Replies

And what was the result of the Shamnesty legislation? It was defeated. Conservatives have influence over the Republican party. If we don't have enough influence right now to dictate who the nominee is, it doesn't follow that we'd have more influence in a multi-party system as a smaller, purely conservative party.

More likely, we'd be facing a dominant center-left coalition that would have the power to ram through its own agenda, which conservatives would be powerless to stop. Remember, conservatives are not a majority. We aren't really even a plurality - McCain-Lieberman style centrists are probably more numerous than conservatives. Rather than having influence over one of two major parties, if there was a multi-party system, we'd probably be the third-largest party with very little clout in Washington, competing for influence in the opposition with the populist right and the radical left parties.

One thing you see in multi-party countries is that the fringe left tends to be given a disproportionate amount of influence. By and large, the only major Communist movements in the West were in mutli-party countries where Communist parties were able to obtain seats in the national legislature, often joining the governing coalition. This trend continues with radical-leftist parties like the Greens which continue to exert a great deal of influence in much of continental Europe.

The legitimacy granted to these radical elements played a strong role in the rise of the Third Way socialism now dominant on the European continent. The governments of multi-party countries like Italy and Germany are far to the left, policy-wise, of their respective populaces, on issues like taxes, welfare, heath care, and the death penalty.

As to this:

Wouldn't a multi party (more than two) system be more responsive to different views and offer the option of changing alliances on issues where there is a common interest?

Yes it would, and that's precisely the state of affairs the Founders wanted to avoid. See Federalist #10, where Madison makes the argument against direct democracy and factionalism.

The two-party system isn't terribly flexible or responsive to the public, but our government is not supposed to be flexible or responsive to the public, either. The idea behind our system of government is to temper the whims of temporary majorities. A multi-party system would undermine that end.

The two-party system isn't terribly flexible or responsive to the public

Your observations and arguments are all reasonable and well accepted rational for the government-political party relationship as it has developed and exists.

Yet the situation remains as it is - the government has come to represent the interests of the government, its office holders and its bureaucrats first, the interests of America and its lawful citizens and residents a distant second and third.

To me the crux of the problem is that the two parties have now become the permanent government - one branch in power and one in temporary exile.
They let us think we have a choice every two or four years but they have installed a system of rules and customs that ensures nothing significant changes. It is just the ins versus the outs. We change from one bunch of abusers to the other, then back again.

Look at the current election as it is developing.
The campaign between the two parties has little to do with how the country will be run. McCain, Obama and Hillary are so alike as to be hard to tell apart.
For all practical purposes, the way they will run the government is almost exactly the same.
The real fight is over which party will have the power and which group of party hacks, friends and cronies will prosper the most in the next four years.

The parties both exist to perpetuate the system and their own power.
There is very little difference between them - just enough to conduct minor squabbles for the benefit of voters and to swing the vote from one to the other occasionally.

There is nothing in the constitution that grants the parties and the professional politicians the right to run the government but since they occupy the seats of power they make the rules.

One example: the accrual of influence and power in congress based on seniority is an insider's way of holding on to the reins of government, of keeping the incumbents in office.
They control the flow of favors, contracts, entitlements, pork that buy financial support and the votes to get reelected.

You refer to the Founding Fathers so I point out that they never envisioned a government of professional politicians who have declared themselves to be the de-facto Royalty of America, granting themselves and their cronies largess from the public treasury and perpetuating their hold on government with the power citizens grant to them and the buying of votes with taxpayer monies.

They envisioned a government led by citizens from different walks of life who would enter public service for a time then return to their lives as ordinary citizens.
.