Has the Two-Party System Failed?

The truth in American politics today, is that we have a one-party system, with Democrats representing one-side of the Big Government Party and Republicans representing another side of the Big Government Party.

We've grown so accustomed to the 2-party system, that we take it for granted that in America, the land of unlimited possibilities, choosing either a Democrat or Republican amounts to our only available option. And in a sense this is true, because over the years, our Overlords have written laws that game the system in their favor.

So, does our current 2-party system of Democrats and Republicans provide an accurate representation for "we the people"? Or in reality, does it act more to divide us, thus causing our country harm?

Our Founders were not necessarily advocates of political parties. Ben Franklin believed that "confusion engendered" with political parties. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned that a political party system would only create a "spirit of faction."

George Washington, our first president, refused allegiance to any political party during his 8 years in office, and thought that alternating between 2 parties would be a "frightful despotism."

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Republican Party came to represent farmers, the gold standard, fiscal responsibility, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Party represented the Southern landowners, Northern laborers, a fiat money system, a more powerful federal government, and an interventionist foreign policy.

Fast-forward to the modern parties ... The end of the Ronald Reagan administration and Cold War brought significant changes to the parties. The first being the ascendancy of "neoconservatism" with the Bush Sr. administration, and the second being Bill Clinton's "New Democrats."

The "New Democrats" began championing unrestricted globalization, social engineering and more government authority, while paying lip-service to free markets. The "neoconservatives" championed unrestricted globalization as well (while paying lip-service to the free markets), but also demanded an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy.

It's obvious our 2-party system hasn't solved the "issues" of the day. Instead, the system has become increasingly corrupt. Both parties continuously make promises they never intend to keep, and neither represents the people they claim to represent.

Why? Because both parties are committed to only one purpose - expanding the size and scope of government, and thus, their power. They both want control of our multi-trillion dollar federal budget, and nothing more.

As Ben Franklin warned too, the 2-party system has engendered confusion. The partisan name-calling of "wingnut" and "moonbat" offer nothing of substance to the debate, but merely divides. If you're anti-war, you're automatically a "radical leftist," while supporting the right to life makes you a "right-wing religionist." Even the words "conservative" and "liberal" don't have clear meaning anymore.

I believe the 2-party system has greatly divided our nation, pitting "we the people" against each other, whereas we once were united against the State.

Because it takes 50%+1 to win an election there is NO MIDDLE. There are only two great modes in a bi-modal saddle that describes our belief and relationship systems.

I guess that's two big bumps on either side of the 50-50 mark. Let's be generous and say each bump has 40% of the population. To win you have to cut into that 20% in the middle. So those 20% or so of votes in the middle become very important.

Could you have a 60% or a 45% bump on one side and a 40% or 30% bump on the other? Not for very long. Things tend to even out. Either you push too far too fast and some of your majority drifts back to the center, or the other side outmaneuvers you for some key voting blocks, or voters drift away on their own. So you're back to needing to take a bite out of that 20% or so in the middle.

Could you bring out more of your 40% than the other side does and win that way? I don't know, the hard ideological core usually does turn out to vote. If you're getting your people out and the other side isn't getting their's out at all, you're probably also pulling in a lot of moderate swing voters and electing a lot of moderate representatives who will want to influence policy.

There's a tendency to assume that a winning candidate "owns" everybody who votes for him. Maybe Reagan did "own" the Reagan Democrats, but subsequent Republicans didn't (or if they did "own" those Reagan Democrats, they lost enough other votes from other groups to still be in trouble at the polls). People who are with us in one election won't always be with us in the next.

Say 40% of the population belongs to one philosophical camp and 40% to the other sharply distinguished philosophical camp. The election still comes down to the 20% or so in the middle.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.