After last night's Corona Constitution Class, a discussion erupted regarding the two-party system. I agreed with those in the class that revealed their concern to me that John Adams declared the two-party system would be the death of this nation. Parties emerged despite the absence of political parties during the founding of this nation. Though George Washington is usually labeled as a member of the Federalist Party, he was actually a member of no party as President. The rivalry between proponents of a larger, more centralized government like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Adams and those that defended the principles of limited government, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason, led to the creation of the two political parties in America. The Federalists took their name from the constitutional concept of federalism, calling for more power to be centralized in the new federal government. James Madison, originally having leaned in the nationalist direction prior to the Constitutional Convention, had seen the failure of statism during the application of such theories, and through the debates in 1787 over the U.S. Constitution. He was heavily influenced by the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, who was in France during the convention, and anti-federalists like George Mason who, though was in attendance during the convention in Philadelphia, refused to sign the document because the federal government, in his opinion, had too much power, and carried with it the potential for tyranny. Through their voices, the Jeffersonians became the Democratic-Republicans.
The unfortunate reality is that a two-party system is inevitable. It is in our human nature to create a two-party system, and to be honest, a two-party system exists in every governmental structure.
Let's say, hypothetically, that we eliminated the party system in the United States right now. Parties became a thing of the past, the donkey and the elephant coughed their final breaths, and candidates were only voted into office based on their individual merit and stances on the issues in the political arena. Perhaps we'd have a number of folks, with varying stances on a myriad of issues, covering every degree of political argument from strongly for, to strongly against, and all points in between. It would be like going to the grocery store, with a much more extensive selection. You would be able to choose from non-fat, to 1% fat, to 2% fat, to "as fat as it can get."
Then, a major issue would arise. one that to most Americans would need to be either supported, or opposed. The middle-of-the-road candidates would be disregarded as would be anybody that claims someone can be "kinda pregnant," or riding the fence. Society would split into two groups either in support, or in opposition, to the issue (abortion would be a good example, or slavery, if you want to venture back to the first 100 years of this nation). The two groups would grow, because birds of a feather flock together. The two groups would organize, pick leaders, and before you know it, two factions would emerge, representing two, brand new, political parties. Perhaps their symbols would be a Rhino, and a hawk. . . or eagle.
In systems where there is only one party, and dictators rule over the people with an iron fist, two parties actually exist. Those who support the tyrant, and those who, though their party has been outlawed, and belonging to this particular faction carries with it a severe penalty, those who oppose the government in place. That second party, the opposition to the ruler, would still be influential, and may even eventually topple the dictator. Then, the new party of freedom would emerge, challenged by those still loyal to some of the ideas of the deposed tyrant.
In countries like Austria, where four to five parties share the government, it is difficult to get a majority because there are so many parties. What happens, however, is those parties that lean to the left tend to form alliances with each other, and those that lean to the right form alliances. Sometimes, those alliances shift based on particular issues, and may intermix their alliances. But, in the end, despite the large number of parties, with the alliances, in the end, there is only two parties. The alliance to the left, and the alliance to the right; or the alliance in favor of a particular issue, or the alliance against a particular issue.
Leftists wish to convince society there is a third faction in American politics, the moderate, and it is those in-betweeners that the parties must go after to win an election. Politicians, during elections, move to the middle, chasing those elusive fence-riders, but in the end, usually the move away from the base simply angers their ideological supporters. The reality is, moderates are not in the middle. They all lean a little to the right, or a little to the left. Some of them may flip one way, or the other, with the parties, crossing over with their votes, perhaps because they are, for example, a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. Some may be extreme examples of ideology, leaning further left or right than the party they find themselves somewhat associated with, but they are unwilling to be a member of the party because they believe the party to be too squishy on the issues. But in the end, most of them, whether they admit it, or not, identify more with one camp, or the other.
It is all a matter of which tribe you decide you want to be a member of.
There are always exceptions, but for the most part, people lean either one way, or the other. There is normally no third way to lean, and the true center is sparsely populated. There may be varying degrees, be it from a limited government, all the way to anarchy, or big government, all the way to totalitarianism.
The interesting part of it all is that the dividing line is what few expect. The dead-center target is normally not considered to be at the center (since everything has gone so far to the left). In the United States, the coveted point that could be truly considered "centrist," is the United States Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution takes the concept of creating a centralized government (a left-wing concept) and limiting the system with restraints, checks, and balances (a right-wing concept) - making the United States Constitution a mixed constitution, or a system that takes a little bit from both sides.
Remember when I said there are exceptions to the right-left paradigm? A true constitutionalist fits that description. However, true "Classical Centrists" are rare, because the system is intent on having two opposing factions. After all, it is in our human nature to form two sides of an argument, and it is the reality of the political animal. There is always those that support, or oppose, particular issues.
However, at what point do we embrace those differences, and then place them in a proper legal perspective. In other words, when will we go back to original intent, and categorize those issues, labeling them not left and right, but federal, State, or local? Why should we allow a centralized government created for the purpose of the common defense and other external issues, as well as acting as a mediator between the States on disagreements over issues like commerce, or land claims, also have a say on local issues like personal protection of property, medical procedures, or decisions regarding the education of our children? Are those issues not better decided by the local population who is most affected by how those issues are addressed?
Should local issues be at the mercy of a two-party system steeped in ideology, when in reality they are personal issues that must be personally decided upon by the local citizenry those issues directly affect?
The two-party system is an inevitability, but when the parties begin to insert their group-think opinions into issues that are more personal, and should remain at the local level, at what point do those parties cease to be parties, and instead become controlling factions not designed to govern, but intent on ruling over the people?
The political parties are like two racehorses (or you can say, an elephant and a jackass), and they are ours to train. However, we feel we have lost control of our vehicles to proper governance, so we complain, we kick our animal, poke it in the chest, and get behind it to push it where we want it to go.
What happens when you get behind a horse (and especially behind an elephant) and begin to try to push it where you want it to go?
I know conservatives who complain about the Republican Party so much, they are determined we must shoot our horse in the head, and go get a third party from the pool of wild stallions out there, running around. The problem with the third-party idea, is now you have another horse that may, or may not, follow your directions, and it is so inexperienced, it doesn't even know what to do when you enter it into the race. Plus, rather than race the jackass, it wants to spend all of its time trying to steal energy from the elephant, slowing both of the animals down. But, now shot and abandoned, the elephant (or the Republican horse) becomes ineffective, stumbling from its gunshot wound.
Rather than poke the GOP in the chest, or beat it and shoot it in the head, how about we train our horse, teach it to return to the constitutional platform it claims to support? Rather than try to push the horse, how about we grab it by the reins and begin to lead it around? Teach the horse to act constitutionally, stroke its mane, give it a treat when it performs, and allow it to become comfortable (and trust us) when it comes to us holding the reins? In other words, becoming conservative on issues authorized to the federal government, and leaving local governance to local offices where we also have a hold on the reins of the local politicians?
What would Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison, say about all of this?
As for where all of this is heading, and whether or not a third party may emerge, despite all of this, it is important to simply look at history.
The Federalist Party vanished by the 1820s, unable to win any election because of the rejection of the party's big government principles. The Federalists, however, did not simply vanish, but formed a stronghold in the court system, and many of its members infiltrated the Democratic-Republican Party. As the Jeffersonians slowly changed from being constitutionalists, to the Democrat Party with an emphasis on a stronger executive, the Whigs emerged touting that they supported a stronger legislature.
A huge issue, however, upset the balance, and so the anti-slavery Whigs abandoned the party, forming the Republican Party, while those that supported slavery slowly merged into the Democrat Party.
After the Civil War, the dividing issue no longer was slavery, so the factions began to split on the issues based on their positions regarding the political spectrum (right versus left), and eventually, the Republicans began to embrace a more conservative position on the issues, and the Democrats took on a more statist stance.
Over the last century, the Democrat Party has been moving leftward, and the GOP (filled with a growing population of Progressive Republicans) has been following along to the left at a distance, eventually moving both parties left of center. In the upwards echelon of the political machine, less differences between the parties are emerging, and eventually, there will be little between them that is different. It is then that an opposition party will naturally emerge, and the more conservative republicans will then join the new party, and the establishment will either join the democrats, or simply fade off into obscurity.
And the cycle will begin, again, with two opposition parties, and with the greed and lust for power moving both of them leftward - eventually to merge once again, and then force into existence yet another opposition party determined to stand against the rise of a tyrannical system.
The final question is simply, at what point will the statists outlaw any opposition, or succumb to the rise of an informed republic that rejects statism, as happened to the Federalists during the early nineteenth century?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment