We have exhausted the future with our appetites. Maybe it’s time to resurrect the past—not for nostalgia’s sake, but because the 19th century has more wisdom to offer our shattered present than we care to admit.

“The people have entrusted the government to us; it is our duty to restrain our passions and govern for the good of all.” —Henry Clay, Whig leader

We have elected kings and prophets, pied pipers and moral grandstanders, each promising salvation while devouring the institutions meant to contain them. We have exhausted the future with our appetites. Perhaps it is time to resurrect the past—not for nostalgia’s sake, but because the 19th century has more wisdom to offer our shattered present than we care to admit. Let us bring back the Whigs.

The Whigs were not a party in the sense we understand parties today. They were an experiment in restraint, a wager on moderation, a belief that the passions of a single executive should never outweigh the deliberation of Congress. They were founded in opposition to Andrew Jackson, whom they mockingly called “King Andrew,” and in doing so became the first Americans to fear the very democracy they helped sustain. Jackson, a man of immense charisma and temperamental will, represented the dangerous allure of personality over principle. The Whigs, by contrast, believed governance should be tedious, predictable, and morally serious—a stance that seems almost radical in our age of constant spectacle.

But why the Whigs? Because contradiction is the native tongue of........

© Eurasia Review