Time for a strong third party?
It’s no secret that I often express admiration for the multiparty system found in many European countries. Many people see this as chaos, and it does seem to make democracy more chaotic as it provides homes for a wide spectrum of opinions but also forces politicos to seek compromise in order to find a majority. But could such a system work in the U.S.? In my last op-ed post I lamented that the progressive movement was dying. Could we at least progress to the point of having a true progressive alternative?
First, let’s end a myth: In the U.S., neither major parties’ voters are speaking with one voice! Each party contains a wide spectrum of voters. Historically one can say that the center of those spectra is slightly left of center for the Dems and slightly right for the GOP (the fringes of both are outliers). Also both parties tend to move toward the extreme ends of those spectra for primary season and back toward the center to govern. But the Dems have their conservatives and the GOP has its progressives, although these might be issue-dependent (Catholic Dems who are pro-life and anti-LGBT, and born-again Republicans who are environmentally conscious, for example). Let’s call this our unique American brand of political chaos, and the first nail in the coffin for the two-party system.
Our system is chaotic precisely because the two parties can’t possibly make all those registered Dems and Republicans happy. Keeping them all bottled up in a group in which they’re often uncomfortable can only lead to stress and not participating in political discourse, so they participate only on election days, if at all. Many Dems didn’t bother to vote for HRC for a variety of reasons, even in those “battleground states” (a recent NY Times analysis of voting in Milwaukee was telling—are you listening, Dems, or still just blaming others for dropping the ball?), or voted for her opponent, because they felt their party’s establishment had betrayed and abandoned them. The GOP fielded a non-establishment candidate, so many more “traditional Republicans” (also feeling betrayed and abandoned!) voted for HRC (Bush senior and junior the two most notable examples). In the end, the chaos all settled and out of the ashes rose Mr. Trump, the victor and unlikely phoenix.
The last is a strong indictment against the two traditional parties, but the 2016 election is just one event that doesn’t begin to count the many failures of the two party system. Consider that the Republicans began with a punishing and destructive Reconstruction, assumed by too many to be progressive, while the Dems were defenders of a South trying to preserve an oppressive culture and economy based on slavery! Flipping this around caused a lot of pain in the body politic. The GOP candidate won the last election by running as the defender of the working class (enough voters bought into this snake-oil sale); the Dem candidate campaigned on continuing the status quo and Obama’s legacy, which a lot of people didn’t like (good intentions turned into too many failures).
Some of these many failures aren’t directly caused by the two-party system, but there’s no denying that our system, with its bias toward the two traditional parties that’s solidified over the years, has become less democratic and more a tool for one-percenters and their lackeys. Special interests don’t like multiple parties, preferring to hedge their bets with just the two. (Of course, they would probably prefer a one-party system to make establishing an oligarchy even easier, and we’re trending toward that with Trump’s successful campaign.)
There are good arguments for a multiparty system in the U.S., even within our constitutional constraints (we aren’t a parliamentary system, for example). The anchor that is sinking the ship of state right now instead of protecting it from the squalls of petty politics is tradition. Like it or not, we have become a two-party country, from talking about the “two sides of the aisle” in Congress to our rigged national primaries and presidential debates controlled by the two traditional parties. Is there a way to continue that tradition but make things better?
Of course there is. I’ve already discussed the reforms required for the Electoral College and the Supreme Court. Term and age limits for congressional seats would also help, in both the Senate and the House, and we need to create logical congressional districts, not gerrymandered ones that guarantee one party’s dominance ad nauseoum. The most effective change would be to guarantee that the two parties are really a comforting blanket for their voters. Many countries have a conservative and progressive party, and they’re not all parliamentary systems (although the blankets would be threadbare for those voters who are progressive on some issues, conservatives on others, which probably describes a majority of the American electorate).
Perhaps a name change would ensure that, say Conservative and Progressive (duh!). That’s really the fundamental bifurcation, isn’t it? Both conservative and progressive political thought is necessary, though. Progressives want to move forward and are for change; conservatives want the status quo or to move backward. In this sense, in this last and unusual election, the Dems were the conservatives, championing the status quo, and the GOP was the agent of change. (I’ll probably receive flak for saying that, though.) These flip-flops are confusing for many voters.
Progressive action can lead to unforeseen circumstances; conservative action can temper exuberance and lead people to consider the consequences more. (“Three strikes and you’re out” was an example in California where a man was given a life term for his third offense, stealing a bike—or was it a pizza?) Progressive thought can lead to revolution and despotic governments and conservative thought; a desire to return to the “good old days” can do the same. The revolution in Russia was progressive in many ways but led to a despotic regime even more brutal than the Czars’. The Nazi movement in Germany got started with a desire from many Germans and German companies to return to the better economic times of their past—Hitler and his cronies fed off that sentiment, giving Germany another despotic regime (any analogy with Trump’s promises are merited and a warning to us all).
Multiple parties make it hard, but not impossible, for a country to end up strangled by despotism. A single party system almost makes it inevitable (Turkey is nearly there—are we next?). But could we evolve to such a multiparty system? At least a three-party system (a three-legged stool is more stable than a two-legged one, and a four-legged stool is even more stable)?
I’m not talking about the insignificant splinter groups like the Green Party and the Libertarians, by the way. The former took few votes away from HRC (about 1% nationally, and 0 Electoral College votes—one wonders why Jill Stein thinks she’s entitled to call for a recount, but maybe she just wants the PR ad donations), while the latter took more from Mr. Trump (about 3.2% nationally, and again 0 Electoral College votes—would they have done better with Ron Paul?).
To make a multiparty system viable, you need strong parties—the Green and Libertarian results are pathetic. (BTW, the Green results show HRC supporters’ claims that she lost because the Green Party stole her votes are a bunch of malarkey. The Dems better quit pointing fingers and recognize that they, NOT someone else, caused Clinton’s defeat. I’m still reading about whining, which is pretty strong evidence for their stupidity.)
The 2016 election results have spurred “many” to “sign up” with various splinter parties (“many” meaning thousands, not millions). Consider the socialist ones. There were two more “socialist candidates” on the NJ ballot besides the Green candidate. When I checked them out, I discovered a lot of old communist rhetoric like dictatorship of the proletariat and a workers’ revolution for the U.S. Let’s face it: Marxist communism is a debunked ideology, and if you don’t know that, you’re naïve and/or historically ignorant. Europe’s social democrats believe in social, progressive action WITHIN the democratic process. People should and must understand the difference if only to understand our European brethren.
Sure, social democrats think government must be the agent for social, progressive change—you certainly wouldn’t expect Wall Street, big corporations, and all the one-percenters to become that agent, and they control U.S. political discourse today in both traditional parties! Trump took flak from conservative geniuses like Sarah Palin for using government cajoling and threats to save jobs at Carrier. Europe does this all the time, as Apple and Google well know. Regulating the abuses of capitalism is a good thing; and not regulating them only enriches the few at the cost of many, thus widening the income cap plaguing our country. I’m not applauding Trump here per se; I’m going after the “pure conservatives” AKA oligarchy supporters who don’t want their sleek yachts rocked.
A third, fourth, and more strong parties must offer enough to attract voters, though. Little splinter parties like the Libertarian and the many socialist splinter groups can never do that. They are too narrowly focused. One-issue parties can never do that. Imagine an anti-abortion party or legalize-marijuana party. Neither one would have anything to say about foreign policy.
But new parties would be a good thing because the traditional two are hoary organizations collapsing within from their own weight to make black holes of irrelevance, neither offering much beyond the status quo. (Clinton campaigned on the status quo, and, if you think Mr. Trump will change anything for the better, you must be either drinking some strong stuff or smoking it, or maybe both.)
If you’re a student of history, you know that new parties in the U.S. have appeared and gained strength, and old ones have disappeared. It’s time for some new parties for America, ones that can compete with the entrenched ones that have only created election disasters like the one we just witnessed. Now’s the time to be thinking about that before we have yet another election disaster.
***
Teeter-Totter between Lust and Murder. #3 in the “Detectives Chen and Castilblanco Series,” this mystery/suspense/thriller novel has more twists and turns than a carnival pretzel. Chen is accused of murder, so naturally Castilblanco tries to help her. But there is a lot more to the murder than meets the eye. Readers will have a great time unraveling it all with these NYPD homicide detectives and will be kept guessing right up to the climax. Soon available in all ebook formats.
And so it goes…
