Before I started this blog I had periodic fits of energy just lookng for some sort of outlet. It led to a multitude of abandoned projects including some that held some real interest for me. Here is an example of something I was working on in the summer of 2004 as the presidential campaign was leaving me someting less than satisfied. Maybe it doesn't deserve a second life, but I'm the boss here.
There are dozens of political parties scattered across the landscape of American political life, encompassing a staggeringly large territory of diverse idelogical and issue positions. In view of this the most fundamental questions for any new political party are, Why do we need you? What can you offer that isn't already provided by another? These are fair and emminently important questions that no new party can ignore with impunity. In order to answer these question I will take a look at the relationship between citizens and the existing political parties.
Why does one become a member of a political party? James Madison, in his brilliant Federalist Paper #10, contends that the impulse to adhere to factions, of one sort or another, is a part of human nature. We naturally attach ourselves with likeminded others to espouse a cause, issue or religious viewpoint, to support a particular person for public office, and for many other reasons both profound and trivial. However, to become a true adherent of an organized political party you need more than this natural inclination to faction. Most modern political parties do not represent a simple faction. Most cover such a vast array of issues, causes, motivations and personalities that they offer no defining characteristic that can act as the "essence" of their party. The Republican and Democratic parties offer nothing which can be said to represent the "core" or "bedrock" of their beliefs. Every issue position which these parties trumpet loudly today is liable to be tomorrow's old news, swept under the carpet and largely forgotten. The effect of this lack of centeredness in the established parties can be seen in the slow deterioration of party identification and affiliation among the citizenry. A growing number of people support the Democrats or Republicans less than half-heartedly if at all.
And who can blame them. It is difficult to see in either of the established parties a coherent structure of political belief. For the average citizen this results in a situation where supporting any given political party means supporting issue positions the citizen disagrees with vehemently. In and of itself this state of affairs might not be intolerable, if the citizen could feel that their dissenting voice was able to be heard within the party. Increasingly such dissent is not allowed. In the name of "party unity" and in the mistaken belief that being democratic means being weak, both the Republicans and the Democrats stifle debate and the voicing of dissenting opinion within their parties. If change ever does occur within the issue positions of the parties, it is increasingly of a "top down" variety, such as presidential candidate Bill Clinton's injection of "welfare reform" into the mainstream of Democratic party life. In the name of political expediency both major parties will allow their top officials to alter party beliefs at the drop of a hat, and keep any possible complaints about such actions off the agenda. You can say whatever you like about the effectiveness of this arrangement for gaining desiered election results, but it cannot be called democratic. The average citizen knows that they can have no appreciable affect on the positions adopted by either of the established parties. When they support a given Democratic or Republican candidate at the ballot box, it is less about the ideals or issues involved, and more about voicing approval or disapporval of the specific candidates' personal character (real or percieved.) This is a sorry state of affairs and reduces every election to a paltry choice at best.
Why is this? It isn't that the natural inclination to faction outlined by James Madison has lessened over time, but that many Americans are dis-spirited by their lack of input in the options that exist. Americans, by and large, understand that in a democratic political system, you win some and you lose some. The pain of losing a fight is lessened in the knowledge that you had your chance and gave it your best shot. But when put into a situation where the end is preordained, we feel cheated. No citizen that cherishes his or her democratic rights will long stay in a situation that denies them. The Democratic and Republican parties lose members because they themselves do not function in a democratic fashion. They are elite driven oligarchies that attempt to derive mass support through the tools of propaganda, and not through democratic means. The informed citizen has become increasingly aware of these facts, and has, as a result, turned its back on active affiliation with the major parties.
Why then hasn't one or more of the older small parties taken off? There is no single reason why a given smaller party has not been able to capitalize on the growing disaffection between the citizenry and the larger parties. In general, however, two trends can be delineated that have hampered the smaller parties. The first is the tendency for smaller parties to fashion themselves in the likeness of the Democratic or Republican parties. In their issue positions they act, in effect, as "sterner" or "friendlier" versions of the established parties, depending on their particular inclinations. They often wind up adopting the "top down" model of party governence, wether by accident of having few adherents or in an effort to remain ideologicaly pure. The second tendency of the smaller parties is to adopt a policy of strict adherence to a specific set of issues or an ideology. This tendency keeps these parties from developing a wide enough platform for pursuing politics nationally. One issue parties (an oxymoronic term if ever there was) cannot translate to the wide scope of real American political life, they are hothouse creations that will wither and die when removed from their artificial environment. The tendency to strict ideological adherence can also lead to various forms of utopianism. Libertarians may have many good and interesting ideas about how the United States might be governed, but the moment you advocate a federal government that can be run from a double wide trailer is the moment you have left the real world for a utopian fantasy. Most citizens want their political parties to remain decidedly THIS-worldly.
Maybe in another life I was an 18th century pamphleteer.
No comments:
Post a Comment