Democracy Turns Out To Be a Two-Party System
America's two-party system took fifty years to stumble into existence. Regardless of the happenstances of its eventual emergence, it was clearly not designed into the original plan. Those few founding fathers who did think about political parties rejected them as "factionalism", something to be condemned. The true nature and advantages of a two-party system began to be venerated when other nations tried something different, which we now call Proportional Representation. PR is a fairly natural outgrowth of creating a large democracy from a collection of little tribes -- and creating surrogate political parties for them as part of the original design. Guided by historical experience, it is now possible to ignore all minor differences between two-party democracy and multi-party democracy, except one. In a two-party system, the political dealing and vote-swapping takes place at conventions before the election, with all the players jockeying and sacrificing principle to answer a single candidate question, "Can he win?" By contrast, in a multi-party or proportionally-represented democracy, the election comes first, and only subsequently do vote-swapping and artful promises construct the ticket of candidates and the policy platform. The plain fact is the public doesn't know whom it is voting for, and often is disagreeably surprised. Furthermore, important matters remain unsettled by the election. A cabinet member of a splinter party, potentially one with negligible public support, retains the threat of resigning if things don't go his way, and his resignation may trigger a whole new national election if it breaks up the political margin of the ruling coalition. At least, a two-party system settles things for a while, and gives the public a relative rest from factional tensions.
The American system has evolved into a universal conviction, stronger than any Constitution, that two parties are enough. Third parties are of course tolerated because they aren't forbidden, but mostly offer a mechanism in case there is a serious wish to reconstitute one of the two major parties. The strength of third parties is to discipline the leadership of the major parties; the weakness is they threaten the unifying principle of compromise-in-order-to win. Nothing except religious fanaticism would likely induce any ambitious American politician to remain within a third party, fruitlessly frittering away his life's chances. Because of 18th Century history more than wisdom, an "established" religion is constitutionally prohibited in America; observation of the turmoils in other nations, and perhaps wisdom also, keeps it that way.
If two parties are then quite enough, is it possible only one would be better? The quickest look abroad, the briefest exposure to history, shows a one-party system is synonymous with dictatorship. Communism and fascism had only this one feature in common; in fact, China seems to be morphing from one to the other, while resolutely retaining its single ruling-party system. The paradox of this situation is that it leads to the American realization that maintaining a two-party system means that neither party must ever achieve total victory. After each national election, the electorate settles back with relief that one side won, but neither side conquered. Even academics are muffled by the system; with much to criticize, there is nothing else worth substituting.
There is one thing left to mention about the two-party system. Any schoolchild can notice, but the participants restrain themselves from mentioning, that issues keep moving back and forth between the two parties. Whether it is tariffs, public schooling, the gold standard or a thousand other matters, the issues repeatedly shift to the other party when they are disappointed by progress, or offended by apparent betrayal. The special interests seek to use the parties, and the parties regard each special interest as a bargaining chip; somehow, the system keeps reaching for equilibrium. Some issues just have to be banished. There will always be more poor people than rich ones; the Federalists learned that notorious elitism soon leads to extinction, and the New Deal learned that class warfare wins certain precincts. Therefore, the Whigs and the 20th Century Republicans keep searching for issues that cut across class boundaries, while the Democrats keep weeping for the working man. The long-term goal of Republican posturing is to punish class warfare until the other party banishes it, too. The best way to eliminate class warfare is to eliminate poverty, and the best weapon to use is to demonstrate that the other party actually likes poverty, at least just a little.
(853)
