Past Pluto’s Post
The Plea for Political Plurality
By: Al Spaulding
Part I of III
"The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of
party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to
discourage and restrain it."
The arena
of election in the United States is likely quite different from what the
Founding Fathers envisioned. They
realized politics is a gladiatorial battle royale for power, and thus strove to
create a system that prevented demagoguery.
They wanted a free-for-all, discouraging powerful alliances in favor of
popular persuasion through individual, self-affirming logic.
Unfortunately, the free-for-all quickly congealed into two warring
sides. Two opposing political parties
quickly became the norm in America and have fervently persisted.
Were the visionary creators of a truly
innovative government uncharacteristically naive in regards to the institution
of political parties? Is this seemingly
fundamental aspect of our democratic republic truly representative of liberty,
justice, and the will of the citizenry?
Are we forever entrenched in the battle between Republicans and
Democrats?
Despite the apparent conflict between Republicans and
Democrats, an exclusive two-party system is desirable for both to the detriment
of the citizenry.
A More Perfect Disunion
Dividing stances on topical issues and making clear
(although imperfect) distinctions allows politics to be comprehensible and
approachable. It’s us or them. In rational discourse, this is called a
‘false dichotomy’: reducing a multi-faceted issue into a binary. In other words, ignoring a host of variables
to inaccurately force a “yes or no.” The
average person can’t afford to scrounge through all the facts and opinions
regarding every issue, facilitating this false dichotomy. Who can blame us? Politics and platforms are convoluted,
prompting the attraction of a clear choice.
Most of us don’t feel passionate about every issue.
It is not
difficult to imagine how an ambitious party takes a political stand on a novel
issue, prompting the opposing party to assert a contrary position. Every action creates an equal and opposite
reaction. A political platform is thus
formed as a series of issues are addressed.
While it is kind of ‘chicken-or-the-egg’ as to how the
dichotomy is made, it’s the making of it that is favorable for both parties.
This is when the "house divided" quote becomes relevant.
Neither
party need fear the other’s perpetual incumbency; as soon as any negative
effect occurs, popular support will shift away from the former majority
party. Thereby the political pendulum is
established. Either party can pursue
expansive legislation and power because, yes, this will sour the public
opinion, but they need only be patient until the rivaling side does the same
and brings the moderate voters flocking back.
Let’s
break it down hypothetically, keeping in mind that a simplistic reduction of
politics does not encapsulate all of its nuances:
Group A
gains popular support and a position of power.
They do what they can until either (1) they go too far, or (2) Group B
gains support due to a novel stance on a topic. Group A then loses a majority of the public’s
support, so Group A responds with a smear campaign and a strong, opposing
stance on the topic. Thus, Group A
eventually regains popular support and the pendulum swings again.
This is why voters commonly say picking a “better”
candidates is really just going with “the lesser of two evils.”
I would
like to encourage you to dispose of this choice between two evils, this
duopoly.
The two
parties don’t want any more parties on the scene… at least, not a party that
draws away moderates or loyal constituents.
More parties would divide up the real estate of power, diminishing
holdings. That’s one reason why
Republicans dislike the Constitution Party, Democrats dislike the Green Party,
and why both dislike the Libertarian Party.
Libertarians very legitimately draw voters away from the two established
powers… just not many moderate voters (more on this later).
The
political pendulum may sound par for the course; however, don’t be lured into
thinking the norm is what’s ideal or even inevitable. The simple, dichotomous divide is artificial.
It is not – despite what incumbent politicians, pundits, and other vested
interests may proclaim – the only way.
For a functional alternative, let us turn our eyes to the Federal
Republic of Germany.
Germany has six political parties with seats in its
Bundestag (the equivalent to the U.S.' House of Representatives). Yes, these parties have joined forces at
times to form coalitions, but the alliances have been temporary. Voters in Germany’s government, as in any multi-party system, have a greater array of choice than their American
counterparts.
And Germany is by no means
alone. There are at least 76 explicitly multi-party countries in the world, with many additional nonpartisan countries.
While the effectiveness of having no political parties is up
for debate, keep in mind the Founding Fathers espoused a nonpartisan
system. A nonpartisan nation is one in
which no political parties exist. I imagine
there was much heated debate among the creators of the Constitution on this
point, but by establishing the rights to free speech and assembly it then would’ve
been hypocritical to make parties illegal.
Though it is technically permissive of a multi-party or nonpartisan
government, the United States is in reality a bipartisan system.
The multi-party system is still an artificial design, but it
is a more accurate representation of the public’s diverse beliefs and
priorities. Counterarguments can be raised
regarding inherent differences between other countries’ politics, cultures,
demographics, etc. when compared to the United States, but they don’t detract
from the very real possibility viability of a different system in the U.S.
The Founding Fathers did not develop a new government in
isolation – they borrowed heavily from past philosophies and practices. It is easy to dismiss the idea of potential
change when comparing governments, citing significant differences. However, we would do well to remember that
the fledgling American Constitution was far removed from its inspirations. For example, ancient Greece: the tall white
columns of our governmental buildings are testament to this influence.
A government is created out of the necessity to bring together
a variety of locations, beliefs, and systems under a common set of rules. It is not the duty of a government to
eliminate every outlier into a planetary alignment of perfect conformity. Excessive restriction of expression and
action is not simply immoral. It is
impractical. Monocultures tend to have deleterious effects. We therefore should mold our
government to our benefit.
As an institutionalized community, we must collectively
strive to balance our similarities with our differences.
If you are interested in learning more about the
shortcomings of our political system, I highly recommend the CGP video series, "Politics in the Animal Kingdom".
These short, comprehensive explanations regarding systems of representation
greatly inspired me to address this topic.
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division
of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and
concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble
apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our
Constitution."
