The United States’ poltical system is broken. The people are not adequately represented by the current two-party system. What we have is a charade of two parties which, in reality, differ very little in terms of policy goals (if “maintaining the status quo” can be considered a policy). The posturing before cameras by elected official and the screams of the various pundits aligned with this party or the other are nothing more than window dressing. Both parties have utterly failed to truly represent their repective “bases”, preferring always to maintain more or less the same power structure (that is to say, the same people are always in the game, regardless of which party is controlling which branch of government) and to maximize corporate profits. It is the corporate world that has bought the people’s representation, with the even-numbered-year elections providing the necessary veneer of democracy.
An example of this phenomenon currently being played out is the politics surrounding Bush’s War. Republicans started this war and currently run it. The Democrats play the role of opposition to quell the minds of most Americans who otherwise could cause serious disturbances for the powers-that-be. The level of opposition maintained by the Democrats is only enough to keep as many people as necessary satisfied that somewhere, someone is fighting to end this disaster, so that the people can go about worrying about where their next meal will come from, or when will they find a job, or what fast food restaurant to eat at, or which mega-mart to blow their money at, or who to vote for in American Idol, ad nauseum. Bush’s War has been a rousing success for its perpetrators: the price of oil has sky-rocketed, the “defense” industry has boomed, and most importantly, the people are scarred of terrorism (which incidently may mean that terrorism has succeeded) and desensitized to prolonged wars of choice. The leaders of the Democratic Party come from the same social strata as the leaders of the GOP. They attend the same cocktail parties, gyms, country clubs and five star restaurants. No leader of the Democratic Party has yet said that if the Democrats take back Congress the perpetrators of the last five years of madness will be held to account. Some may think this is because doing so will be electoral suicide. Others believe this is because they have no interest in doing so because they themselves enabled the madness to ensue, and have done very little in the way of effectively stopping it. So far, impeachment of George W. Bush has not become a plank of the Democrat’s 2006 election platform, to put it mildly.
The current political structure must be drastically altered, in order for the people to take back their government. The individuals who currently are part of that system must be replaced with new people, and new ideas. The two-party system is completely unable to represent the great spectrum of political thought that exists in modern America. As a consequence, the same failed policies (tax cuts, dependence on foreign oil, deregulation of industry, etc.) and the same tired old rich white men who push them on us persist, dragging the United States down. The two parties must be destroyed, and from the ashes should rise four parties.
The four parties are (starting from left to right): The Liberal/Progressive Party (LPP), the Moderate Party, the Conservative Party, and the Libertarians (not to be confused with the current Libertarian Party). These four parties represent more of a re-shuffling of the current structure rather than a mere split of the two current parties. For example, the LPP would have much in common with the Libertarians regarding domestic social issues, such as privacy, gay rights, abortion, etc. Therefore, pro-business and some far-left Democrats could make up a large part of the Libertarians. The Moderate party would be peopled by members of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, people who today are disillusioned by the “radical” (as they see it) aspects of their current parties. In the Moderate Party, current independents and, hopefully, current non-voters would find a home. The LPP would come almost entirely from the left wing of the Democratic Party, just as the Conservatives would be populated by the religious right wing of the GOP.
<u>The Destruction of the Two Party System</u>
On the surface, the two party system, though ineffective and dysfunstional, does not seem to be in danger of going away. They are so entrenched in the halls of power that to extricate them may mean detroying the halls themselves. But left on the present course, a violent revolution may be in store. The people will take this for only so long, and by then it will be too late. Destruction of the two party system through non-violent means is necessary, no critical, for the survival of the Constitution and the United States of America. The only way to stop the current slide towards fascism (yes, fascism) is to fix the machinery that is propelling the slide. The domination of the GOP and the window-dressing opposition and deliberate straw-men provided by the Democrats has subverted and perverted the brilliant form of government the Founding Fathers laid down for us.
However strong the two party system may seem today, if one looks closer it is possible to see cracks in the foundation that, if managed correctly, may lead to four parties of roughly-equal strength that will need to re-discover the lost art of compromise and accountablity that will be necessary to get anything done. These cracks are present and growing in both parties. In the Democratic Party, the DLC- and Washington-based leadership is doing all it can to marginalize or dilute the growing voice of the so-called “far-left”: the progressives and liberals who have successfully utilized the internet to find each other and give voice to their frustrations. Even on the most loyal of Democratic Party associated blogs, one can find many screeds denouncing the party leadership, with many readers and commenters agreeing wholeheartedly. What keeps a lot of far-left and left-leaning Democrats loyal to the party is the knowledge that they must support one of the two parties in order to gain anything, even if that means just being at the table. In other words, they have learned the lesson of Nader’s run in 2000. In the Republican Party, the cracks may be just beginning to form. Sooner or later, the religious right will realize that they one again have been taken advantage of. The neo-conservatives running the GOP have given only lip-service to the issues that keep the average social conservative voting Republican every two years. From the point of view of the the social conservative and/or member of the religious right, very little to nothing has been accomplished in promoting their agenda (amendments to ban gay marriage, more religion in the government, overturning of Roe v. Wade). Instead, they are treated to the spectacle of non-binding resolutions and prolonged Congessional debates followed by close but failed votes on bills that they want, precisely every two years. The Republicans control every branch of government. Why is it then that the issues that brough them to power by the “values voter” have not been addressed? The answer to this is very simple: because the values voter was and continues to be played for a fool. For how much longer will they stand this betrayal? Have they even realized it yet? On the other side of the GOP, many libertarian-leaning members are growing disgusted at the courting of the religious right, and are appalled at the infringes on privacy and the slow-motion train wreck that is the national budget. Within a decade, both parties may be ripe for destruction.
<u>The Four Party System in Practice</u>
Ideally, elections under a four party would be different than they are today. Today, elections center around indivduals, their personalities, their beliefs, their dirty laundry. This is because there is no huge distinction between the actual policies of the two major parties. Therefore, elections boil down to “electibility”, and the inevitable result has been the conversion of elections from being an exercise in democracy to case studies in marketing. Throw in the corruptive influences of corporate money and the result is what we have: democracy in name only. Having four parties instead of two may solve this problem. Four parties should be enough to cover the scope of political thought, but not too many to halt progress. Four parties means that coalitions would have to be formed in Congress for legislation to pass, meaning that no one group of political theory aderents monopolizes policy creation. Four parties would mean that people would vote for a platform of ideas and policies, not individuals and personalities. The form of government set out in the Constitution need not be replaced with a European-style parliamentary democracy. Instead of having two parties, one of which always dominates and therefore dictates policy, there would be four, which have to work together in order to get things done. Four parties could work, where in the past three have failed (from the point of view of real progress, and especially from the point of view of the third party’s members). In the current system, a third party will always steal votes away from the major party is is most aligned with. For examples of this, look no further than the Ross Perot (Reform Party) and Ralph Nader (Green Party) presidential campaigns of 1992 and 2000, respectively. They always fail because the two major parties dominate so completely. In order for the ideas and reforms that a third party stands for to become policy or at least be debated, the current system must be dismantled and repaired.
A four party system would require the party leaders to distinguish themselves from the others by putting forth a statement of issue stances and desired policies. That does not happen now. A published list of “When you vote _, this is what you get” would mean that those who are currently in power, and therefore running us straight into the toilet, would no longer be in power. They are power now because of pandering, promises and lies spewed out on the campaign trail, not because they have any real principles, or rather because what they really stand for would never be voted for by anyone with an IQ over 80. For example, the religious right would be able to vote for a party that states what its vision of what America should be publicly, for all voters to see. What they have now is a party that feeds them code words in private but runs away from them in the light of day. And conversely, those who who now vote GOP but detest the religious right would have a better “fit” in the four party system. A similar phenomenon would also happen on the left side of the political spectrum. Most importantly, four parties could mean that the influence of corporate money would be diluted, and with good legislation, could be eliminated.
Conclusion
Will this happen in our life-times? Probably not. But its good to have a plan on the boiler for if and when the shit really hits the fan. The two party system we currently are saddled with is not a sacred cow. And in a real democracy, discussion of drastically restructuring our political system should not be taboo. It may be the only way to straighten our current course to something that does not lead to apocalypse.
