You are reading a single comment by @tbc and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Ensuring the separation of powers was more down to their fear of government tyranny after their experiences with the British - and also their fear of giving the people too much power, hence the electoral college.
The political party split developed during Washington's presidency, after competition between Jefferson and Hamilton about their different visions. Washington saw what was happening and hated it. The majority of his farewell speech was given over to lamenting it, and urging unity.
I would say that the fact they managed to get 13 states with hugely divergent interests together to make and agree on a constitution shows that there was a time before bipartisanship - but it was hugely idealistic, and it didn't last long.
tbc
I don't think there ever was such a time. From the point of its birth, though, no one person or group/class ever had full control of the U.S. In that situation, politicians suddenly find virtue in concepts like separation of powers, because it stops their rivals from becoming too powerful and let's them look like defenders of democracy while they work to frustrate those rivals Which is possibly the best argument for such concepts.
It's a bit like the largely secular basis of U.S. government. America is full of religious fanatics who would love to run a theocracy but they're worried that a rival bigot would get there first, so they tolerate secular government.