Republican Party, Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party; can’t live with ’em, can and should live without ’em. Political parties have tyrannized political discourse almost since our nation’s inception. They have been a source of constant infighting, corruption, ineffectiveness and lies.
The party system actually started by default. As James Madison once said, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” Individual freedom is what sustains political factions. In government one is either in power or not and it is a natural reaction to team up with others in order to monopolize that power. Despite the fact that most of our revolutionary leaders held allegiances to parties like Federalist or Anti-Federalist, their disdain for such a system is well documented.
In his farewell address, George Washington stressed, “…the common and continual mischief’s of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” James Madison, the most influential architect in the formation of our Constitution, believed that, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” Other influential leaders at the time, such as Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, despised the party system as well.
One of the more tremendous mistakes our early leaders made was to identify themselves with a faction. Our Constitution says nothing about political parties, and, despite popular opinion, parties are not needed as a check in government. America’s founders expected constitutional provisions such as dual sovereignty, separation of powers, checks and balances incorporated into each branch, as well as indirect election of the president by an electoral college to deter the formation of major parties. Unfortunately in this instance, they didn’t do as they preached.
So why have political parties survived? Why submit ourselves to their platforms? Why do 59 percent of Americans identify themselves as either a Republican or Democrat? Is it so that we can place all “warmongers” under the Republican banner and all “nannies” under that of the Democratic Party? Or do we join together simply to forward some vague common goal?
I myself am a member of the Republican Party, and a very active participant in its dealings. But the more I study political science the more I realize that no breed of a major party could ever satisfy my expectations. I am a Republican strictly because it gives me the best chance of having my voice heard in Washington. Independent politicians free from any sort of obligation to an organization or party boss is true democracy, and we could use a dose of it.
I’m a free market guy, and I champion the idea of competition for its effectiveness in creating the most fair and efficient result. Since the 1860s the Democratic and Republican Parties have had a stranglehold on our political system. It is incredibly difficult for someone to run for office unless they declare allegiance to one of these two parties. And while there may be slight differences within the party – liberal, conservative and moderate – it’s not enough to represent the political diversity in this country.
Our current system has created a duopoly in government. Political ideations are not formed at the bottom of the party; they are dictated from the top. When examining the Republican Party one can see the unwarranted changes in its platform over the past two decades alone. The party has virtually surrendered its fight for small federal government and refuses to rightfully devolve power to the states as the 14th Amendment requires. Moreover, it constantly acquiesces to more spending. The excuses we hear from our representatives are that it’s just “politics,” or that “bi-partisanship” and “negotiation” are a necessary factor of government.
When I first started thinking about this, I actually came to the conclusion that more parties were necessary in order to have the heterogeneity in government we need. I couldn’t have been more wrong. What we need are no political parties at all. Politicians should not identify themselves with the broad brush of party affiliation. Instead, they should offer their own unfettered individual principles, policies and concepts.
The good news is that the two-party system is self-destructive. Washington is at a standstill. It can’t control immigration, has a tax policy which deters foreign investors and the repatriation of our dollars, continues to try and control our free market through either subsidies or regulations, spews hot air regarding energy independence – the list goes on and on. The excuse constantly being offered at the state and federal level is that the rival party is blocking necessary legislation. This is what we call a cop-out.
It seems radical to me that in our Democratic-Republic we allow Howard Dean and Mike Duncan (Chairmen of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, respectively) to represent such an extensive spectrum of political beliefs. I don’t see the disintegration of the party system happening anytime soon, although the discontent Americans have displayed over the past few years leads me to believe that now is the closest we will get for a while. Despite the animosity, the system is still too powerful. But a guy can always dream, and I for one look forward to the day when politicians fight for the will of their constituents over any party obligations.
[email protected]