Most Americans seem to accept that the two party system is what we’ll always have. Even in my high school government class the teacher basically told us this is the way it was suppose to be. (I didn’t necessarily buy it but that’s what we were taught.)
So why does everyone use partisan like it is a bad thing and bi-partisan is the best thing since sliced bread? If you accept that two parties is the way to go how could you be upset at partisan politics? I don’t see how you could have one without the other.
The problem, Mr. Gibson, is that people often translate the two-party system as “Us vs. Them”, like a football game or wrestling match. The problem with partisanship isn’t inherent in itself, it’s that it seems to bring about an aggression in the people involved in it.
I’m sure everyone’s seen the standard rants… “Candidate Felch is worse than Hitler, while Candidate Squick is better than Jesus!” This isn’t partisanship, this is extreme partisanship. It doesn’t open lines of communication between two opposing-yet-respectful viewpoints, it becomes a pissing match between loud-mouthed boors.
Maybe if we got oh-so-violent shows like Power Rangers and Poke’mon off the air, there’d be less aggression in our political system…
I don’t think a two party system is inherently bad. The US has the choice between two centrist parties who, despite election time rhetoric, have similar economic goals and not dissimilar agenda’s. Sure, Gore and Idiot Son differ on gun control and other stuff but there is little substantive difference on the fundamental objectives of providing the economic circumstances in which USA Inc. can flourish and not introducing radical social reform.
I see the main problem of this system as reducing to the lobby the input and voice of non-mainstream, unconventional and non-corporate influence, thought and opinion. And, of course, in the lobby they compete with better organised and better funded organisations who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. So, it can be an extremely excluding political system - when you have two parties, as in the US, battling for the centre ground, you don’t have to be too radical to be outside the loop and with your voice drowned by the better financed lobbyists. It also provides an environment where abuse is very likely to flourish.
In reducing non-vested interests to shouting from outside the door, everything is controlled: The entire agenda is settled between the two centrists, media cronies and ‘supporters’. One might see this as a primary reason why much of the American public is uninformed or misinformed on a range of social and international issues. I’m not saying elsewhere is better but I do think the wider agenda should not be defined in this way, nor the informational slant / spin be so controlled as to negate meaningful debate.
But it does also produce certainty and consistency, qualities that shouldn’t be underestimated.
I would also agree that it is extremely difficult to introduce a third political force into a first past the post system while the two leading contenders remain in touch with voters (or manipulate the agenda). American political parties share similar mainstream capitalist ideology and the public isn’t interested (or possibly informed) in or about radical social reform – can’t see how a third force would get a foot in the door.
The only other viable option I can see is to introduce a variety of proportional representation at lower levels (State, City, etc) and hope grass root support grows - but that isn’t likely to happen as the prevailing system suits the two parties very nicely.
One rejoinder to those who wail about partisanship is to ask whether they would prefer that parties collude rather than compete.
In a system where the winner doesn’t have all the power political parties have to compromise. Some complaints about partisan politics seem to have in mind that ongoing competition can prevent effective compromise, leading either to moribund government incapable of tackling serious issues or bad compromises. Policy outcomes can either be hybrids (effective compromises) or mongrels. Unless the sides can stop sniping at eah other from time to time, the latter is likely to be the case.
One interesting side effect of this election debacle has been the extent to which people have become polarized based on who they voted for. Before the election, I had come across only 1 person who really thought Gore will/would be a great president and only 1 or 2 people all fired up about Bush–everyone else was lukewarm and felt they were choosing the lesser of two evils, whichever way they voted. Now, people who were only mildly supportive of their candidate are behind him 100 percent and feel that the other guy is trying to steal the election. Whether this will carry over once a president has been selected or to future elections, is, of course, impossible to know, but it seems to me that the moderate middle has splintered to some extent–frankly, the Dems have a long road ahead of them if they ever want one of my votes again, for any position (although I will never vote for a Pat Robertson/Gary Bauer/Alan Keyes type…)
We also draw a fine line between where partisanship is good and where it is evil. We expect that a judge, presiding over a burglary trial, will not be more or less lenient because of the political affiliation of the defendent. We expect that a District Attorney will not be more severe in prosecuting felonies if the accused were of the same political affiliation. We do not expect a police officer who was a Democrat to be more lenient to speeders with Gore bumper-stickers. We do not expect a state attorney general who is a member of a Republican Election Committee to let her party affiliation overwhelm her sense of justice, her understanding of the law, and of fair play.
In short, we put on different hats at different times… at least in theory.
One of the reasons that the impeachment trials were so disturbing (to me, at least) was that they were split exactly on party lines. I hoped that in going through so sombre a legal proceedings, the judges and juries (which is what the House and Senate became) could put party politics aside. What should be a sober, bi-partisan legal process became a circus, just like the prior impeachment. This saddens me, because it weakens an important check and balance in the system, subjugating it to party politics.
And, KSO, the narrowness of this election hasn’t changed my opinion. I think that one of the candidates is an arrogant S.O.B. and the other one is dumber than a post. Nothing that has gone on recently has caused me to change that opinion; I think neither of them has an iota of leadership qualities.
I find it appalling that we are still using such primitive voting methods. And to hear that every year, there are votes thrown out (to the extent of 120,000 votes in Illinois, according to the Tribune, in the last election) because of poorly designed ballots… and no one seems to have noticed until now!
Nor has my opinion of either man changed–your description of one as an arrogant SOB and the other as dumber than a post is on the mark. This morning, I saw Lieberman on the Today show or whatever it is with Katie Couric, and I loath Joe Lieberman for a number of reasons, so I’m feeling more pissed off at the Democrats than the Republicans right now…
I’m definitely suffering from election fatigue–just tell me the answer, I don’t care who it is any more. . .
Quite frankly, I don’t think “two parties good.” I think political parties are self-perpetuating power structures, and partisanship is what that amounts to.
Let’s say there were no “Democratic” or “Republican” party, but rather, individuals were elected to Congress with no party label attached to them. Assuming that the issues that are important to people today would be roughly the same, we’d have the same split of opinions, without the labels.
Let’s take abortion, a divisive issue with a pretty partisan line drawn, but some people on the “wrong” side of the aisle. Let’s say a certain anti-abortion bill is introduced. With no partisanship, you’d expect that everyone who is pro-abortion-rights would vote for that bill…maybe it would pass. But with partisanship, you are more likely to get a political calculation about the bill from a pro-abortion-rights Republican: If we let the Democrats pass this bill, will they be able to use this to their advantage in future elections? If so, I’d better oppose this bill, which I’d normally be in favor of, because I want more Republicans to be elected.
I use this only as an illustration, and not at all to imply that only Republicans do such partisan thinking.
This is why partisanship is bad; it turns politics into a game rather than a genuine expression of popular will on an issue-by-issue basis. I would dearly love to see political parties abolished; however, I can’t see how such a thing could be done, either practically or constitutionally.
