When the Two Parties of a Two Party System Don't Know Why They Exist

Republicans are completely befuddled by Obama’s “star power” and don’t seem to have a clear or effective strategy to compete. Though they are able to coordinate their messages better than Democrats, absent a leader who can clearly articulate a Republican vision for America, the only thing they can do is attack, attack, attack.

Democrats have a leader who defies all the political odds. Obama became president with little experience, he’s making headway reforming healthcare, and won a Noble Peace Prize which, even he admits, he probably didn’t deserve. But as a party, they bicker, they can’t coordinate messages and they seem more obsessed with “setting the record straight” than advancing their vision for America. Absent the ability to focus, the best they can muster is defend, defend, defend (and sometimes, maybe, if it’s not too harsh – attack).

Leadership is not derived from having the loudest voice or the biggest base.  Leadership isn’t about having all the answers or having all your i’s dotted and t’s crossed. Leadership doesn’t necessarily even come from simply having your name on the door. True leadership comes from inspiring people to focus on where they are going, not fighting against whatever is happening now.  This is what it means to offer a “vision for America.” This is what it means to inspire.

Democrats are flummoxed by Republicans ability to stall or redirect progress. No matter the message Democrats develop, Republicans almost always come up with a better sound bite for the headlines. The Democrats response throughout the healthcare debate? Give the people more statistics.

Republicans are perplexed how Obama’s star shines so brightly. No matter how much they attack, Obama seems to keep moving forwards. Just this week, we learned the Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) supported the health care bill in the finance committee. The Republican response? Attack Olympia Snowe.

But neither party does a good job of contextualizing why they have the opinions they do in the first place. Both care about America, both believe in upholding the values laid down by our forefathers. Both are deeply patriotic.  And both know why America exists – it’s all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The difference lies in how they think we should deliver on that American Dream. Though both parties know why America exists, neither party can tell you why they exist.

Republicans are the party of “I”. They believe the responsibility of government is to support those who pursue the American Dream – which is why their policies have historically favored the rich and businesses. Buried in the pages of their newly designed website, the RNC hints at why the Republican Party exists, “The Republican Party is inspired by the power of ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.” Instead of opening their website with their cause, with their Why, there is a video about how bad America is doing and how bad Obama is. It’ll make you angry, it may rally a crowd…but it’s not inspiring. It’s not leadership

Democrats are the party of “we.”  They believe the responsibility of government is to try to help everyone pursue the American Dream – which is why their policies have historically favored labor and the poor.  Buried in the pages of the DNC website they also hint at why the Democratic Party exists, “The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.” Instead of leading with their cause, with their Why, one of the first things is a section called “Call ‘em out” devoted to correcting the lies being spread by Republicans.

Instead of trying to plan the next attack strategy, it may benefit the Republican Party to try to understand why Obama's star shines so brightly. After all, it is this “star quality” that Republicans attribute to Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace prize last week – an observation that would be entirely correct. I understand why Republican leadership invests so much money and energy trying to dim his star, but the benefit to trying to understand it and even learn how to turn up the wattage of one of your own is not only better for the Republican Party, it’s better for the country. A strategy of attack, attack, attack – from either party – inhibits progress and divides us as a nation.

Though he's not always perfect at expressing it, Obama has a vision for America, one born out of optimism, that comes out whenever he gives big speeches. Sadly, that’s the only time it does. He believes that any people, no matter how divergent their differences, can always find common ground to advance a common cause. He believes America can work together to mend its economy. “Yes we can.” He believes that America can come together to reform healthcare. “Yes we can.” He believes the nations of the world can come together to find common understanding. “Yes we can.” And it is his optimism in this belief that inspires and gives him his star quality. Democrats need to focus around Obama’s vision and focus their message and energy into drafting legislation that will breath life into the vision.

Republicans don’t need to look to Obama to learn how to make a star. Go back and study Ronald Reagan – a visionary leader who confounded Democrats at the time with his own star quality. Reagan spoke about “morning in America” – he oozed an optimism for what America could be. Reagan had an undying belief that each American has the ability to make their own lives better if they put our minds to it. In stark contrast, the modern Republican Party defines itself by what it’s not rather than what it is.  Republicans need an optimistic leader who can present an alternative vision for America’s future instead of just rallying against Obama’s vision of it.

The way the two party system is supposed to work is that both parties present their vision for America and then the people will choose which they believe best suits them based on the challenges they face at the times.  Sometimes we want to celebrate the ingenuity of the individual – like in the booming ‘80s and sometimes we feel the need to band together and work to support those who can’t support themselves – like in times of war, economic crisis and when the social security and health care systems are ailing.

I’ve studied great leaders and great organizations, those with the ability to inspire. And they all have something in common. Regardless of their party or their politics, unrelated to their business or their industry – they all think, act and communicate the exact same way, and it’s the complete opposite to everyone else.  In all cases, the “stars” clearly communicate an optimistic vision of the future, they tell us why they do what they do. It is so clear that the rest of us know why they do what they do also, even if we disagree with the specifics of how they aim to do it. When there is clarity of Why, those who believe the same will take it upon themselves to join the cause. A following, by its definition, are those who share a common set of values and beliefs. This is the reason great leaders command a loyal following.

Democrats have a leader with a vision, but lack focus. Republicans are focused but lack a leader with a vision. Perhaps, in a day-and-age when both parties can only point at each other and define themselves as “not that,” we need a president who can find their common ground. Yes he can.

Simon Sinek’s new book, Start With Why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action, is available for pre-order now and arrives on shelves Oct 29th.

For more from Simon, visit simonsinek.com

 

 

 

Follow Simon Sinek on Twitter: www.twitter.com/simonsinek

Comments

[WorkingClass]

Both parties exist to do the will and serve the interests of the ruling class. Glad I could help.

[rain33]

we need to abandon two parties so they are looking out for themselves especially republicans and blue dogs too! when is somebody going to look out for the working class, middle class and lower class families? when? not election time coz i won't be voting for these bastards anymore!

[deezus]

Yes we do need to abandon two parties!

Why especially Republicans and blue dogs though? Democrats are equally as bad.

[PlaceboStudman]

We need to abandon the two party system and go with a system that allows our politicians to run on actual ideals and values that come from their mind and hearts, not from some written platform that is edited and revised every few years, to the point where it's sometimes impossible to tell the two apart. We need a party for those of us in the majority middle who find good points and bad points in both sides, and who identify with one party or the other on one topic but the other party on a related topic. Or we just plain abandon political parties all together and let people run simply as individuals

[tbone99]

These parties exist for one thing and one thing only - to enrich themselves .
They have lost any other purpose but self perpetuation. they have become the product we buy with our "donations." Unfortunately the other person in the market - Corporations , can out bid us every time.

[Awake-and-Sing]

If we had proportional representation or even ranked-choice voting or runoff elections, we'd have a multi-party system (which is what we should have), and we'd have 4-5 parties like Germany which are more clearly defined about what they represent and stand far.

I see no value in maintaining a two-party system if both parties are able to keep competing parties off the ballot and are funded by the same corporations just so we can have an illusion of free and fair elections.

If we'd had a fair electoral system, we'd probably have 4-5 parties in Congress:

- a economically populist and socially conservative party
- a economically libertarian and socially libertarian party
- an economically populist and socially progressive party
- an economically libertarian and socially conservative party

In addition to the Republicans and Democrats, the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party would probably win representation on the right, and a the Green Party and a new Labor Party would probably win representation on the left.

If competition is so good for health care, which it is, why can't we have a form of public financing and electoral reforms so that our political system opens up. The checks and balances in the Constitution are sufficient to maintain stability. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions "a two party system".

I have yet to see any rationale why an "only-two-party system" is even preferable to anything but a one-party system.

[RTIII]

I don't want proportional representation, but feel we absolutely need rank order voting (aka "instant run-off voting"). Otherwise, all agreed.

I was once told that "the reason the USA has a two-party system (which it does not, by the way) is because we don't want to end up like Italy where there are so many factions, nothing can get done." I don't buy it, but it was what I was told (decades ago).

Our author has bought into the false premise we have a two party system. He's also far too generous to the Republicans, in my view - he describes them as they were 30 years ago, perhaps, but they haven't had the qualities he speaks of since Reagan.
.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Fair enough. I'm all for ranked-choice voting.

You are right. There may be two major parties, but we already have "third" parties on most state ballots.

These parties include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party. Vermont has a Progressive Party, New York has the Working Families Party and the Conservative Party. These parties may not have anyone elected federally, but they do have State legislative and locally elected officials.

Whenever someone says, "we need a 'third' party, the fact is we have many. There are also independents of no party.

Campaign finance reform and fair electoral reform would do more to rejuvenate American democracy than anything.

We should never again be stuck with a contest to choose between the lesser of two evils because if we are afraid by choosing our first choice candidate will help elect our least choice candidate.

Bring on ranked-choice voting, a.k.a. instant-runoff voting.

www.fairvote.org

[S1m0n]

Conservatives don't think that President Obama has done anything to deserve a Nobel peace prize because in their universe, soft power doesn't exist. They can't see it, don't understand it, and find the president totally inexplicable because they can't.

[peterg76]

It's not a two party system, it's just meant to look that way.