality” in the minds of Facebook managers, that is.

Social-media giants have suppressed countless conservative groups. They have handcuffed them from organizing petitions, fundraisers, and rallies. They are deliberately crippling the ability of Trump supporters and conservatives to organize on the web. 

This is Big Brother in action. Disgusting and dangerous action. This has the whiff of totalitarianism. This is simply unchecked power.

It is the power to decide what you will get to read and view. It is the power to decide what you write. Or at least the power to severely limit how far your thoughts will be distributed.

Of course, Big Brother — and Big Sis — burrow their way into your life in many other ways. Zillions of closed-circuit TV cameras record your movements. Scratch your bum at the altar, madam, and a billion people will snort at the video of it goes viral.

Meanwhile, Google and Apple trace your smart phone wherever you may take it. Be careful. Israeli wizards learned years ago to secretly turn on cameras on laptops. I am confident they do the same with smart phones. You should don clothes before you go online.

Meanwhile, these tech and social-media giants track your every purchase. And your messages, queries, travels, and eating. Sneak a Snickers bar this evening and you will find an ad for it on your screen in the morning.

This is raw, unchecked power. The power to influence. The power to eavesdrop, even if indirectly for now. The power to deny you basic freedoms.

The president has complained, raised a red flag. Hate him if you will. But you had better hope lawmakers lasso these tech giants before they crush your freedoms further.

By the way, Google has agreed to work with China’s communist censors. To create more tools for China to control the thinking of its people. Well, Google will certainly bring a lot of experience to that task.

From Tom…as in Morgan.         

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. You can write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com, read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com, or find him on Facebook.