The Two-Party System & its Lack of Cooperation in the American Politics

Addressing the topic “The Two-Party System & its Lack of Cooperation in the American Politics”

The Greater Divide
by Neal R. Karski

Upon George’s discretion of the topic choice, we decided to return to the contemporary issues many people are facing nowadays. Together, we have conversed numerously about the politics in the United States and nationwide and have generated countless ideas and opinions relating to such. Unfortunately we cannot publish all of them on the web, because we would spend the next few years writing them down. Therefore, the following are our thoughts from the conscience in a briefer version about the two-party system and its lack of cooperation in the American politics.

Original Mission & Purpose of the Two-Party Political System

To my best knowledge, the United States of America implemented the two-party system based on the basic principles of the Commonwealth, which featured the debates between the Tories and the Labour party or previously the legal assemblies of Tories & Whigs. This system, which included a mix of ideologies, was intended to keep the balance of power spread out and to provide a just and attentive legislative representation within the nation for its entire population. But who are we kidding? As history claims, many low class & poor citizens of England in the 1700s could not even participate in the political life, such as voting, and frankly did not concern many members of the Parliament. Yet to be cliché, I will say that “such establishment paved its way to many more bigger and better things,” right? The model from what was then the United Kingdom was virtually shipped across the Atlantic Ocean in 1828 to the new born country by the name of the United States of America (notice the resemblances between the two). This gave the historical beginning to the first co-existing [to this day] political parties: the National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans, or better known as Democrats. As the country progressed and the 30 year era of a single-party system could not support the expectations of all, many individuals went separate ways to seek governmental soothing and similar political ideals. Although, this separation came out of conflict [over issues like government intervention in the economy, or quarrels over social vs. self interest] and to this day, almost two hundred years later we have not come to agreement over those specific problems. Rather, the greater divide continuously gave people only two (not counting the Green Party here due to the massive domination of the other two parties) outlets to express their political ideologies, knowledge and participation.

Party Alignment

This is by far one of the most frequent political discussion topics of mine. Party alignment (definition: being aligned with the views or ideas, or being a member of a particular party) in the United States is largely driven by a person’s social status, financial situation, culture, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, education, place of residence, personal experience, and many more factors, yet the core root of one’s choice is derived from his or her family [and by family I mean parents]. Nowadays, the political parties encourage us or in some way or another lead us to live our lives vicariously through the platforms on which they operate. Yet, those platforms provide their members with conflicting sets of ideologies, views, ideas and beliefs. Personally [as I’ve said many times], it is extremely difficult for me to align myself with any political party due to the occurring hypocrisy of inconsistencies in the Democratic and Republican agendas. Back to the assessing the topic. Therefore, the two existing political parties do not only drive their members to criticize their opponents and diverge from them socially; they also lack any sort of willingness to achieve agreement for the nation as a whole. The Democratic and Republican race for the popular majority and the conquest for power have led many people bitter as the elections brought about seemingly unpleasant results, not in their favor. Party alignment in the United States does not leave one much choice [as there are only two, realistically], and by fitting into one political category the particular individual becomes part of a bandwagon [that he or she may not fully believe in], consequently widening not only the political, but social gap. This gap, in turn, fuels the animosity and lack of desire to seek benefitting solutions for the society [with consideration of marginal costs and benefits, as well as values] and creates spheres from which many cannot willingly escape.

Money & Wealth as the Core of the Greater Divide

In the end, and in reality of today’s life in the United States of America, the political distinction between the Democrats and Republicans which keeps them from compromise is money. Some may say that money is the root of all evil; others will tell you that money is the essential necessity for a nation to exist with a prospering economy. Either way, as a capitalism country the U.S. is built on capital and run by corporate competition and political crave, therefore money is relative in any case, whether we like it or not. But money is what caused the greater divide between the political parties, as for two hundred years of interchangeable answers to the questions such as “Whose money will be taken?” “Where will the money go?” or “What will government do with the tax money?” You can forget all of the ethical issues, matters of education or homeland security, the economic world is the machine that keeps this country going and the only question of significance now is the mere issue of taxation and wealth allocation.

God Bless Friends.

The Two Party System in the United States: a true impediment of democracy.

by George A. Miu

Following the surprising victory of Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown, the carefully constructed healthcare bill, devised by the Democrats, is in danger of failing. While the author of this blog does not consider this a travesty, I feel compelled to highlight the weaknesses of a two-party system and the many hurdles that it poses to a true democratic representation of the people it seeks to serve.

The unfortunate truth is that this two-party system of ours is, by its very nature, a highly exclusive group. If you’re not a member of a party, you have very little chance of succeeding in politics. Out of the one hundred Senators, only two are officially dubbed “independents”, and they both caucus with the Democrats the vast majority of the time. Therefore, voters who do not subscribe completely to the platform of either party must generally decide which of the two expresses their beliefs more adequately. This is a concession that people who inhabit a civilized country should not have to make! Choosing the lesser of two evils is by no means a convincing way to give a politician a mandate to Congress or the White House.

Furthermore, it appears that presidential races are always decided by a few “swing” states that offer both candidates roughly equal winning chances. However, due to the demographics of the United States, most of the electoral votes can be predicted long before the race with unerring accuracy. For example, California will always go to the Democrats, and Texas (along with the “Solid South”) to the Republicans. Frequently, whoever wins two out of the three key swing states of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio will win the presidential election. In essence, the future President will most often be elected by three states whose combined population accounts for less than one fifth of the actual population of the USA.

This brings us back to my original point about the impending reduction of the healthcare overhaul (if, indeed, it even comes to pass). The election of one senator from one state should never be allowed to change the national agenda. Unfortunately, with all the “party line” voting that goes on, the loss of a filibuster-proof majority may very well prevent legislation from being agreed and voted upon, and subsequently signed into law.

Let’s face it. It’s time the USA stood up for itself and put an end to all of the mindlessness that surrounds the two-party system. We can do this in one of two ways:

1. Seriously consider voting for an “Independent” candidate or a non-major-party politician if their agenda appears to suit your taste more than the local Dem or GOPer.

2. Get in touch with your local congressman or congresswoman and let him/her know that, while you approve the general party platform, you think that a certain idea has its merits, even if it would not normally be supported by a member of your party. If enough people do this, maybe politicians will be more eager to vote in accordance with the wishes of the people they serve, and not some inflexible agenda.

My conclusion is this: the USA is much too big and diverse a place to be represented by two parties which have now monopolized the national stage. However, it is up to us, the people, to change the status quo and become more vocal and supportive of the “little guy” campaigning. If we can do this, perhaps we will be successful in the necessary long-term task of ushering in a new age of American politics that does not rely on the massive amounts of red tape and dubious voting records in order to get things done.

Speak up! Your children will be glad you did.