The Two-Party System - A Catastrophic Failure

For a number of years now, respected pundits havemap of the United States continue to choose
lauded the American two-party political system as ancongressional and presidential candidates along party
excellent balance between the dictatorship of alines because no viable alternatives are in sight. These
one-party system and the instability of a multipartydedicated factional adherents are stuck in the rut of
system. Yet the two-party system has caused ourthe two-party system. Economics has long vied with
country great harm. The Republican and Democraticfundamental moral convictions as a major factor
parties have divided the American people overdetermining political affiliation. In the US today, richer
fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectifyindividuals (who generally dominate rural areas) tend to
longstanding national problems, and their existencevote Republican, while poorer individuals (who generally
chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, anddominate the cities) tend to vote Democratic. These
mega-corporate executives. Most unfortunately of all,choices are based largely on the economic and moral
however, the two-party setup does not represent thepolicies that the parties stand for and on the hope that
people of the United States.new candidates will do a better job than their
Many people believe that political parties are essentialpredecessors. It is true that some Republicans and
in a democracy such as the United States. TheseDemocrats in Congress keep their campaign promises
individuals claim that since a democracy encouragesand actually work hard to deliver significant pro-life
dissent and disagreement, it is only natural that suchvictories or greater socioeconomic equality, and it is
differences of opinion will find expression in organizedthose few exceptions that keep hope alive.
factions. But this strain of thought clashes with theOn the other hand, contented middle-class individuals
judgment of our nation's founders. In his Observations(who generally dominate suburbs and small towns and
on History, Benjamin Franklin wrote that partiescomprise a significant minority of the American people)
engender confusion. Alexander Hamilton, Jamestend to hold a more independent, traditionally-minded
Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to theoutlook and are more likely to spread their votes
general public that a "spirit of faction" would cause.around based on fundamental moral convictions as
And George Washington refused allegiance to anywell as their common-sense perception of local and
political party during his eight-year service as firstnational needs. These are the "swing voters" to which
president of the United States.enterprising candidates of both parties direct so much
Despite these early statements against partisanship,of their campaigning energy.
opposing factions emerged at the end of the 1700sThe degree of distinction between the two parties is a
representing two different opinions about the role ofmatter of controversy. To figure this out, it is helpful to
the federal government. The Federalists urged adistinguish between theory and practice. In theory, the
strong central administration that would dominate theRepublican and Democratic factions are ideological
states and ensure national unity, while the Republicansopposites, with Republicans focusing on traditional
believed that the individual states should have morevalues and responsibility while Democrats are
power. In fact, the form of government officiallygrounded in progressive values and opportunity. But in
established by the Constitution was a federal republic,practice, thanks to the endemic corruption of the
so these parties were emphasizing the importance ofsystem, there is little difference between parties.
either national or state power. Alexander HamiltonRepublicans turn out to be not really Republican, and
found himself in the Federalist camp, whereas ThomasDemocrats turn out to be not really Democrats: both
Jefferson sided with the Republicans--although neithersets of politicians operate together in a hazy and
prominent national founder held the rigidly partisan orconfused middle ground defined by special interest
doctrinaire outlook typical of many American politiciansgroups. This has been clearly demonstrated on a
today. Moreover, the chief disagreement of thesenumber of occasions, such as the overwhelming
early parties was over the distribution of power withinCongressional approval for war in Iraq in 2002, the
the United States government; their members agreedRepublicans' passage of a bill that would have
on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policyprovided federal funds for embryonic stem-cell
issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, andresearch involving abortions in 2006, and the refusal of
isolationism.Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to consider
During the 1800s, the parties evolved and grew furtherimpeaching President Bush. All of these decisions were
apart, especially over the issue of slavery. Federalistsdriven by mega-corporations, which stood to profit
changed their name to Republicans and opposedimmensely from them. Even though President Bush
slavery and the secession of the South, while thevetoed the embryonic stem-cell act, soon afterward
heretofore Republicans becamehe accepted limited access to contraceptive pills for
Democratic-Republicans and declared support forminors in order to mollify the big business executives.
slavery and secession. At this stage, one party wasSome might point to these occasions of crossing party
championing a grave injustice which most Americanslines as examples of bipartisanship. However, selling
instinctively understood was evil. Theone's fundamental principles to money-hungry
Democratic-Republicans received backing primarilyAmerican firms does not make for true bipartisanship.
from wealthy Southern landowners, who insisted onReal bipartisanship involves consistent agreement on
keeping slaves for cheap labor.fundamental, non-negotiable moral values such as the
After Republican president Abraham Lincoln wagedright to life and frequent compromise on the wide
the Civil War, declared emancipation, and reunited therange of negotiable issues such as national security,
South, the Democratic Party remained the faction ofeconomic policy, environmental protection, domestic
Southern landlords' continued rebellion against the Northpoverty relief, and foreign aid. But instead of the way
and repression of Black political rights. However, in thethings should be, the pressure of the unrestricted
late 1800s and early 1900s, the Democrats also gainedfree-market ideology has inverted values. Republicans
support from blue-collar workers in Northern cities asand Democrats treat the negotiable issues as the
the Industrial Revolution created a new underclass.most crucial of all and generally are absolutely
Meanwhile, Republicans attracted backing from theunbending on them, whereas the fundamental moral
new class of wealthy Northern capitalists and fromvalues elicit disgraceful compromises and persistent
supporters of Black civil rights nationwide.disagreement. After all, big business tycoons do not like
Around the turn of the twentieth century, theto have their enormous profits curtailed by the Ten
importance of economic and foreign policy issuesCommandments, and they demand a totally
increased. The Republican Party came to stand forunregulated market in order to reap those profits.
Northern farmers, retention of the gold standard,The two-party setup in the United States has severely
fiscally disciplined government, and isolationism, whiledivided our nation. Having names and labels for
the Democratic Party represented Southerndifferent political persuasions can be helpful, but they
landowners and Northern laborers, a flexible moneyhave too often led to pigeonholing and name-calling
supply, growth of the federal government, and foreignwhich hampers a free exchange of ideas. "Republican"
engagement. During the Cold War, the two partiesand "Democrat", "conservative" and "liberal", "right" and
achieved a significant level of bipartisanship, agreeing"left" have degenerated into terms used to ostracize
on the necessity of confronting Communism andand vilify the opposition and to stifle discussion of
promoting freedom abroad. Another major changetopics deemed politically incorrect. A private citizen or
occurred in the 1960s, when Democratic presidentpolitical candidate who opposes the war in Iraq should
Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964not be dubbed a "radical leftist" any more than a
into law. From then onward the Democratic Party tookprivate citizen or political candidate who advocates
up the "liberal" causes of civil rights and urban workers,illegalizing abortion should be denounced as a
leading the "conservative" faction of farmers, limited"right-winger".
government and big business--the Republican Party--toMoreover, the true meanings of the terms
dominate the South."conservative" and "liberal" have been obscured. In
Another element was added to the American politicalmodern parlance, a "conservative" is someone who
landscape with the social upheavals of the 1960s anddefends fundamental moral values and wishes to
the Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade whichpreserve traditional national ideals, and a "liberal" is
legalized abortion in 1973. When a number ofsomeone who disputes fundamental moral values and
Democrats who had favored the abandonment ofwishes to radically change our country around. But
traditional social and moral guidelines came to realizethese meanings are inadequate. The words originally
the bitter failure of those upheavals, they convertedreferred to political approaches, not to a person's moral
into social "conservatives" and found a new home invalues or lack thereof. "Conservative" basically means
the Republican Party. President Ronald Reagansomeone who applauds the status quo, while "liberal"
emerged as the standard-bearer of these newmeans someone who wishes to effect change.
Republicans, who established their party on the firmNeither conservatism not liberalism is good or evil per
foundation of God's Law and strove to restore ourse; it depends on what specific policy you wish to
nation's identity as a Christian country.maintain or to alter. Continuing a bad policy such as
The end of the Cold War signaled the arrival of twotorture of terrorist suspects is just as detrimental to
more simultaneous factional changes. One wasour national well-being as changing a good policy such
President Bill Clinton and his group of "Newas the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell
Democrats", who championed unrestricted globalizationresearch involving abortion would be. Beneficial policies
and free market economics alongside social spending.need to be maintained and harmful policies need to be
The other change had been planted during the Reaganchanged. Thus in the original sense of the words, few
administration, hibernated under the Clintonif any human beings could be described as completely
administration, and blossomed fully after the events ofconservative or completely liberal.
September 11, 2001: the ascendancy ofPolitical factions tend to be driven by ideologies that, in
neoconservatives within the Republican Party. Led bytheir members' pursuit of particular goals, obscure
President Bush, these individuals likewise championedrather than clarify the truth. Indeed, truth itself has been
unrestricted globalization and free market economics,politicized. Inconvenient truths (such as the inability of
but they also demanded an aggressive militaryembryonic stem-cells to cure diseases) are derided as
response to "Islamic" terrorism with vast increases infalsehood, while falsehoods that make a few people
military spending and in the size of the federalrich (such as the impossibility of conducting a dialogue
government, as well as cuts in social spending andwith terrorists) are glorified as absolute truth. Nowhere
foreign economic aid.are these destructive elements of partisan politics
We can learn important lessons from this condensedmore evident than in the meteoric rise of the
review of American partisan history. One of theneoconservative ideology following the terrorist
reasons for the constant switching back and forthattacks of September 11. This intolerant, extremist, and
between parties appears to be that the country hastotalitarian belief system seems to have become a
different needs at different times. The Americanreligion for many people, yet it is a deception that
people chose Republican candidate Abraham Lincolnworships the false gods of national security and an
because of his firm stand against slavery during aunfettered free market. It was cunningly crafted by a
critical time in the nation's history. They selectedhandful of rich American tycoons to justify an
Democratic runner Franklin D. Roosevelt and hisaggressive foreign policy that enables them to engage
increased government spending to mitigate the effectsin the age-old practice of war profiteering, to expand
of the Great Depression. In 1980, they chosetheir globalized business operations across the world,
Republican candidate Ronald Reagan in reaction toand to exploit more and more human beings without
economic stagnation and moral decline. And in 1992,hindrance. In contravention of history, it insists that
American voters picked the Democratic contender Billterrorism is an act of war rather than a criminal tactic
Clinton as a result of economic recession.employed to draw a government's attention to real
But though our country has different needs at differentgrievances, and that only all-out armed force can
times, political parties are not the proper instrument to"defeat" terrorism. Its view of the terrorist threat is
satisfy these needs. According to George Washington,based on mistaken assumptions, numerous fallacies,
the constant alternation of two parties in the federaland blanket denials of many important facts that
government would be a "frightful despotism". The maincontradict their view.
reason for this alternation, especially in the past fewAlthough it masquerades as patriotic, the
decades, is that neither party is adequately solving theneoconservative ideology and its loyal adherents have
key problems America faces.done tremendous harm to the American political
Two factors explain this failure. First, each partylandscape. Neoconservatives have viciously attacked
represents some of the policies America needs. Fortheir opponents, twisted moral values, and used false
example, the Republican Party traditionally stands forguilt to silence opposition. They are utilizing the ancient
the right to life of each human person from conceptionstrategy of divide and conquer to destroy American
to natural death; a free marketplace; limitedpublic debate and ultimately to dominate the world.
government; a strong (but not bloated) nationalTheir ability to find common ground with Americans of
defense; secure borders; fiscal responsibility; and strictother opinions on negotiable issues is nil. In the pursuit of
interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic Partygreed and power, they are willing to exacerbate
traditionally stands for the right of the poor topartisan divisions among the American people and
government assistance; the rights of ethnic andmake them forget their nonpartisan heritage.
religious minorities to an equal place in our society;According to our nation's founders, it would be better
regulation of big business and trade; protection of theto have no political parties at all. Individuals should form
environment; multilateral nuclear disarmament; andtheir opinion on each individual negotiable matter
increased foreign economic aid to impoverishedthrough a careful review of all the relevant facts and
countries. However, the US really needs both sets ofwithout pressure from a corporate-controlled media,
policies. We need pro-life laws and multilateral nuclearcomfortable politicians, wealthy pundits, celebrities, or
disarmament, tax cuts and deficit reduction, a freemega-corporate leaders. If that were to happen, if
market and social security nets, not one or the other.Americans were to discard ideologies and agree on
The second factor explaining the failure of thethe fundamental moral values, they would find much
two-party system is corruption. When a new presidentcommon ground on the negotiable issues. Instead of
is elected, people anticipate that he will get things done.constant bickering and division, we would begin to
When he fails to meet even reasonable expectationsexperience true reconciliation and unity.
and his administration becomes plagued by scandal (asWith each Congressional partisan victory and each
has happened all too often in recent decades), peoplenew presidential administration, the newly elected have
turn with hope to the other party, which generally doesvowed to make a fresh start precisely because the
not improve matters much. This is because mostprevious faction led America to a dead end. The
members of both parties have been corrupted byDemocratic Party is now taking advantage of the
special interests. Our last three presidents have beenmyriad failures of the Bush administration and of
mega-corporate moguls whose ownership of majorCongressional Republicans to shore up their image as
industries presented flagrant conflicts of interest. Inthe faction that America desperately needs, the party
addition, wealthy and vocal lobby groups have bulliedthat will rescue Americans from the clutches of
our senators, representatives and president intoright-wing insanity and deliver than a brighter future in
enacting policies that benefit a few large companies at2009. For Americans weary of Republican mistakes
the expense of the average American citizen.and desirous of substantial changes in many political
For example, President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992areas, the carrot held out by Democratic candidates
on a platform that featured tax cuts, economic growthlooks tempting. It would be easy to accept this carrot
for everyone, and an ambitious social welfare program.and elect Democrats to Congress and the presidency
Although the economy did grow, Clinton broke otheralike. But if Americans choose this easy route next
promises by instituting the largest tax raise in Americanyear, they will find that it leads to a dead end. A
history, keeping social spending to a minimum, andDemocratic triumph next year will simply turn out to be
permitting corporations such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft,a repetition of recent political history. How long will
and McDonalds to reap the lion's share of gains. ThenAmericans dance to the tune of this dishonest and
in 2000 President George W. Bush was elected on acorrupt two-party scheme? Choosing the easy route
platform that featured the right to life, tax cuts,will not get us anywhere. Instead, we should make
free-market economics, secure borders, and fiscalknown loudly and clearly our intense desire for
discipline. Although Bush has generally held to hiscandidates whose integrity is unsullied by a web of
pro-life pledge and did sign into law some token taxpolitical connections and whose records are unsullied
cuts, in September of 2006 he declared support forby corruption (such as "Average Joe" Schriner, Mick
the Plan B contraceptive pills for minors. Furthermore,Huckabee or Sam Brownback for president), and then
President Bush has allowed big businesses such aswrite the name of one of those candidates on the
Wal-Mart, Microsoft, McDonalds, Halliburton, Boeing,ballot in state primary elections and again in the
Verizon Wireless, and News Corporation to choke theNovember 2008 election. Otherwise, Americans eight
"free" market; has pandered to illegal aliens; and ran upyears from now will again be whining about the
the largest federal budget deficits and national debt indishonesty, corruption and ineffectiveness of
American history. Both presidents ended up servingWashington, D.C.
the interests of mega-corporations first and foremost.The "frightful dictatorship" and corrupt farce that is our
The two-party political system does not accuratelytwo-party system should be dismantled. Parties give
represent opposing viewpoints of the role of theus temptations to attack opponents, become
federal government as it did in the young Uniteddemagogues, and garner followers, distracting us from
States. Though it was a bad idea to begin with, sinceseeking the true good of the country. If we
the latter part of the last century the system hasnevertheless wish to belong to a particular group of
become decrepit with corruption and has fallen sadlyAmericans with a clear identity, let us unite with all
out of touch with the average American. Most of theAmericans of good will. Instead of saying, "I am a
Republican and Democratic candidates allege certainRepublican" or "I am a Democrat", let us rediscover the
principles and make attractive promises during theirheritage bequeathed to us by our wise and farsighted
campaigns, but upon entering office compromisenational founders and try to grasp what it really means
overtakes principle like a weed and promises areto say, "I am an American." The United States was
thrown to the wind. Unfortunately, the current corruptestablished by our founders as a nation that is too
political climate is hostile to honest, traditionally-mindedgreat to be defined by just two colors. Interestingly, the
candidates with unwavering principles from MiddleAmerican flag contains some red and some blue, but
America such as "Average Joe" Schriner, Mikethe color most evenly spread throughout the flag is
Huckabee and Sam Brownback. In general, only thosewhite. White can be thought of as a mixture of all
individuals who habitually cater to--or are susceptible topolitical shades, and thus as a symbol of unity. Unity on
manipulation by--hawkish pressure groups have athe basis of the fundamental, universal moral truths
chance at federal public office.enshrined in the hearts of all Americans and willingness
Despite the manifest failure of the modern Republicanto compromise on negotiable issues is what America
and Democratic parties to deliver, however,needs now more than ever.
well-defined groups of American voters across the