The Big Two political parties (US) -- Do these people all belong in the same tent?

Great Debates
1

Here’s a link to an article about the Republicans. The author discusses the three main groups she discerns in this party, and states that “the Democrats have at least as many internal quarrels.” An excerpt from the article follows the link.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0812-01.htm
Published Aug. 12 in Newsday – Bush’s First Six Months: Trouble in the Tent by Jennifer Hochschild

“…for at least the past few decades, there have been three different kinds of conservatives in American politics. They dispute with each other as much as any of them fights with liberals… The first two kinds have deep philosophical roots. One set of conservatives tends in the direction of libertarianism. They want government to be small and weak – mainly for defense against outside enemies or internal malefactors – because they believe that individuals have the right to maximal freedom of choice… The second set of conservatives tends in the direction of social and moral regulation. They want government to encourage or even require individuals to obey clear, strict moral codes – often but not necessarily based on religious precepts – and they believe that too much freedom of choice and too much reliance on markets leads to excessive license and coarse materialism… The third set calls itself conservative but has no real philosophical claim to that honorable title. This group seeks to use government resources and connections to enhance the power of the powerful and the wealth of the wealthy… The Republican Party (like the Democratic Party) is a big tent and includes all of these kinds of conservatives… Holding all three kinds of conservatives under one tent, even a big one, is not easy (and I have not even raised the question of how to deal with moderates, such as ex-Republican Sen. James Jeffords)… What should upset most American citizens is the fact that…members of the corporate wing, those with the least legitimate claim to be true conservatives, are winning the war these days.”

I’d say that only the second of the three groups Hochschild describes really sound like Republcans. The first group seem to be libertarians. Whenever one of these two groups gets something it wants, the other group is sure to be very unhappy. And the corporate group doesn’t give a hoot about any of the issues of concern to either of the other two groups; they’re just out for what they can get.

Meanwhile in the Democrat’s tent, the situation seems quite similar. The Dems have a corporate group, too, I’m sure (they’re everywhere!). Their tent contains a progressive group that is very disatisfied with the Clinton/Gore group. I’m not sure what to call anyone. Are the progressives socialists? Are the Clinton/Gore people moderates? I don’t know. I do know that they seem to me to be too far apart to belong in the same party.

Our entrenched two party system seems to me to be acting to thwart a natural process: the process by which old parties die or split and new parties are born. Also, how can a mere two parties supply a home for all of the political divisions in the US today?

Each of the Big Two parties contains groups that are just too different to be happy sharing a tent. The libertarians need to get out of the social conservatives’ tent, and the progessives/socialists need to get out of the moderate Democrat’s tent. And would the Greens feel at home in the progressive tent, or do they need a tent, too?

I’m at a loss as to where the corporate group belongs (well, I’m not really, but I don’t want to get this thread sent to the Pit).

Can anything be done to increase the number of tents?

2

Thw two party system, once it is in place, supports itself. We saw that in the last election. When a third party runs a candidate in the same election as the two main parties, it merely takes votes away from the party that has the most similar stance. Thus, members of either major party always have a reason for setting aside their differences and throwing their weight behind one candidate.

In the United States right now, it is just incredibly difficult to break out of this system. Potential third parties are always at a huge disadvantage in terms of money and media attention, plus the two big parties have set up nationwide networks of offices, they have extensive lists of party members in every area, and there are many people who just vote party lines while ignoring third parties entirely.

3

One thing the Big Two parties have done is stack the deck against the minor parties. Thus seeing to it that they stay minor.

In each Presidential election, the Big Two are automatically on the ballot. Rules vary from state to state, but to varying degrees, they all make it difficult for minor parties to get on the ballot. The minors are forced to use up a lot of their limited time, effort, and cash in a struggle to get on the ballot.

There are a number of laws that require parties and candidates to report all sorts of things to the government. These reporting requirements are no problem for the Big Two; they’re a big problem for the small fry. They have to use up a lot of their limited time, effort, and cash in a struggle to prepare complicated reports and turn them in on time. They’re hit with big fines if they miss a deadline, or turn in an incomplete report.

The small parties are excluded from the national TV debates. Which is really a shame. The debates would be a great way for them to get their message out, to be accepted or rejected by the public. Their presence would make the debates more interesting. They’re also pretty much ignored by the news media. Their absence from the debates and from so much of the election coverage promotes the perception that they don’t count and are not worth anyone’s serious attention.

Then there are the Big Two’s “nominating” conventions. These conventions no longer have any purpose other then as big, elaborate infomercials for candidates that have already been chosen by the time the conventions occur. These two conventions are partially underwritten by tax dollars – none of the minor parties get this perk. Again, the idea that only the Big Two count is planted in the public mind. They only show two conventions on TV, right?

The Big Two outweigh the minor parties by an order of magnitude. They don’t need all these advantages. I don’t know why the public accepts this situation; it seems to violate American traditions of fair play and giving everyone an equal chance at the prize. I think we need to change some laws.

4

The so-called “campaign fianance laws” help protect the monopoly of the 2 major parties. E.g., a zillionaire like Perot can use his own money to run himself, but cannot give large amounts of “hard money” to another candidate.

5

Let me say upfront that I am very apolitical, or well read on this issue. I would be what the above article would classify as a Libertarian Republican. Less government, more personal freedom.

I don’t see the problem with having two rather bland, colorless political parties. I look at other nations that have multiple parties, and those systems scare me. I see what I consider to be extremist political parties holding disproportionate power because concession are given to them to form a coalition government.

December is right. These campaign reform solutions don’t seem to be doing much good. Ross Perot, Mike Bloomberg, Michael Huffington, Forbes: multi-millionaires funding their own campaigns. Are we better off because millionaire can run independently? Why do people automatically assume that because they are millionaires, they immune from outside influence? Why wouldn’t they have their own agendas?

6

I’ve been involved in Democratic politics for many years, and these are the factions I have seen within it. Though they’re not always fighting with eachother, they will often be the cause of party discord.

New Democrats: The moderate wing of the party, this is the soccer moms, suburbanites, the “corporate” democrats if you will. Leaning to the left socially but loathing populist rhetoric, this is the faction that spawned Clinton/Gore. They would’ve been Republicans a few decades ago (they were Nixon’s silent majority) but the recent centrism of the party got them back.

Minority/Urban Democrats: One of the most liberal, and poor groups, these are economically populist and socially liberal. They don’t bolt to the Green Party and other far-left parties because the Democrats have been generous to them, steering money toward the cities.

Far Left Democrats: Granola-munching tree-hugging hippies. Mostly college students and academics, these were the Naderites. Because they’re richer than Minority/Urban Democrats they don’t need the federal dollars and feel that the Democrats no longer represent their interests, or barely do so.

Labor/Reagan Democrats: Economically populist but socially moderate to conservative, these are the Democrats in the Midwest that are blue-collar and therefore are Democrats. Reagan’s personality/social views drew them away from the party. Mostly they stand for fighting free trade.

Southern Democrats: Constantly dwindling then resurging, these are moderate-to-conservative socially and moderate-to-populist economically. Shunning liberalism, they’re Democrats because of tradition and extremism in the GOP. and have shown a resurgence in recent years. Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas and Mississippi all have Democratic governors in their first term. Now National Democrats need to woo them.

7

Given the idea that a Forbes or Perot can use their personal fortunes to mount campaigns as Independents merely proves the point that big money greases the wheels of the political process regardless of personal or political agendas…This in principle is no different from the Democratic or Republican parties…The difference of personal finance, Vs campaign finance donations, of course lies within the idea of where the donated money came from and what might or might not have been promised to any contributor in exchange for the campaign funds in question…While this might be a noble gesture by the wealthy Presidential hopeful, the gesture in it’s self will never carry enough weight to elect a wealthy Independent to the White House…What the real sham is, concerning a Third Party, is the exclusion of third party involvement in the nationally televised debates…This act IMO borders on criminal infringement of free speech and is evidently sanctioned by the major networks, by their willingness to exclude the Independents from the debate. Of course this action in turn does limit a great deal of the general population from ever hearing the Independents give and take assessment of the issues…