{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02127659574468085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.384615384615385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Festive Nationalism and Antiparty Partyism

The emergence of a two-party political system remains one of the most intriguing paradoxes of the founding era. For the framers, "party" connoted faction, the pursuit of selfish interests at the expense of the larger public good. Yet within a few years of ratification, a fundamental split had emerged, pitting the supporters of Washington and Hamilton against the supporters of Jefferson and Madison. Both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans claimed to be the true standard-bearers of the American Revolution. Each branded the other the mortal enemy of republican virtue; neither acknowledged the legitimacy of political partisanship. From that time on, permanent political parties coexisted with a defiant rhetoric opposing such divisions. Previous generations of historians have explained the emergence of parties in a variety of ways: as a clash between democratic and aristocratic notions of governance; as the power of strong personalities to shape the political system; or as an inevitable conflict between strict and loose constructions of the Constitution. What characterizes all these interpretations, however, is a continuing emphasis on great white men and elite ideas. Whereas the fields of social, cultural, and women's history have transformed the political history of other eras, these approaches have, until now, made few inroads into the