November 14, 2003
One Party vs. Multiple Party Government: 2004 Election Issues
We usually associate one party government with fascism, authoritarianism, or fantasy utopia wherein all persons are healthy, happy, and equal in all ways that matter. In a democracy however, it is very possible to have a one party government which does not meet any of the above criteria. We are witnessing it now in large part. A one party government is not necessarily a cause for alarm about our democracy. Today, however, the stage is set for a potential threat to our democracy as great as that witnessed by the Civil War.
The U.S. currently has a Republican President and a Republican majority in both the houses of Congress, though by a slim margin in the Senate. It is only the slim margin in the Senate which still permits filibuster power by the Democrats, and the split Supreme Court with equal liberal and conservative Justices and one swing Justice who votes on either side depending on the issue, which prevents the U.S. from factually being a one party government. This is not historically unique in the U.S. however; during periods in the 20th century when Democrats constituted a near one party government, the Democratic Party itself was healthily diverse with its own conservative, centrist, and liberal wings of the party.
Beginning with the Reagan years and accelerating through the Clinton years, a polarization has taken place between the Conservatives and Liberals. This polarization has resulted in large part with the loss of the more liberal wing of the Republican Party and the conservative wing of Democratic Party. In addition, there has been a growth in two minor parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, as well as a significant growth in what is termed Independent voters who do not constitute a party at all. To the Green Party many ultra liberals who abandoned the Democratic Party have migrated. And to the Libertarian Party some of the ultra conservatives who abandoned the Republican Party have migrated.
The current state of all this migration has resulted in roughly 1/3 of registered voters being Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 falling into the Libertarian, Green, third party, and Independent camps. Also, it has left the Democratic Party with little more than very liberal and somewhat liberal makeup. And similarly this has left the Republican Party with little more than somewhat conservative and very conservative supporters. One other significant group of citizens should be mentioned here, namely, the disaffected non-voters who for a variety of reasons do not participate in the political process. This non-voters group is rapidly approaching equal numbers with all registered voters. But for the purpose of examining one party vs. multiple party government, they are relatively of little consequence save for their growing numbers.
Thus, when it comes to elections, the U.S. has only two predominant parties vying for office, the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans. And issues such as abortion, socialized programs like public education, health insurance, and social security, regulation of industries and business, foreign affairs, and wealth distribution or accrual through taxation have become very polarized issues between the two parties. This polarization between two such equally represented parties sets the stage for a scenario which could constitute a very real threat to American democracy.
Whether Democrat or Republican, one party domination in the executive and legislative branches of government will represent the views, and satisfy the requirements of government, by little more than 1/3 of the citizenry of the nation. This is not majority rule. Currently, the Republican Party fails to satisfy the expectations of government by almost all Democrats, all Greens, most Libertarians, a significant portion of independent voters and a significant number of non-voters. The situation would be the same today if the Democrats held control of government instead of Republicans. This fact alone however is insufficient to result in a threat to democracy. Two other components are required to convert this situation into a threat to democracy
The first is sustained one party domination for a period of 8 or more years, Should the Iraq situation improve, even modestly by summer of 2004, and should the economy show improvement, even if only marginally, the Republicans may easily hold control of government for an additional 4 years. This is significant, because the tension and frustration level by non-Republicans will swell. Partisanship will become ever more vitriolic, and bitter. With a minority party ruling for another presidential election cycle, the fear of no end to such one party rule will manifest itself in a host of ways all to the detriment of unseating the ruling party.
The Democratic Party will incur internal dissent as competing views and strategies for overcoming in the next election cycle reach a fevered pitch. Contributions and affiliation with the Democratic Party will drop off as more and more citizens view the Democratic Party as ineffective and even obstructionist. While this may result in growing defections to third parties and independent voter status, the effect will only entrench the Republican hold on government in following election cycles. Thus the ability through the democratic election process to unseat a minority ruling party will diminish.
The second and final component required to constitute a real threat to democracy in our land is for government through action or inaction, to cause, or be held responsible for, a serious blow to the quality of life of a large minority of citizens outside the party holding power. It does not take a crystal ball to recognize a myriad of situations, economic, international, or domestic which could bring this about. Following are only a few examples. North Korean escalation of nuclear militarism. Outbreak of U.S. developed biological weapon like the anthrax released not long ago. Prolonged escalation and growth of terrorism. Growth of the American anarchist movement. Failure by the American system to successfully make the transition away from manufacturing. Attempts by the U.S., EU, Russia or China to militarize responses to changes in economic trading inequities. A series of serious terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. Or something as simple as the growth of a black market based on identity theft from citizen’s mailboxes all across America.
With a one party government which we already have in large part and are likely to continue for another 4 years, and any events like those listed above, we could generate the kind of patriotic movement by unrepresented Americans who demand revolution to take down the one party unresponsive government in the hopes of installing one which will be far more representative and responsive to majority demands and needs. Since the electoral process will be unable to change the one party system, only one option will be left to those demanding change. That option may only be that chosen by the colonialists to throw off the yoke of the British one King system of rule.
The stage is set. November of 2004 will tell if the one party actors remain on that stage. And all that remains for a revolutionary demise of our democracy will be an ill fated event that demonstrates to a large minority of citizens that the one party system has failed and will continue to fail generations to come, if citizens do not take action to alter the course of a minority one party rule in America. The British regarded the colonialist activists as terrorists. American history judged them great patriots. No doubt, if this play is presented as written above, the activists will be called both, and the polarization in America will be devastating until resolution is brought forth.
Posted by David R. Remer at November 14, 2003 11:42 AMNice piece. I have repeatedly questioned whether our government—which is always pounded into us as Amercians as the best possible government—really is. As the piece points out, there is an incredible divergence between the views of Americans and the actions of the government. And I beleive that much of this has to do with the 2 party system we have.
The last elections demonstrated how evenly divided the population is between left and right. In fact, so close that a candidate who receive less popular votes still claimed more electoral votes and assumed the Presidency. But rather than realize he entered office on the slimmest of margins and ruling as such, he instead had ruled as if he won in a landslide.
But the system lends itself to a black/white situation where each party takes polarized views and fights against each other. Crossing party lines on many issues often results in political suicide. Look at how quickly former GOP rising star Bill Paxton left politics after crossing party lines. Look at the heat some of the Democratic presidential candiates are taking for supporting the war in Iraq.
Maybe the multi-part parliamentary system of Britain, etc. would better serve the diverse interests of the American public. With only two real choices, people often choose candidates based on the one issue most important to them today, rather then long term ideals. Hence, Howard Dean’s plea to Southern working class voters may work because they are more concerned with saving their jobs or finding new ones than they are with seeing their more conservative social values reflected in policy. But why should we have to compromise? Why can’t we find candiates and parties that truly mirror our personal views?
Posted by: blipsman at November 15, 2003 06:07 AMWith David’s focus on the problems of polarization, I can’t imagine that a multi-party parliamentary solution would be a solution. The history of Western parliamentary democracies suggests that they lend themselves to far greater polarization with very extremist minor parties that end up exerting quite a bit of power in forming coalitions with the larger parties. This leads to either wildly fluctuating extremes (Italy and Spain) or to long lasting coalitions which have the exact characteristics which David decries (France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, and the UK). The difference in Europe is that these long lasting coalitions maintain power for 15-25 years instead of the 4-8 with an outside chance at 12 that we have tended to get here.
Even in the most moderate of the governments which I listed, the Thatcher’s party held power for 18 years, and the Labour part has had 6 since then with no real chance for competition for at least the next 4 years. Germany has had basically two and arguably at most three ruling coalitions in the entire post-war period. Sweden hasn’t had a major change in power since 1964. Italy is famous for its inability to maintain a government for more than a year, until very recently. Israel has an agressive 3rd party system, which has seemingly led it to dramatic yo-yos in power almost every other year. I don’t see yo-yoing from one extreme to another as particularly good, and it doesn’t answer David’s concern with polarization at all.
I will admit that I don’t know the answer to David’s problem, especially if you don’t want to work within one of the major parties, but I am pretty sure that the European system if implemented in America will lead to a ruling coalition which will look exactly like the one party rule David describes here, except it will last multiple decades instead of one decade at a time.
On the other hand, if the Democratic Party goes too far this election, it is possible that there would be an 4-6 year window of opportunity to replace it. But that is another issue entirely.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at November 15, 2003 02:41 PM
On re-reading my comment I just want to make clear that I am not at all decrying third party politics in theory. I am suggesting that the European models of dealing with third party have tended in the more stable countries to lead to a more monolithic rule than we have typically had here.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at November 15, 2003 02:46 PMWhatever the issues concerning who hold power, multi-party systems I believe are more reflective of their consituancies in regards to legislation passed because of the coalitions required to pass legislation. For example, while Bush’s administration and the GOP lead congress is activly trying to pull back environmental regulations, the majority of the population places more importance on saving the environment, even many who voted Republican because of other issues. More parties give mvoters more opportunity to vote for candidates who more closely match their views and the need to build coalitions means reduces the likelihood that the bill is passed simply because of the influence of the President or party leadership on the other members of their party.
Posted by: Benjy at November 15, 2003 06:45 PMI am truly impressed by the intelligent conversation represented above by blipsman, Holsclaw and Benjy. When I wrote the piece, I had absolutely no idead of a solution.
Reading your comments above, however, have given me a direction. It now appears to me, that power sharing between 3 or more parties, none of which has mandate capability, could be the solution. The problem as I see it now, is providing a majority of citizens with the experience of being represented in the halls of government on at least some major issues. For if the majority of citizens feel government is working in their interests on at least some issues of importance, a majority of the populace would feel that government functions reasonably well.
Revolution, or domestic anarchist movements would not have a chance as growing movements if a majority of citizens felt government does work fairly well on many issues, or at least some which are viewed as most important.
I have no idea where that third (spoiler) party would come from which could take mandate power away from the Dem’s and Repub’s, but, it is looking to me like one is desperately going to be needed in the next decade if the anarchist movement, especially, the militant wing of one, is to be aborted.
(I am now reading that some of the California fires appear to have been arson). Anarchist movements begin in just such a fashion, small untraceable attacks against infrastructure. Not designed to rally anarchism, but, designed to demonstrate that current power structures fail and elevate awareness that the system doesn’t work.
My thanks to you all for furthering the dialogue on this subject.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2003 05:54 AMIdeas for new political philosophy.
Posted by: Christopher Wooten at November 24, 2003 05:21 PM
