I appreciate the few of you who peered at the last post on the debt-ceiling debate. I was deeply encouraged by some of the comments, especially the one from Patrick from the UK.
I have been thinking of the Two-Party system in the US for a while now and its stranglehold on the political nexus of this great nation. I continue to be befuddled by the fact that these institutions have not only existed for as long as they have but they have literally emasculated any attempts to challenge their dominance in everyday life here in the US.
I was raised in a large family of seven siblings. Every member of my family had strong opinions and feelings about everything - about politics, sports, what kind of pet to get, etc. It would have been unimaginable to grow up with only two embossed opinions as the eternal rule of thumb.
The American two-party system had its origins between 1789 and 1790. At the time, America's population was about 4MM. Apart from the roughly 800,000 Africans and Native Americans, we had a country of Caucasians, albeit of different heritage (English, Spanish, Welsh, Germans, et al). Is it not amazing that with this small population (relatively speaking), agreement was still few and far between, as epitomized by the Civil War, and all the other battles fought during the early years of this great nation.
Today, America's population stands at over 310MM, with people from every nook and cranny of this terrestrial globe. Think about it for a moment: The 2-party system represented about 4MM in the late 18th Century. It is still representing the interests of over 310MM in the 21st Century. Are we saying that all the viewpoints and interests of America's citizenry are well-represented by the Washington elite massed in the Republican and Democratic parties? Why does it seem and feel like an impossible task to open the gates for differing and divergent viewpoints to be representative of most of America?
It is pertinent to note that this blog is not about race or racial politics. It is simply about "the other issues" that do not fit into the entrenched debate encapsulated solely by America's two-party system.
There is the parallel argument by some who would say that the US has seen its fair share of independent candidates. Many would reference the Texas billionaire Ross Perot who ran for the office of the President of the United States in 1992 and 1996. Others would point to Ron Paul, popularly referred to as the "Godfather of the Tea Party Movement". A closer look at these two Texas political stalwarts would reveal men with intellectual savvy, charisma and a depth of eloquence, but there still remained an alignment with the political establishment. Ron Paul is a Republican US Congressman. Perot had numerous convictions that almost seemed like he was reading from the Democratic political ethos. These men are great symbols of independent political machination but not independent political thought. They hoped and intended to sound like independents but their final product (still evolving in Paul's case) seemed to show some encasement with the "usual suspects". Watching Ron Paul a few weeks ago in the first Republican Presidential debate of this political cycle seemed to guarantee a redux of his small government mantra.
In spite of all this, I firmly believe that the US is in need of a truly independent voice like never before. An independent voice that looks nothing like its predecessors in which terminologies like "right", "left", "right of center", "left of center", and the like are not only moribund but archaic. It would an "umbrella party" in which all would be "stakeholders". It would not be borne out of protest movements like we saw in 2010 with the Tea Party movement on the right or Progressive groups on the left or the British National Party (BNP) in the UK that seems to find its niche with disaffected Brits who feel stifled by an increasingly non-British or non-White population. It does not have togas of liberalism or conservatism. It is its own brand. It is not a movement - just people looking to get their voices heard. It is not religious or atheistic. It is not racial or ethnic. It is "We the People.
My question to you all is: Is this even remotely possible? Put differently, is this close to mythical or/and comical? Or is there a place and a need for an independent voice in the US?
sensus communis , thanks for an interesting topic . Your contribution is as always witty and prompting.
ReplyDeleteThe underpinnings of a portion of your argument concerning demography is persuasive and powerful . There is cause for reflection if America's two political parties were established well over two centuries ago , then surely the question is : do those two political parties ( The republican party ; and The Democratic party ) reflect contemporary cultural and social demography , given the immigrant sub-plot to America's social fibre. I doubt they ( the two established parties ) reflect it well enough . Maybe, we just do not see enough political actors in both parties forming a microcosm of what America really is demographically .
The next question is : how to get about correcting the situation ; and i see two ways : more political parties , or The two existing ones reaching out to represent the views of those out of the news. in other words , main stream has got to meet back street , to create a united political process .
Digressing somewhat , I believe history tells us that countries that engage in multi-party politics tend to be politically weaker than those with two parties only. One aspect of intrigue to America's politics is that a lot of times , The independents hold the balance of power at presidential elections , thus in many ways acts as a loose , un-structured , amorphous " third party ".
If we subscribe to the formation of one more political party now , it soon will become fifteen , given how diverse America is , and a people with healthy plural views. If this plurality of views is channeled into more political parties , the political system will get further bogged down , thus making the system unstable , and weaker
Perhaps , in order to avoid the political mumbo -jumbo more parties could potentially bring , enhanced methods ought to be practiced . By that i mean strands of public opinion from these so to say "dis- enfranchised" groups be cobbled together by community leaders , who need to look for a medium to sell their needs to the two political parties, or either..... these needs should / would get fed into the political process. A lot of candidates do / would run for office using the demands / of such groups, as a a platform .
The situation calls for more hard work by underrepresented American communities to organize themselves better , espouse their views , look for a medium : sell your ideas to politicians of both parties . That way , these communities , or groups become empowered , without necessarily resorting to forming a political party . With Barrack Obama rising to the office of President of U.S.A , everything is possible , if folks work harder. Remember also : too many cooks spoil the broth . The political landscape in America needn't change ; the disaffected ought to find their voice , and fight to be part of the political process .