by Jack "Cynic" Lee
Have you ever noticed that our best...our most inspired legislation... seems to come AFTER a voters revolt? They toss out the errant party and they become the minority legislators desperately trying to win back control with grandly idealistic legislation. The GOP is in that situation now and they are scrambling to come up with attention getting legislation that was absent in their previous reign.
Both sides play this game and it comes about every six to eight years, which is the typical time it takes for you voters to come to a boil and make a change in leadership. But, do you really think that such radical minority legislation will succeed in a miraculous bi-partisan effort here-to-for not seen? Nah, of course not. The payoff is in the good press they get. It's an opportunity to step onto the soap box and say, "Oh, if it were not for those (fill in the name) now in the majority we could have done such great things! Look what we've proposed and they blocked!"
If all works as it should, the demographics begin to change and edge back to the favor of the outcasts in the next big election cycle. They (both sides) count on voters having short memories, and I think they must be right... after all, we've rarely held either party accountable for some political faux paux that's more than 6 months old. We just move on and out attention becomes focused on the current crisis du jour.
Truism: The bigger the issues, the louder the rhetoric and the more sweeping the electoral change. But, the hard reality based on passed performance says, no real GOOD ever seems to come with it after the election dust has settled. If something good does appear on a Congressional agenda, it's a safe bet it will die an early death in committee or it will get compromised away until it becomes a mediocre gesture; meaning it does next to nothing, costs a lot and adds to the red tape....this is called incrementalism and it's edging us closer to the abyss, albeit so slowly nobody seems to notice.
Part of the rules of this fools game says the new majority party should throw the voter a bone for their support. This usually comes in the form of some partisan grand standing, then it's back to business usual. Remember when the GOP had their "Contract with America" and now look, the DNC have the "First 100 hours". Big deal! Better we, "Judge them by what they do, not what they say". Ironically somebody in government said that, sorry I forget who. But, the fact is, opportunities abound to pass REAL beneficial legislation, if it were not for the gridlock and compromise that comes from a two party system at war with each other. The resulting games undercut nearly every good idea either side every thought up! Just think of what our (mostly, but certainly not all) intelligent representatives could accomplish IF they could get passed their own party constraints and work for the national good.
Merely saying our system is a Republic with fair and equal representation for it's citizens does not make one. As in the quote above goes, "We are what we do" and by now most Americans are beginning to view both party's with a jaded eye. We see their failures and failings, but we are loath to take much action to change it, because (and this is just my humble opinion) we've lost our own vision of what a real democracy ought to be. It's no wonder either, we've not had a true representative democracy in such a long time.
Maybe, it's time for this two party system to tossed in favor of a three or four party system? It would generate more competition and it would give "we the people" a bigger arena of ideas wouldn't it? Or perhaps no party's at all, let the candidates run on their own merits as independants! Now there's a concept. I wonder how many would fall by the way-side without the big power brokers behind them? Probably only the ones that need to fall?
I think if we are ever to work our way out of this mess it's going to rest on some compelling reason for the two party system to do better...exactly what form that will take remains to be seen. Until such time that change is made, I would like to offer up an opening prayer for Congress and it would go something like this... "Oh Lord in your infinite wisdom, mercy ....we beseech you, send us honest patriots that care less about power and self-interest than they do about our national interest and keeping their election promises! For this is our hour of greatest need and we are knee deep in hypocrisy, corruption and rhetoric and we could sure use a break. So Lord, please send us some real leaders and may the rest of the bums be tossed out on the scrap heap of history. Amen".
I agree with much of your post Jack, but we do have a "multi-party" system. There is nothing which states tha there can only be two political parties. But our elections are based off of the spoils system or winner take all. In such a system it makes sense for like minded individuals to bind together. I would never trade this for the systems in europe. They have not yielded better or more efficent government despite multiple parties and voting systems which award seats in teh legistlature basedoff of percentage of votes to the party rather than direct district representation.
Justice Clarence Thomas once said that representative government is not menat to be efficent. It is meant to protect individual liberty, and as such breeds to some extent a slow political process.
Some of the consequences of representative government simply can never be cured, only mitigated. Politicians work off of incentives much like voters. Politicians behave in such a manner as ensures them power and stability. It is only through an educated and concerned electorate that proper change takes place. And personnally I see no evidence that we should change some of the procedures of government.
The founders were very leary of universal suffrage for fear of the influence of the uneducated or non-producers in society. Many of them felt it ubsurd to grant like voting rights to people who had very little incentive in the election process other than to use it as a means of enriching themselves at the expense of a minority. Some of the decisions they made have been rightfuly changed, while others may have been changed to the Republic's detrement.
For instance, I do not think that the federal government should be able to dictate to the states an age requirement for voting (with the exception of those serving in the military). If a state wanted to institute standards which stated that a voter must have achieved a minimum level of education, this would not be in opposition to the founders intentions.
The ways in which congressional districts are now decided is based off of Supreme Court decision in the 1960's which does not reflect the original intent of the framers.
But I do not think any of these problems will be solved with the injection of other parties. It is the natural inclination of a political party to seek power and a greater constiquency. This fact des not change because of the entrance of a third, fourth or even fifth party. If the voting public truly wants to support a third party, they may do so.
Add my heartfelt "Amen!" to your prayer...
It's not really cynical if you just describe what's before your eyes and ears. Yours is an observation most likely made after years of study and experience. Expressed on the written page it becomes a great outlet for frustration!!!
Maybe, it's time for this two party system to tossed in favor of a three or four party system? It would generate more competition and it would give "we the people" a bigger arena of ideas wouldn't it? Or perhaps no party's at all, let the candidates run on their own merits as independants! Now there's a concept. I wonder how many would fall by the way-side without the big power brokers behind them? Probably only the ones that need to fall?
I have the feeling that after rearranging the chairs we'd still end up in short order with two basic sides slugging it out for power. Issues ultimately contain two basic sides: one side is yes, the other no...the rest: what if's and but's and maybe's are useful as creative tools but disasterous when it's time to take a position and vote.
Our founders knew what they were doing. The system they gave us is sound...people and a lack of ethics, morals and adherenhce to the basic constitutional principles are the problem...a problem we've neglected for far too long.
First, I agree with 95% and respect 100% of the comments made in response to my post.
Next, just a few more points. It's interesting to note that there were no political parties when the United States was formed as an independent country, nor were they even mentioned in the Constitution.
The two party system came later thanks to a presidential race and then we see that later still, the 2 parties really formed up thanks to the issue of slavery, which galvanized a much larger segment of our society.
As most of you probably kjnow Thomas Jefferson was a guiding hand in the formation of the party that evolved into the Republican Party that was re-created by Lincoln to resist slavery. The Democratic opposition arose as a response to this, but it was also was a party that evolved from presidential races.
By the late 1700's many people felt the United States needed a new Constitution to strengthen federal (centralized) control. Among the outspoken proponents was none other than George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (sort of) and Benjamin Franklin.
They were know as Federalists, with the exception of Madison who was concerned about this movement going too far. As a result of their federalist campaigning during the first Constitutional Convention (1787) arose the anti-federalists, led by the philosophies of those that feared a strong federal government... that was perhaps too strong?
They envisioned such a government would usurp states rights (like England had done) and they were not wrong as evidenced by the motivations for the civil war that followed in 1860, but that's a whole story unto itself.
Some of those in opposition to the Federalist/Hamiltonian concept of a strong federal government were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and our old friend James Madison who actually endorsed a new Constitution, but drew the line with a number of concerns because he feared expanding federal powers too much.
The ratification of a new Constitution required one caveat...the Bill of Rights. And there ends my history lesson.
So you see political 2 parties of today are exactly what we've made them, like snow balls rolling downhill. They've grown monsterously large and they have been a haven for dirty tricks, mud slinging and Machiavellian plots. They are nothing special, except for the power they weild because they had no sanctioned or ordained existence within the Constitution. They were more like two huge unions that became big bullies at various times in US history. The checks and balance system we have in government should not be melded into the two party system, these two things are as different as apples and oranges.
My concern is that the two party's of today have grown so large that they've become like another extention of Congress wherein laws, rules and special favors to special interests are spawned and move on to party legislators who must play ball or risk the rath of the big party. These 2 party's have become like exclusive brokers for the voters. Votes see they MUST join one of the other or see their vote wasted should they defer to join a small minority party.
The two party's have virtually excluded 3rd party's from sharing any of the limelight in which the two big party's bask in. Nay, make that wallow in as they deny millions of independent voters and little 3rd party voters their due input before the nation.
One could make a pretty good case that such voters have effectively been disenfranchised and they fall into the category being the victims of taxation without due representation...for their voices are rarely heard and if they are heard, seems like their ideas get stolen...it's a frustration situation for these highly patriotic people like Libertarians.
When we dismiss the worth of these small 3rd party movements and deny them to share the most meager portion of the national stage, are we not dismissing some of the idealism that founded America? We espouse that minority speech must be valued as part of our free speech rights and therefore to deny them utterly and totally the same opportunity for free speech before the nation, is to infringe on that right. And if we infringe upon that one right, do we not in turn infringe to some degree upon all our rights because they are interlocked and indivisible?
It's fair to note that the Republican "Contract with America" was virtually copied lock, stock and barrel from the planks of a little 3rd Party with big ideas. This was "United We Stand" and the GOP did very well running on those borrowed ideas at the time, but they did poorly in passing most of them once they had the power. Which tends to support what I said earlier about party's that grandstand for votes and then fail to follow through in legislation.
I believe political party's are more or less a fluid force and are open to interpretation and re-invention as the need arises, unlike our Constitutional which ought not to be tampered with, save for the most dire circumstance.
That's basically why I have no problem seeing 3 or 4 parties exist with equal status, if not equal power, as our 2 big party's do at this time. Or at the very least, allow the minority party's to share some of that free air-time around our big election cycles and to participate in at least one or two national debates. It would seem this is more in keeping with our idealism and sense of fairness.
Well Jack, I’m going to have to disagree with you on a couple points.
1. Jefferson’s Republicans became the Democratic Republicans and eventually became the Democratic Party during the election of Andrew Jackson. Even though I think the modern Democrat party has betrayed some of the principles of the original democrats, they alone can trace their lineage back to Jefferson.
Republicans can more accurately trace their lineage back to the Federalists. The Federalists over time morphed into the Whigs and eventually became the Republican Party with its focus being abolition, and Lincoln being the parties first President.
2. Even though the Constitution doesn’t mention political parties, they are a historical fact of representative government. And while Washington never claimed a political party, and in fact detested them to some degree, he was the first and only President to be above politics. He was also elected president unanimously by the congress, since that is originally how the chief executive was elected.
But almost immediately you start to see the rifts within his administration; with Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) and the Federalists on one end and Jefferson (Secretary of State) with the “Jeffersonians’� on the other.
It is true that Jefferson emphasized States Rights, ad the Federalists wanted the federal government to have greater powers, but these positions MUST be put into context.
Jefferson envisioned an agrarian nation with virtually NO standing army or navy, and relatively no power to the federal government.
Hamilton believed that the Union had to have a strong federal government in order to defend itself. He also had a far better understanding of finance and the importance of industry compared to Jefferson.
While I believe that the states should have greater power to manage their own affairs than they do today, I think they had far too much back in the early 19th century.
You also have to keep in mind where these two mindsets were coming from. Jefferson while instrumental to the Revolution did not fight in it. Washington and Hamilton did. They saw first hand the criminal inefficiency of the loose confederation of states that had been responsible for the care of the army. Jefferson wanted to live in this dream world where militia and virtually no navy would be sufficient to protect the US. He was able to maintain this illusion having never spent a winter with the continental army as Washington, and Hamilton had done. He was proven very wrong during the war of 1812.
I am also of the school that different measures are appropriate at different times (within reason). Hamilton understood that in order for the, still very shaky republic to endure it would have to establish certain financial norms. The establishment of the National Bank was critical to the strengthening of the union both internally and with our creditors abroad. Had Washington gone with some of Jefferson’s early assertions, the young nation could have had a much weaker federal government, incapable of surviving some of the tests that would present themselves in the not so distant future.
As to 3rd parties:
Again, I want to emphasize that I have no problem with other parties entering the fray, but the reality is that the two parties we have are not the strongest by political mandate. They are the strongest because they have done the best job appealing to a majority of Americans. Several parties attempted to gain prominence when the Republicans were not as strong, they simply didn’t succeed. And third parties have been essential in the outcomes of elections, from the Bull Moose influence against Taft to the reform party against the Republicans which allowed Clinton to win his first term.
As long as you have a spoil system (which I believe is superior to the European models, as it affords greater representation based off of district) votes will tend to gravitate toward a strong party.
When we dismiss the worth of these small 3rd party movements and deny them to share the most meager portion of the national stage, are we not dismissing some of the idealism that founded America? We espouse that minority speech must be valued as part of our free speech rights and therefore to deny them utterly and totally the same opportunity for free speech before the nation, is to infringe on that right. And if we infringe upon that one right, do we not in turn infringe to some degree upon all our rights because they are interlocked and indivisible?
I absolutely get your frustration. I know you are not alone in your frustration, a good number of us feel the same way! I don't believe third parties can be dismissed...they are free to opperate and speak but they must be prepared to opperate in the marketplace of ideas. If they have less money they must find a way to be more clever, they must enroll more volunteers.
Ideas cannot gain in momentum and support without being "sold" and championed. If a third party was formed offering a set of fundamentally different (and better) ideas than either of the other two parties it might become a prominent player. My experience is that third parties differ only slightly from one or the other of the two parties and as such become a spoiler for the party most closely similar. Instead of working within that similar party, making it strong and likely to win, they become a super power acting against their own interests. This is, in MHO, utter lunacy.
The problem is with voters...they get stuck. They fall in love with their causes and go solid, refusing to give an inch...willing to lose everything.."cut off your nose" folks. They cite "principles" as the reason, and I applaud the commitment to principles, but when progress and momentum is lost because of it I can't see the good in it. Being unwilling to take some ground in the direction of the goal...and then, just to prove you are right, becoming a spoiler in the race...that's destructive and counter-productive.
Another problem is that truly superior leaders are rare. Most of the time we must make the best choice we can from among fair to good leaders. They, in turn, must get elected if they are to lead. To accomplish this they must define a platform, support it with honor, and attracts supporters who voter. Its like weaving an enourmous tapestry. A great model is Ronald Reagan. His success was in his ability to create a tapestry that was appealing to many voters and that did not create opposition. When this happens, thoughts of third parties dissipate...the people are satisfied and feel confident.
Third parties are not denied...they fail to capture. The public cannot "deem" party equality except by lending sufficient support...I guess I'm saying it has to be earned.
Tina you managed to explain better in your last sentence, what I took a whole paragraph to try to convey.
Re: Allowing 3rd Party's a fraction of free air time given during Presidential debates.
3rd party's presently can't get a voice on the national stage, but it's not for a lack of trying. It's really because they are too small and they are too small because they can't possible compete because they can't buy enough airtime...so they stay small. It's a vicious circle of unfortunate circumstances.
They can't even get a fraction of the airtime we provide to the big parties during presidential debates...to not get inclusion even 1 presidential debate for a few minutes seems a tad unfair.
So, if this distribution of free air time is unfair, maybe the 3rd party's should see about changing the rules, but the you have to consider who makes the rules? Well, the dems and reps make the rules and they are not about to give up even 2 minutes to a runner up party, no matter how good their ideas.
If it's just a matter of those little 3rd party people need to just work harder and earn their way, then I submit they do and that neither the dems nor the reps would stand a chance if the situation was reversed. Let's say history was begun with the libertarian party in place instead of the democrats or even the republicans. Now move forward a few hundred years...they would have a lock on the situation just like the other guys do now.
Hard work and good ideas won't cut it if the message can't get out or if voters percieve their vote wasted if they support a minority party....it's sort of a Catch 22 here. See what I mean?
I just think it would be really great if the very first debate started off with 5 or 6 candidates each representing their party's choice and planks. Some would be pretty goofy and some might be inspired thought...but, we'll never know unless we can hear from them. Those new ideas expressed early on could shape an election, depending how voters warm up to them.
This means a lot to those mavericks slugging it out in the political trenches. And in the grander scheme of things, I suppose it means a lot to us as a nation. American history is filled with all sorts of mavericks that have taken us up to the next level, so why stop at politics and allow only 2 elite groups to run the show 100% of the time?
We ought to be fair and give the little guy a shot once in awhile....that's all I am saying. Give em some air time during the big debates, just a few minutes....couldn't hurt, but it sure might help!
Jack...I think a platform of some kind, especially early in the race, that allowed the public to hear all comers would be a great idea.
I would have to agree Jack, that your proposal sounds very reasonable.
Nick, you never cease to amaze me, your comprehension of our American history is excellent! Your points are very well taken and you have caused me to revisit some of my history books, mainly a book on the major events/issues in America history between 1650 and 1776. I'm reading it now and when I'm done I will give it to you to add to your reference books.
Tina, thank you for great comments too! I'm sure glad we're not opposing lawyers in court, because I don't think I would ever win a case.
You flatter me Jack. If anyone is interested there is a series called "Library of America". The books are a little pricey, but they have a great collection of the actual writings of the founders, as well as several other very influential Americans.
That book sound great Jack, what is the title?
Note to Nick: The titles are "Great Issues in American History, parts 1, 2 and 3, by Hofstadter & Ver Steeg and for good measure I will send Miracle at Philadelphia, by Catherine D. Bowen w/ Warren Burger. These books are classroom material for many teachers. Really great sources of info.