While that may seem a rather redundant headline the day before a world-wide party is scheduled, it was actually less provocative than my original concept of selling the theme that America needs more than two viable political parties, which was: "Party! Party! Party! Party!" But then I noticed I had already used one exclamation point in a headline this week; so I realized if I ran my original choice, I would be jeopardizing my standing among the Professional Journalists And Wannabes Who Play One On The Web Guild (the beloved PJAWWPOOTWG, pronounced like... um... well, it's best not to try to pronounce the acronym until you've got at least three stiff drinks under your belt). Where was I? Oh, right, party headlines.
While my generation was the first to use the word "party" as a verb (known technically as "verbalizing" it... no, wait, that can't be right... "verbizing" it perhaps?), we were not the first to heartily endorse the concept. When I was growing up, friends of my parents had a sign in their den, over the built-in bar: "I support the two-party system. One party a week is not enough!" Showing that, while the language may indeed change, the party instinct is as old as mankind. Or at least as old as my childhood neighbors (who seemed pretty old to me at the time).
Seriously, though (I do seem to be easily distracted today, sorry), since it is the end of the year and we're all in a bit of a silly mood, I thought I'd posit a scenario that has long been a dream of many voters in America: that we have more than two realistic choices on the ballot when we vote. And while in my own time I've seen many nascent "third" parties grow, bloom, and (inevitably) die; it seems to me that we could be on the cusp of our two-party system doubling itself, amoeba-like, within the next year. I don't make any statement as to the probability of this actually happening, but will instead just throw the idea out there for discussion and debate. Call it "party talk."
The strength of the American two-party political system is that any attempt to grow it into three results largely in one party becoming weaker by the split, and one party staying together -- and getting stronger, since their opposition vote is split. After a disastrous election cycle or two, the third-party hotheads sigh dejectedly, and rejoin the party from whence they came, and the system falls back into two-party equilibrium once again.
But what if both parties split at the same time? What if we ended up with four parties instead of two? This could avoid the zero-sum nature of attempting only a "third" party.
The seeds for the splits are obvious to see, on both sides. Let's take Republicans first ("take my Republicans... please!" flits through my mind, I have to admit, so here's a bow to Henny Youngman). The Tea Party movement, while fractious, is a lot stronger than many are willing to admit. A recent poll showed more people self-identifying as Tea Partiers than as Republicans. The problem is, the bigwigs in the Republican Party control the money and the party machine. By "party machine" I speak of all the infrastructure that a national political party enjoys which is so hard for any third-party movement to put together from scratch. These two groups -- Tea Partiers and establishment Republicans -- are headed on a violent collision course in the primary season next year. Mainstream Republicans know the way the game of politics is played on a national scale, and try to argue for candidates that will have some sort of broad appeal in the electorate, in an effort to retake the independents in the middle. Tea Partiers are concerned with only one thing: purity, above all else. The problem for the Tea Partiers is that they're largely (at this point) a one-issue movement, with no broader agenda than: "No taxes. Ever." This leaves them wide open to hijacking by other single-issue Republican subcultures, so it will be interesting to see what sort of stand Tea Partiers take (if they do -- the smartest thing they could do is not take a stand at all) on issues like abortion or gay rights, to name just two.
But in the clash in the primaries, either the Tea Partiers will win the day, or the Republican establishment will eke out a victory. If the Republican establishment candidate wins, the Tea Party folks will have a choice to make. Either slink back into the Republican Party with their tails between their legs; or, as Sarah Palin would put it, "go rogue" by entering the general election as a third-party candidate. If this happened in four or five Senate races (Florida, Kentucky, California, etc.), and if the Tea Party candidate started beating the Republican candidate (see: this year's NY-23 congressional election), I could see a general split in the party at large, with elected Republican officials suddenly proclaiming that they, too, are now Tea Partiers, and not Republicans.
In this case, the name "Republican" would stay with the national party organization. The new party already has their own name, and would likely want to distance themselves from Republicanism anyway. What would happen, in this scenario, to the Republicans who were left is an open question. They could become the "social conservative" party, devoted to all the hot button religious issues afoot, or they could become the "pro-war" party which advocated the neo-conservative agenda. Or they could become the "we're the adults here" party, and portray themselves as serious and worthy of office, as opposed to the lunatics in the Tea Party.
Over on the left side of the aisle, we have the current situation in the Democratic Party. The Progressives are about an inch away from considering a similar exodus from the party at large. They feel betrayed by Barack Obama, and by the corporate-owned "New Democrat" wing of the Democratic Party. Progressives also feel that they are the core of the Democratic Party, being stymied by the corporatist fringe within. The building frustration among Progressives could lead to an eventual split, with a caucus of House and Senate Democrats proclaiming a new Progressive Party. If enough of them jumped ship simultaneously, they could form a bigger caucus than the remaining Democrats. And, like the Tea Partiers, they would likely bar entry to their party to anyone seen as insufficiently pure -- no corporate lackeys in Congress need apply. Which would leave the Democratic Party the "corporate-approved," pro-business, socially-liberal party. It would also leave them, like the Republicans, with the party name and the nationwide party apparatus.
This could lead to elections in which you, as a voter, weighed the Democratic candidate against the Progressive, and the Tea Party candidate against the Republican. Four choices instead of two, in other words. It would free up the true believers on both sides of the political divide to back whomever they wished, without being told by the national party what their only choice is.
Now, as I said at the beginning, the odds of this actually playing out in such a fashion are long, at best. What is much more likely (looking at recent history) is that these groups will make a big point, and, by doing so, pull the national party in their direction as a whole. Republicans seem rather terrified of the Tea Party movement within their ranks, and will likely fall all over themselves signing "pledges of purity" with the Tea Party folks next year. They are scared because such a mob mentality is notoriously fickle, and they've already set up some epic battles in Senate primaries next year. "Mob" has a long history politically, since the word is nothing more than a shortening of "mobile" -- as in a "mobile party" that votes with its feet. And the Tea Party folks look like they may be mobbing in a new direction next year. The Republicans may face the choice of going with the mob, or splitting off from them and disavowing them.
Democrats face a similar situation, although the Progressives are not as organized or "mobilized" as the Tea Partiers. But some Progressives are just as angry as the Tea Party folks, and for similar reasons -- they feel like their own party is selling them out at every opportunity. Democrats' own mob is not as cohesive -- yet -- as the Tea Partiers, but that could indeed change, because the feelings are just as raw.
What would this mean, besides more choices on the ballot? It would mean a coalition approach to government, as most parliamentary systems use. On some issues, Progressives would caucus with Democrats to get legislation passed. Both parties could get concessions for their support, with the weight of their voting bloc behind them. On other issues, Democrats and Republicans may caucus together (call it the Big Business Caucus). Progressives and Tea Partiers may find themselves in agreement on, for instance, taking on Wall Street. The sands of alliance would shift, issue by issue.
Of course, this could be a giant prescription for total and utter gridlock in Congress. The possibility certainly exists that absolutely nothing would get done under a four-party system, because no one party would dominate on any particular issue. And even if there were splits among Republicans and Democrats, it may lead to the death of one of the major parties themselves, as Republicans all rush to become Tea Partiers, or Democrats belatedly proclaim themselves Progressives.
But what interests me is that the possibility of such splits exists on both sides at the same time. The trite "America is divided and polarized politically as a nation" line that journalists love to trot out is even more true than they have noticed. Because not only are we divided in two, across the unbridgeable gap yawning wider every year between Republicans and Democrats, but on each side of the chasm, cracks are appearing within, between two major subgroups. We're really splitting into four in American politics. And whether that results in a formal split which creates two new parties, or whether it winds up just being intraparty feuds that eventually get resolved remains to be seen.
Speaking on a personal level, as a politics-watcher, nothing would make my job more interesting than some new players on the field. Speaking as an American, I have no idea whether a four-party system would be any better or worse for the country, or whether it could even work. But it certainly would be fascinating to watch.
OK, that's it. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled party program. Everyone with me?
Party! Party! Party! Party!
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Outstanding questions that need to be asked. However, I would disagree with your conclusion that we would be breaking from 2 parties to 4. I believe that we would actually be breaking from the present "Single Corporate Party" to three: Progressives, Tea-Party? and De-Facto Corporate. In terms of major policy initiatives, there is substantial evidence that we have had, in reality, de-facto one party rule in the US since the mid-1990's.
In order to break this Oligarchy, somehow, some way, common ground must be sought amongst these disparate groups on the major policy initiatives that really matter.
Most notably, there must be an all out initiative by the American people of all parties, persuasions and backgrounds to push for effective lobbying reform immediately. Tragically, if this effort fails to satisfactorily materialize then it renders all other movements and party initiatives relatively pointless, as perfected lobbying techniques have essentially turned our democratic processes into but a charade.
ThomastonPaine.com
2 Additional sources of excellent information to help thwart lobbying efforts:
Opensecrets.org
Maplight.org
I can see the initial splitting happening in both parties. But with the current domination of the Democratic Party and the current weakness of the Republican Party, it makes little sense that the GOP would continue when it loses its Tea Party wing and the Democratic Party loses its progressive wing. The result would be a stump GOP and a truly "Centrist" Democratic Party. In no time the GOP stump, now labeled moderates because they didn't go to the Tea Party, would become Democrats and the GOP would fade away.
More likely is that the "moderate" Republican would be purged out as the GOP is controlled by the Tea Party wing and these "moderates" would join the Democrats. This way the Tea Party/GOP keeps its structure but moves even further towards the right. The Democrats become the Establishment Party in the "Center" that is allied with Wall Street and the Progressives become a third Major Party.
So either way it is more likely we end up with a Three Party system, which is unstable. One of the outlier parties, the Tea Party/GOP or the Progressives, will not be able to compete and become a minor Third Party. That is unless we change our voting system to what I call Vote Transfer (VT) in which candidates own their votes after an election and can transfer them to another candidate and one must have a majority to win.
That's exactly backwards. A parliamentary system makes for multiple parties. Multiple parties don't make a parliamentary system.
A parliamentary system is one where a majority in the legislative branch gets to pick the political top layer of the executive branch. In such a system, voters in atypical districts would be well-advised to elect minor-party candidates who match their views better, rather than major-party candidates who don't match their views as well. The minor-party legislators can then exert influence by joining a coalition, with the threat of withdrawing from the coalition if the major party doesn't take their views into consideration adequately.
A presidential system is one where the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature. There's no incentive like the threat of withdrawing from the coalition, unless one were written into the rules of legislative procedure. When all votes are single-seat plurality elections, the only equilibrium is two major parties.
“Popular struggles have won a great many rights, but concentrated power and privilege clings to the Madisonian conception in ways that vary as society changes. By World War I, business leaders and elite intellectuals recognized that the population had won so many rights that they could not be controlled by force, so it would be necessary to turn to control of attitudes and opinions. Those are the years when the huge public relations industry emerged -- in the freest countries of the world, Britain and United States, where the problem was most acute. The industry was devoted to what Walter Lippmann approvingly called "a new art in the practice of democracy," the "manufacture of consent" -- the "engineering of consent" in the phrase of his contemporary Edward Bernays, one of the founders of the public relations industry. Both Lippmann and Bernays took part in Wilson's state propaganda organization, the Committee on Public Information, created to drive a pacifist population to jingoist fanaticism and hatred of all things German. It succeeded brilliantly. The same techniques, it was hoped, would ensure that the "intelligent minorities" would rule, undisturbed by "the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd," the general public, "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" whose "function" is to be "spectators," not "participaÂÂÂÂÂnts." This was a central theme of the highly regarded "progressive essays on democracy" by the leading public intellectual of the twentieth century (Lippmann), whose thinking captures well the perceptions of progressive intellectual opinion."
Noam Chomsky
PASS THE WORD
Media says otherwise (as they are paid to do) but Florida, 1st first time in history, official registered TEA Political Party w/ 2010 U.S. Senator Candidate Nov. 2nd ballot.
Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George) swore on the Constitution age 17, volunteered to fly in USMC helicopter to rescue fellow marines.
He again has volunteered, this time to help rescue FL & America as candidate for U.S. Senate.
Lovenguth has heart, not millions to pay media say his name. With a degree in literature he will read every bill, write & vote People’s interests.
Help Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George), to kick open door, Marine style, for People to have a voice in D.C.
PASS THE WORD. Talk, write, email everybody you know about this!
Jorge Antonio Lovenguth (George) FL U.S. Senator - November 2, 2010!
Jazmon@TeaParty.Pro
http://florida-veterans.mynetworksolutions.com/
www.TeaParty.Pro
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/candidate/CanList.asp
we ARE the majority
That is an absolutely BRILLIANT job of "branding." Sounds like the block parties I remember as a kid.
"Main Street Party" -- I like it!
:-)
-CW
More parties mean COMPETITION among parties. Why is this, that America, the home of competitive capitalism, is scared spitless of having competition in politics?
I can tell you: Because, only a two-party-system can be properly kept under control by lobbyists and corporations and can be manipulated tu suit their will, instead of the will of the people.
screwy government are rooted in the Constitution and in the
arcane rules of the Senate & the House. Parties, as such,
exist only because of Congressional rules, not because
of anything Constitutional. There is 'filibustering' only
because of Senate rules, which require a two-thirds
majority to change. The '60-vote' requirement
used to be 67, and was only changed by
wily Democrats, over civil rights, in 1949.
For the type of wholesale changes suggested here,
a Constitutional convention may be in order. Good
luck with that.
To the barricades, mes amis!
J
Even so, they are not going to go quietly. In
fact, they are going to keep making quite a racket.
(like the drowning victim who can't swim, but drowns his rescuer).
1) remove the filibuster
2) limit the total amount of filibusters in a year
3) lower the votes needed to beat a filibuster to 55.
4) hang in there until the elections of 2010 when the American people get to vote on which side they support, the side trying to govern, or the side that says no governing ever under any circumstance.