Our Nation’s Two-Party System is Undemocratic
I am no political scientist. What I am, however, is a citizen. To me this carries the responsibility to observe the political process as it plays out on the local, state, and national levels. Since joining Puentes, first as a volunteer and now as an employee, I have come to understand and appreciate the level of influence and engagement that ordinary people can have in local politics and municipal goverments. I am motivated to be involved by proximity. What happens in New Orleans is much more important to me than what happens nationally because I feel that my voice matters here. In short, I believe that a participatory democracy is actually achieveable in cities, especially one the size of New Orleans.
Unfortunately, my view of politics on the national level is not so rosy. My problem is not with the structure of government. The Constitution provides us, at least on paper (hemp, by the way), with a strong central government that is capable of making tough decisions and legislation through consensus. My real problem is with our two-party system that has hijacked the constitutional process and paralyzed our federal government. Too often the only alternatives that Democrats and Republicans offer to new ideas is a resounding “NO.” Unlike local governments, politicians in D.C. are too far removed from their constituents and their reality.
The recent U.S. Senate election in Massachussetts, and its fallout, illustrates the miseralble failure of the two-party system. A Republican, Scott Brown, won a seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for decades by beating a considerably weak Democratic candidate. National pundits are claiming Brown’s victory to be a death knell for health care reform, because with 41 votes in the Senate, Republicans can now block voting through filibustering. Because both parties are trying to achieve power, they seldomly search for consensus. Consessions and compromises are often viewed by these politicians and their pundits as Pyrrhic victories. “Ideals” and “principles” have become the excuses to justify the stalemate between Democrats and Republicans on the national level. All of that talk is just hogwash: it is a meaningless ploy that is used to excuse political pandering and social negligence.
I am not advocating for a third party. That would not be enough. What I would like to see are multiple parties on the national level. A successful multi-party system would force gdministrations to form coalitions with other parties and would force our lawmakers and other public officials to work together. Consessions and compromises would be necessary for such coalitions. Indeed, this is how many governments across the globe already operate. Germany and France have used this model successfully and are often touted as two of the most progressive democracies in Europe. As I wrote to start this blog entry, I am no political scientist. Perhaps there is something that I am missing. Perhaps governments made up of broad coalitions are not as successful as I believe. But what I can say with confidence is that this country is not benefitting from a two-party system that is led by, as Garland Robinette likes to call them, Republicants and Demidonts.
What do you think?
February 10th, 2010 at 8:33 am
I feel the same way. My family stays loyal to the Democratic party since Kennedy bailed Martin L King out of jail back in the 60’s. We need a few extra parties like the green party, feminist party to make the republicians and democrats work hard to keep their voters. Since competition is what’s fuel this capitalist machine, we need a few more political parties giving those two a run 4 their money.