OR: Is the 2 Party System as Destructive as It Seems?
Someone wrote in a thread recently that everything "seemed" to be dependent on money these days. Certainly if you look at the three spheres of our lifetime activities (Economic, Political, and Social) there seems to be a heavy reliance of concern surrounding the Economic sphere than the other 2. We will vote in a few weeks and more than a few will vote for the candidate who best expresses their economic concerns. Healthcare, jobs, prescription drugs, the deficit are just a "few" of the issues which are laden with heavy doses of economic controversy. The 2 party system may well be the most important, least discussed economic issue we face in terms of continuing to build democracy in the United States.
Third parties come and go in the United States, but rarely have a national impact. This is not true in Canada or England and some consideration of why is important. Both of the forementioned countries employ parliaments that elect leadership from amongst the membership of the legislative body rather than in a separate branch of government. This leads to representation based not so much on personality but rather policy. Canada actually has both a Liberal (135 members of parliament) and Conservative Party (90) as well as the New Democratic (19) and Bloc Quebecois which is regional but has 54 members currently. This means no party has a majority and cannot set policy without compromise. This in a democracy is not a bad thing. It means that parties must work together to make laws. There have been majority governments (Jean Chretien, the past Prime Minister) had a majority and the "opposition" parties more or less had to appeal to one another or the public to slow or stop objectionable policies.
The United States employs an executive branch that is separate and not dependent on Congress for approval. This means personality is everything to the Presidential election. Kerry is a _________ and a ___________ and a __________. Bush is a __________ and a ___________ and a ______________. You can readily fill in the blanks for both sides. Notice we aren't talking about what the men want to do as policies but rather who they are as people. Commercial after commercial for each stresses the differences between the men, very few understand what either want to do as President.
What does this have to do with economics or 3rd parties? Well, the difference in 3rd parties is that to get noticed you have to have someone who can compete as a personality. And the difference in the economics is to become a personality you have to have as much as a billion dollars to do it.
Why do the 2 parties attract at a young age those that will become the personalities? The key here is that the system defines the parties rather than the parties defining the system. If I asked for a 25 word definition of either party based solely on their legislative actions over the past 40 years where you couldn't say anything about what they stood for that would be contradicted could you do it? "Republicans are for smaller government." I hear you say. Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 on a platform that included ending the Department of Education. But during Reagan's 8 years the department grew by 400%! "Democrats are for the working man." But NAFTA, which was supported by a Democratically controlled Congress and Presidency has lost many more jobs than it has created and led to the outsourcing Democrats argue so bitterly against now. There are many more examples until you realize that neither party has any tried and true policies at all. None.
So as a teenager the politically oriented individual chooses which party he admires more (or is affiliated with by family) and then works to become a personality within it. Bill Clinton comes to mind in this sense. Others see a party with an opening for a candidate and become a personality by being successful as a politician. Ronald Reagan comes to mind. But by the time the candidate is ready for their run for President it is more about them as individuals and not about policy.
But a 3rd Party would have to a reason to exist, right? How could we elect a President who had no party affiliation in Congress? How would Ralph Nader or Ross Perot ever get anything done working with the 2 major parties?
The problem is that the economics prevent the 3rd Party from ever getting off the ground. A billion dollars is not just difficult to raise 1 time, what about doing it every 4 years? So the Ross Perots will come and go but they are more comic relief because even for Perot, getting 20% of the Presidential vote doesn't change anything. Perot's "party" slips into oblivion as will Perot. The 2 party system continues.
The 2 Party system is not a very good way for democracy to function. It is full of danger because the sense of compromise is often absent in determining the course of the country. Republicans, in power in the Congress since 1994, Presidency since 2000 are very busy pushing a Republican agenda that has almost no semblence to the "Contract with America" that they vowed to enact in 1993. Democrats seemingly take a contrary position to most Republican proposals in order to create the personalities that will lead to Presidential candidates in the future. If you look at Mr. Kerry's senatorial record that is his basis for being where he is today. "I oppose" should be a button that every member of the party out of control of the Congress wears.
The real danger lies when a national crisis occurs. Then, the party in control moves to the extreme of their agenda. But the real agenda becomes "staying in power, regardless of the policies." There is no way to balance their thinking and in a country that reelects incumbents 90% of the time, no way to stop it either.
It may not be what we want in our political system but that certainly is what we have. If there is a way to change it no one seems to have found it in the past 50 years and this year will be no different.