The Stable State: a case for the two-party system
9 October 2005
“‘…though neo-conservatives are political intellectuals, their persuasion is a philosophical one that happens to have a political relevance.’ Despite the fact that neo-conservatives have different backgrounds and experiences, ‘they [all] believe in the fragility of social institutions, that all human enterprises will have monumental unintended consequences, that man has a moral responsibility to forcibly confront evil, and most of all, that the world is governed, in the end, by ideas.’” – Mark Gerson, The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, 1996
Our world IS governed by ideas. Ideas which DO have consequences, sometimes intended and often unintended. I’ll argue fiercely to the grave (with plenty of supporting evidence) that the best ideas come from the United States of America. The quality and quantity of intellectual life in America is still the highest in the world. A quarter of American adults have a university education. The country produces one-third of the world's scientific papers, employs two-thirds of the world's Nobel-prize winners, has 17 of the top 20 universities (as ranked by Shanghai's Jiao Tong University) and has more ideas-based workers than anyone else.1-4
I’m going to talk about one of the ideas we are governed by that a great majority of the world and even a great majority of Americans have a hard time grasping and even understanding, much less accepting. Although, I’ve found that giving the alternative serious consideration has proven to reduce my hasty opinions. I’m not so concerned with if we intentionally created this or if it resulted from a complex set of voting patterns. I’m more concerned with defending this pillar of stability, hence production, which has helped place the United States of America as the only true superpower in today’s world, the two-party system.
First, before getting into any real serious discussion on this, I’d like to dispel one of the common mantras of critics of the two-party system. I’m sure you’ve heard it. The “two-party monopoly” remark. How ridiculous! By definition, this doesn’t even make sense. Usually expressed by those who are out of touch with reality and the rest of society, and often have neither the ability to compromise nor function in a diplomatic way. These are the ones who will throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way and run off and create their own party over one issue and risk cutting off their nose to spite their face because their overall belief system can never be realized with such little support. I often wonder how much they truly know about living in a one-party dictatorship to throw out terms so casually.
It’s very reminiscent of the days of Liberum Veto. The disruptive parliamentary device used prior to 1764 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where anyone could completely end a session when they heard something they didn’t like. Needless to say there was very little reform or progression during this period. This track of thought aided tremendously in completely wiping Poland off the map for over 120 years. It effectively placed the once European power in a state of anarchy and in a position too weak to fight off the partitioning by Prussia, Russia and Austria.
Another misconception is that a two-party system only gives you two options to choose from. The absentee ballot I filled out last year had no less than 13 third-party candidates, and that’s not including independents and write-ins. Pretty wide range of choices in my opinion, even for the people who feel disenfranchised and whose beliefs fall outside the norms of society. What a two-party system does do though, is allow us choices while at the same time, not forcing a large percentage of the population to be burdened by listening to radical ideas during debates and campaigning that don’t reflect the principles our country was built on, and distracts us (usually already with a tight time-schedule) from real issues that do affect our lives.
I’m a Republican and an average human being, and therefore I hate taxes as much as anyone. Although, it’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone about federal tax laws, for example, when that person just can’t get past the fact that taxing is not against the law. Or with someone who believes requiring a permit to protest is done to censor or make money, and has nothing to do with coordinating logistics effectively so the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. Let’s take a rather well-known American third-party, the Libertarian Party. As a Republican, I can agree with Libertarians on a great number of issues, but if you’ve ever talked with one for longer than five minutes, I’m sure you’ve walked away from the conversation feeling like you didn’t believe in the Constitution because you don’t want Mr. John Doe down the street to own weapons of mass destruction to protect his home, or because you don’t long to live in the 18th Century.
When an idea gains political influence and represents a large portion of the citizens, a third-party can, in fact, develop. Which can be seen with the rise of the U.K.’s Labour Party at the expense of the Liberals in the 20th Century as well as the rise of the U.S.’s Republican Party at the expense of the Whigs in the 19th Century. Basically, it’s very ignorant to believe that a two-party system occurs chiefly due to political engineering, “The Man” holding the little guy down, campaign finance laws, unfair media outlets or any of the other claims from extremists.
I touched on pre-election distractions; now let’s talk about post-election in a multi-party system. It’s one thing for a future leader to not receive over the majority of support from the entire public due to low voter turnout, it’s quite another to not receive the majority of support from the citizens who did take the time to vote. It is not uncommon for the leaders of nations with a multi-party system to win with an embarrassing level of support and faith of only near 20-25%. Allow me to give another more telling example. The United Kingdom has long been considered a two-party system, though the Liberal Democrats have emerged the past 20 years or so as an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the Tories. Keep in mind; this is three parties, not the myriad seen in true multi-party systems. Not the 18 parties I witnessed two weeks ago while my Polish fiancée was voting in her country’s parliamentary elections. And yet, the Labour Party, while gaining a majority of seats, 66 more than the others combined, could muster only 35.3% of the national votes.5 Could be worse, but there will always be watering down of effective reforms due to the necessity of making concessions. Public apathy will always be higher than necessary. The combination leaves the door wide open for easily corruptible parties and a lack of motivation for intellectual growth. This does not set the stage for effective development, leadership and governing.
The past few weeks have given us such comments about Germany, the long-time champion of the proponents of multi-party systems, like “Instead, a divided electorate has given a majority to nobody. All the political parties, and their leaders, are now engaged in tortuous manoeuvring over possible coalitions that smacks more of Weimar than of the Federal Republic. The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain but, on almost any betting, it will produce a weak, short-lived government that has little capacity for further reform. Not surprisingly, business leaders and financial markets are upset: both the euro and the stockmarket have fallen sharply,” and, “Yet whatever coalition, if any, emerges from the mess, it is not likely to prove either strong or stable. Germans are thus likely to find themselves returning to the polls soon, certainly long before the election due in four years' time. But however many times they are asked to vote, if their economy is to thrive, their country has no alternative to further reform.”6 Comments like these are nothing extraordinary for a multi-party system.
Neither are comments like these, concerning Poland, rare in multi-party systems, presently going through their own coalition negotiations, “That will mean little chance of the new government attacking Poland's problems head-on with a radical, comprehensive programme of reform. Red tape will be snipped, rather than slashed. Reform will be piecemeal. Change will depend on which minister gets which portfolio, rather than being pushed hard on every front by a government with big ideas,” and “The most important task for Poland's new rulers will be to make sure that they govern for a full term, without splits or scandals. An interesting feature of the election result is that the populist parties, the right-wing League of Polish Families and the left-wing Self-defence, were not wiped out. Together with the ex-communists, they will form a disparate but probably effective opposition. With almost all the sensible politicians in the government, any alternative administration is bound to look alarming. In short: if this government fails, watch out for what comes next.”7
In addition to Germany and Poland, an analysis of Israel, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, whose parliament has never completed a five year term, is a short list of only a few of the examples to reinforce my claims. A comparison of their economic indicators and America’s, like unemployment or production rates, give ample evidence that a stable government gives more opportunities. After years of a chaotic political situation in Italy, it seems that public opinion is starting to see the advantages of stability, “Most Italians would prefer to have a two-party democracy. What they have instead are loose alliances of left and right, made up of nine and six parties respectively. Few people in Italy keep their opinions to themselves, so the authority of the alliance leaders is always undermined by sniping from fellow party bosses.”8 The irony of multi-party systems is that they do not result in any greater policy cohesion or transparency, as many naïve advocates think. They mean more backroom deals and accommodation, which is often very temporal and transient. Short-lived governments and short-term fixes are the norm rather than the exception. Doesn’t make for a strong foundation if you ask me.
So, whether the U.S. coming to a two-party system stems from consequences that were unintended, coming from voting system discriminations against third-parties or whether they come from the intended consequences of our brilliant and farsighted Founding Fathers is of little importance to me now. I’m happy with the two-party system and fear what the consequences would be for America if we were to ever lose that status.
Our stability and greatness would surely be lost.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Parker, John. "Centrifugal forces." The Economist 14 Jul 2005
2) Frey, William. "Brain Gains, Brain Drains." American Demographics Jun 2005
3) "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003." Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
4) "Academic Ranking of World's Universities 2004.".
5) "UK Election 2005." BBC News.
6) "Germany's nightmare." The Economist 24-30 Sep 2005: 11.
7) "Can the eagle soar?" The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 21-23.8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
9 October 2005
“‘…though neo-conservatives are political intellectuals, their persuasion is a philosophical one that happens to have a political relevance.’ Despite the fact that neo-conservatives have different backgrounds and experiences, ‘they [all] believe in the fragility of social institutions, that all human enterprises will have monumental unintended consequences, that man has a moral responsibility to forcibly confront evil, and most of all, that the world is governed, in the end, by ideas.’” – Mark Gerson, The Essential Neo-Conservative Reader, 1996
Our world IS governed by ideas. Ideas which DO have consequences, sometimes intended and often unintended. I’ll argue fiercely to the grave (with plenty of supporting evidence) that the best ideas come from the United States of America. The quality and quantity of intellectual life in America is still the highest in the world. A quarter of American adults have a university education. The country produces one-third of the world's scientific papers, employs two-thirds of the world's Nobel-prize winners, has 17 of the top 20 universities (as ranked by Shanghai's Jiao Tong University) and has more ideas-based workers than anyone else.1-4
I’m going to talk about one of the ideas we are governed by that a great majority of the world and even a great majority of Americans have a hard time grasping and even understanding, much less accepting. Although, I’ve found that giving the alternative serious consideration has proven to reduce my hasty opinions. I’m not so concerned with if we intentionally created this or if it resulted from a complex set of voting patterns. I’m more concerned with defending this pillar of stability, hence production, which has helped place the United States of America as the only true superpower in today’s world, the two-party system.
First, before getting into any real serious discussion on this, I’d like to dispel one of the common mantras of critics of the two-party system. I’m sure you’ve heard it. The “two-party monopoly” remark. How ridiculous! By definition, this doesn’t even make sense. Usually expressed by those who are out of touch with reality and the rest of society, and often have neither the ability to compromise nor function in a diplomatic way. These are the ones who will throw a temper tantrum when they don’t get their way and run off and create their own party over one issue and risk cutting off their nose to spite their face because their overall belief system can never be realized with such little support. I often wonder how much they truly know about living in a one-party dictatorship to throw out terms so casually.
It’s very reminiscent of the days of Liberum Veto. The disruptive parliamentary device used prior to 1764 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where anyone could completely end a session when they heard something they didn’t like. Needless to say there was very little reform or progression during this period. This track of thought aided tremendously in completely wiping Poland off the map for over 120 years. It effectively placed the once European power in a state of anarchy and in a position too weak to fight off the partitioning by Prussia, Russia and Austria.
Another misconception is that a two-party system only gives you two options to choose from. The absentee ballot I filled out last year had no less than 13 third-party candidates, and that’s not including independents and write-ins. Pretty wide range of choices in my opinion, even for the people who feel disenfranchised and whose beliefs fall outside the norms of society. What a two-party system does do though, is allow us choices while at the same time, not forcing a large percentage of the population to be burdened by listening to radical ideas during debates and campaigning that don’t reflect the principles our country was built on, and distracts us (usually already with a tight time-schedule) from real issues that do affect our lives.
I’m a Republican and an average human being, and therefore I hate taxes as much as anyone. Although, it’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone about federal tax laws, for example, when that person just can’t get past the fact that taxing is not against the law. Or with someone who believes requiring a permit to protest is done to censor or make money, and has nothing to do with coordinating logistics effectively so the rights of others aren’t infringed upon. Let’s take a rather well-known American third-party, the Libertarian Party. As a Republican, I can agree with Libertarians on a great number of issues, but if you’ve ever talked with one for longer than five minutes, I’m sure you’ve walked away from the conversation feeling like you didn’t believe in the Constitution because you don’t want Mr. John Doe down the street to own weapons of mass destruction to protect his home, or because you don’t long to live in the 18th Century.
When an idea gains political influence and represents a large portion of the citizens, a third-party can, in fact, develop. Which can be seen with the rise of the U.K.’s Labour Party at the expense of the Liberals in the 20th Century as well as the rise of the U.S.’s Republican Party at the expense of the Whigs in the 19th Century. Basically, it’s very ignorant to believe that a two-party system occurs chiefly due to political engineering, “The Man” holding the little guy down, campaign finance laws, unfair media outlets or any of the other claims from extremists.
I touched on pre-election distractions; now let’s talk about post-election in a multi-party system. It’s one thing for a future leader to not receive over the majority of support from the entire public due to low voter turnout, it’s quite another to not receive the majority of support from the citizens who did take the time to vote. It is not uncommon for the leaders of nations with a multi-party system to win with an embarrassing level of support and faith of only near 20-25%. Allow me to give another more telling example. The United Kingdom has long been considered a two-party system, though the Liberal Democrats have emerged the past 20 years or so as an effective alternative to the Labour Party and the Tories. Keep in mind; this is three parties, not the myriad seen in true multi-party systems. Not the 18 parties I witnessed two weeks ago while my Polish fiancée was voting in her country’s parliamentary elections. And yet, the Labour Party, while gaining a majority of seats, 66 more than the others combined, could muster only 35.3% of the national votes.5 Could be worse, but there will always be watering down of effective reforms due to the necessity of making concessions. Public apathy will always be higher than necessary. The combination leaves the door wide open for easily corruptible parties and a lack of motivation for intellectual growth. This does not set the stage for effective development, leadership and governing.
The past few weeks have given us such comments about Germany, the long-time champion of the proponents of multi-party systems, like “Instead, a divided electorate has given a majority to nobody. All the political parties, and their leaders, are now engaged in tortuous manoeuvring over possible coalitions that smacks more of Weimar than of the Federal Republic. The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain but, on almost any betting, it will produce a weak, short-lived government that has little capacity for further reform. Not surprisingly, business leaders and financial markets are upset: both the euro and the stockmarket have fallen sharply,” and, “Yet whatever coalition, if any, emerges from the mess, it is not likely to prove either strong or stable. Germans are thus likely to find themselves returning to the polls soon, certainly long before the election due in four years' time. But however many times they are asked to vote, if their economy is to thrive, their country has no alternative to further reform.”6 Comments like these are nothing extraordinary for a multi-party system.
Neither are comments like these, concerning Poland, rare in multi-party systems, presently going through their own coalition negotiations, “That will mean little chance of the new government attacking Poland's problems head-on with a radical, comprehensive programme of reform. Red tape will be snipped, rather than slashed. Reform will be piecemeal. Change will depend on which minister gets which portfolio, rather than being pushed hard on every front by a government with big ideas,” and “The most important task for Poland's new rulers will be to make sure that they govern for a full term, without splits or scandals. An interesting feature of the election result is that the populist parties, the right-wing League of Polish Families and the left-wing Self-defence, were not wiped out. Together with the ex-communists, they will form a disparate but probably effective opposition. With almost all the sensible politicians in the government, any alternative administration is bound to look alarming. In short: if this government fails, watch out for what comes next.”7
In addition to Germany and Poland, an analysis of Israel, Turkey, Belgium, Italy, whose parliament has never completed a five year term, is a short list of only a few of the examples to reinforce my claims. A comparison of their economic indicators and America’s, like unemployment or production rates, give ample evidence that a stable government gives more opportunities. After years of a chaotic political situation in Italy, it seems that public opinion is starting to see the advantages of stability, “Most Italians would prefer to have a two-party democracy. What they have instead are loose alliances of left and right, made up of nine and six parties respectively. Few people in Italy keep their opinions to themselves, so the authority of the alliance leaders is always undermined by sniping from fellow party bosses.”8 The irony of multi-party systems is that they do not result in any greater policy cohesion or transparency, as many naïve advocates think. They mean more backroom deals and accommodation, which is often very temporal and transient. Short-lived governments and short-term fixes are the norm rather than the exception. Doesn’t make for a strong foundation if you ask me.
So, whether the U.S. coming to a two-party system stems from consequences that were unintended, coming from voting system discriminations against third-parties or whether they come from the intended consequences of our brilliant and farsighted Founding Fathers is of little importance to me now. I’m happy with the two-party system and fear what the consequences would be for America if we were to ever lose that status.
Our stability and greatness would surely be lost.
God Bless America!!!
Christopher P. Hutchinson
Sources
1) Parker, John. "Centrifugal forces." The Economist 14 Jul 2005
2) Frey, William. "Brain Gains, Brain Drains." American Demographics Jun 2005
3) "Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003." Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education
4) "Academic Ranking of World's Universities 2004."
5) "UK Election 2005." BBC News
6) "Germany's nightmare." The Economist 24-30 Sep 2005: 11.
7) "Can the eagle soar?" The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 21-23.8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
8) "Ways to stop squabbling." The Economist 1-7 Oct 2005: 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment