The Death of Parties

A while ago, I blogged about the benefits of a multiparty system, something most Americans would never think of applying to their country.  Well, now I'm here arguing for something even more radical: The abolishment of all political parties.

Right now, political parties seem to be the bane of America's existence.  They are causing endless gridlock in Congress, enraging voters, and bringing some truly frightening people (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, et al) out of the woodwork as people fight to be the "most" Democratic or "most" Republican on the ballot.  Intelligents and moderates are being shoved aside, normal citizens are being ignored, and radical and harmful views are being covered as viable alternatives by the media, allowing them to become popularized and widespread.  So what's the solution?  How about something really radical, something that's never been considered.  How about doing away with political parties?

I wrote once before in support of a multiparty system, like many European governments have.  I still believe that is much better than our current system.  But might a party-less system be even better?  Might it eliminate the "I support most of that bill, but I can't vote for it because I'm a Democrat/Republican" mentality that so many moderates are forced into?

Oftentimes, the main difference between the two major parties in this country is rhetorical.  No matter how much the Democrats pledge that they’ll turn the country around, they’ll stop the corporate welfare and secrecy and fiscal irresponsibility and gutting of social security that occurs under Republican administrations, the changes that happen are miniscule.  Often, the choice between Republican and Democrat boils down to the choice between evil and slightly less evil.  Look at the choice in Nevada during the midterms: on the one side, the racist let’s-let-preachers-endorse-candidates-from-the-pulpit-and-dismantle-the-department-of-education Sharron Angle, and on the other hand, the bumbling, compromising, bored and boring Harry Reid.  

The most principled members of Congress are Ron Paul, a Libertarian, and Bernie Sanders, a Socialist.  While they might caucus with the Republicans and Democrats respectively, they break with their caucus when they support something that runs contrary to their beliefs (look at Sanders’ vote against the tax cut “compromise” bill).  The few senators who are willing to break party line on important issues (McCaskill with earmark bans, Snowe and Voinovich with DADT) are either lame ducks or far enough from their next election that they feel that they won’t unduly upset their base.

With no political parties, there would be no nebulously defined “base” that politicians are beholden to simply because of their party affiliation.  They would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were elected based on their views, rather than disinterested voters voting party line and then becoming upset because of one or two votes.  Current Democrats who, say, support gay rights but oppose the START treaty would be able to run on a platform including both those points of view and the public would know exactly what they’re getting.  There would be fewer unpleasant surprises for constituents and Senate leaders.

This would also eliminate party line votes.  Often, members of Congress are forced to compromise their beliefs because they’re afraid of losing their party’s backing.  Whether it means losing a chairmanship or losing financial backing in the election cycle, you can bet that most of your Senators and Representatives are far more interested in that job security than they are in voting their conscience.

A lack of parties would also throw the electoral system wide open to more involvement by the citizens.  It would eliminate many of the issues that have kept third party candidates (such as Greens, Libertarians, Peace & Freedom party members) who usually have new, viable suggestions from even being considered.

There are, of course issues with this system, mostly with what would happen to Congress.  For instance, how would the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate positions be filled? (Majority/Minority Leader and Majority/Minority Whip positions would be obsolete.)  The position of President Pro Tem would simply fall to the most senior senator, rather than the most senior senator from the majority.  Since the Speaker of the House is elected directly by the House, choosing a speaker is not dependent on the existence of political parties (although since the Speaker is the person who receives the most votes,  How would committee chairmanships be designated, and how would members be assigned to committees?  Currently, members request assignments, which are approved by a party committee in charge of committee assignments (I mean ... what? No that’s actually what they are). The assignments slates are then sent to the full Chamber for approval.  But this has not always been the case, political parties have not always had say in committee assignments.  Until 1911, the Speaker of the House handled all committee appointments.  Reverting back to this practice would not be overly difficult.  Until 1846, committee assignments were handled by the vice president, the president pro tem, or party leaders.  Probably the simplest thing to do would be to let the president pro tem handle assignments, since party leaders wouldn’t exist and letting the vice president make assignments - even though he or she is technically the president of the Senate - seems to be mixing the two branches of government more than they should be.

All of this, of course, is simply procedural.  There is little possibility that the abolition of political parties would ever gain any traction in the hearts and minds of anyone, be it Congressmen or the American public

Would our country even function like this? I think it's possible. But it is also entirely possible the answer is "no".  Then again, you might say that our country doesn't function now, with two parties (the only goal of the Republican Party, according to Mitch McConnell, is to defeat Obama), so a lack of political parties couldn't do that much more harm.

Why Democrats Will Lose in November

To start off, let me just say that I hope I'm massively wrong about this.  I'm a Democrat and a committed progressive, and I die a little bit inside as poll after poll comes out shifting more House and Senate races towards the Republicans.  And not just the Olympia Snowe Republicans, the "yeah, it sucks that they usually vote party line, but at least they can be counted on to have common sense" Republicans.  No, these races are shifting to Rand "The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional" Paul, Christine "I use campaign donations to pay for my house" O'Donnell, Sharron "let's allow preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit" Angle, Jim "Single mothers and gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools" DeMint, and Joe "Social Security has stolen all my money from me" Miller.  Scared yet?  That's how they want you to feel.

Now, pop quiz: How many Democratic candidates have such easily recognizable positions?  They don't even have to be as far out as these ones, just . . . recognizable.  If you answered "none", sad to say, I'm right there with you.  Democratic candidates are unwilling to embrace with such fervor their positions and programs that they've worked on these past two years.  Why?  Because the Republicans have succeeded in spinning programs like TARP (which wasn't even an Obama program), the bailout, and the healthcare bill as evils.   People who say "TARP worked!" or "The healthcare bill is going to help bring about better lives for us and our children" aren't heard, because that's not what the public wants to hear.  It doesn't make good stories.  The airwaves are a battlefield, TV ads are skirmishes, and oftentimes I feel like Democrats have surrendered before even trying to fight.

If Democrats lose badly in November, it won't just be because the party who hold the presidency usually loses in midterms.  It will be because they have been unwilling to embrace their successes.  It will be because they have let the Republicans take their accomplishments and spin them into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves.  Republicans laugh off climate change, refuse to accept equality for gays and lesbians, paint TARP and the bailouts as failures, and flat-out lie about some of the most important issues  facing America.  And, somehow, all the Democrats can come up with is "Things are awful now, but they'll be worse with the Republicans in charge"?  Well, guess what, people should have a very clear picture of what America would be like with the Republicans in charge just based on their ads.  We don't need all the Democratic ads to be saying that.

We need Democrats to be out there counter-spinning the Republicans.  We need them to be a voice for truth, for justice.  We don't need all of their negative ads that just repeat "so-and-so outsourced jobs, so-and-so's a birther" because we already know that from said candidate's own statements.  What the Democrats should be doing is talking about their achievements.  We need Barbara Boxer talking about her environmental protection legislational achievements, Harry Reid to talk about why healthcare is good, Kirsten Gillibrand to talk about her leadership on repealing DADT.  Democrats don't need to show why Republicans are worse, they need to show why they are better.  And yes, those are two very different things.  Let the Christine O'Donnell's self-immolate on their own pyres of ludicrousness.  You don't need to do their jobs for them.

If Democrats lose in November, it won't be because the Republicans have more mainstream appeal, or better ideas on how to fix the country.  It will be because they lost the media/PR war.

Arguments Against a Multiparty System

So, I've decided to play devil's advocate here and give the arguments against a multi-party system because I believe every good argument has an equally excellent counter-argument.

While I agree with Anya that only having two parties makes it harder for everyone to get along, I suppose I don't see how a multi-party system does this either? People and parties have differences and that's just a fact. In a multiparty system (let's take Britain's main parties) it would just be the labour and liberal parties against the conservatives because they all lean a certain way (more liberal or more conservative). In fact, one could argue there would be more sniping within these groups because of the opposite ideologies they have (if it's a type of coalition government). Or, even if it's just a generally "liberal" coalition there are still differences between them (let's say the liberal and labour parties) because they obviously different parties for a reason. I hope this makes sense, but essentially I'm saying there might be more issues/tribulations to argue about in a multiparty system.

I also agree with Anya that candidates in America have become more centrist, however they have because we want them to be. Many (but not all) don't really want a "radical" president to shake America up and would prefer a President who was less ideological and looked at things from different perspectives. However, I'm generalizing. My question: wouldn't finding common ground between multiple parties make the government more centrist? It seems logical to me that the more parties involved, the more diverse ideas there are, the harder it is to find common ground, and the more centrist/to the middle policies are adopted. I will illustrate with an example. If you are out with one friend and are deciding between seeing a horror movie and a romantic comedy, eventually one of you will give in and decide to agree with the other person. This is a "stronger" stance because it's not diluted by too much compromise. However, if you're out with five friends and everyone wants to see something different it's a real problem, you become indecisive and say (at least in my group of friends), "whichever you guys like the best." In the end you all might give up on the movie all together (aka nothing getting done in the world of politics) or spend a lot of time crafting a compromise: "If we see Avatar this week then next week we have to see A Single Man"...and so forth until everyone is pleased (like how centrist policies please everyone). So, my point: Not only is it harder to reach a conclusion in a multi-party system, it also will result in a down-the-middle policy because too many people and ideas are involved and everyone has to be included and say their piece.

My contention with the last point made: multiparty systems may give more "variety" however that won't encourage people to vote if they're apathetic. In fact, if one is apathetic, one would like to vote in the easiest way possible, which would be with the two party system, because there are only so many ways you can go. You're either Republican or Democrat and then use the "straight ticket" voting approach (vote all for one party). However, this doesn't foster an informed society and electorate (things are never perfect)

Arguments Against a Two-Party System

If I didn't write these blog posts/do homework in Women's Studies, I would lose at least 500 brain cells per class, no lie.

I'm not entirely sure what prompted me to write this, maybe the fact that I laughingly described myself as an "Independent Socialist Green" to Ashley while we were talking the other day.  But here we go.

With only two parties in power at any one time, there are far more opportunities for partisan sniping, backbiting, stonewalling, ignoring of opinions, and generally not getting along.  The coalition governments that come with multiparty systems force parties to find common ground in order to govern effectively.  In a two party system, the party in the majority — especially if they hold a supermajority — is often less concerned with the minority party than with pushing forward their own agenda while they have a chance.  While this makes me happy when the Democrats are in power, it is important to note that the increased friction between the two parties ultimately does enough harm to outweigh the progressive legislation passed.  The childish behavior and horse race mentality on the part of the politicians and the media (the "permanent campaign" that the former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan talks about) usually impedes any real progress.

Our two major parties have to focus on broad platforms, taking definite but vague positions on every issue — very evident in the move to the center most presidential candidates go through after the primaries.  Unfortunately, this end up with almost no one liking the president!  For example, the liberal voters who swept Obama into office are now upset with him for not being liberal enough, while the Republicans are just ticked because someone from the other party is in the White House.  So, nearly the whole country is displeased with their president.  Multiparty systems allow for the clear voices of minor parties to be heard, and for the parties to actually participate in their government.  The minor parties areh able to concentrate their agendas on specific issues (for example, the Green party focuses on social justice and environmental responsibility), while the president, from one of the major parties, is often too wary of alienating people to act decisively on major controversial issues. This is especially true during times of split government (different parties hold the presidency and a majority in Congress).  In multiparty systems, interest parties, who would be minor parties in a 2 party system, have more freedom to push their legislation.

With only two parties, it can be hard for the uninterested public to tell the difference between the two.  Also, the winner take all system and the single representative districts discourage voters from the opposite party in "safe-seat" districts from voting.  A multiparty system would not solve the problems created by winner take all/single representative systems, but the other parties would offer more choices to appeal to a wider cross-section of voters.  The presence of multiple parties means that the people's voices are more accurately represented.  That feeling would give otherwise apathetic voters inspiration to go to the polls.

So there you have it! Ash might be writing a rebuttal, I'm not sure. Ash's rebuttal can be read here. But I hope this has given you food for thought :)

Oh Massachusetts!

Oh Massachusetts! The seemingly blue state! However, on Tuesday January 19, the people of Massachusetts decided to vote a different way; they decided to vote for change…again. So, the candidates were R-Scott Brown and D-Martha Coakley. I found it odd that the seat the late Edward Kennedy filled for almost half a century is now held by a Republican, however that’s how politics works. To quote a TV show, “no one owns a Senate seat.” If you want to keep it you have to work hard for it and the political winds have to be just right (however the incumbent does have an advantage, usually).

Anyway, what does this signify? Well, if you’re a Republican it means your party is doing something right, it’s coming back, and finally Democrats will have to listen and take into consideration your ideas. You also will take any chance you get to say it has to do with Obama and shows his political future. For a Republican, this is game changing. If you’re a Democrat you’re trying to keep it from touching on the President, meaning it doesn’t foreshadow anything for Obama in the future. Also, you might feel some of your agenda will be centralized and you are definitely feeling wan from a fall from power. I suppose your front is it’s no big deal, but you might be panicking a bit on the inside?

The facts: Democrats don’t have that 60, that impenetrable number, to override filibusters (a filibuster is when a member talks, reads, etc. for a certain amount of time in order to “back up” the Senate and then a cloture vote is called for, where 60 votes ends it. More details:http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm. Republicans have been very much on the defensive this past year about Healthcare reform, etc. and this was mainly because the Democrats had the 60 votes and they didn’t need Republicans for anything, so excluding them was best. Now, Harry Reid WILL have to change his strategy. He didn’t really try to reach out to any of the Republicans in the end, even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who were open to working with him and were very much centrist on the ideas proposed. Gosh, now he’ll have to deal with the very conservative Republicans as well. I’m sorry Mr. Reid but the way you’ve been doing things is going to have to change it will be a very bumpy ride. Republican ideas will have to be present in the bill to get some votes. And there are just some Republicans who won’t be won over. I either foresee some Republicans really being listened to and trying to work with the Democrats or I see stubbornness on both sides, which will make it impossible to accomplish anything. I am planning for the latter and hoping for the former.

Other possible effects: We can only guess at what this means for the President. Some say it’s an indicator of where people think his government is going and they don’t like it, and other’s think you can’t really apply what’s happening in one state to the whole of the Presidency. I think it may be both. I feel like people turned up to vote and wanted this change because they didn’t like where the Healthcare Bill was going (especially the December vote) and were scared of what cap and trade would do to their small businesses, and maybe didn’t want new taxes. All of this is controlled by who wins that Senate seat, and that’s now Scott Brown. Also, we can’t look at this and say Obama is finished. Not everyone feels the same way about him like the people in Massachusetts do. Some people love what he’s doing and some people hate it so it’s hard to get an accurate read on where he’s going.

How did this happen? It looks like a combination of a lot of things. Coakley had one thing going for her; it was Ted Kennedy’s seat and therefore people might think it just “belongs” to a Democrat. However, that may have also hurt her because if people think that and don’t want the seat to go to a Democrat then they will have even more incentive to go to the polls and vote. I think the “60 vote” mentality of the Senate contributed to Coakley’s downfall because people felt ignored, excluded, horrified, etc. at what was getting passed and wanted to put a stop to it. Part of this comes from Republicans not being listened to because not one Republican voted for the Healthcare Bill in December and that looks bad and I think people were turned off by it. Also, having Obama endorse her (Coakley) might have backfired just a bit. She thought he would change people’s minds and he didn’t; so basically she counted on him changing people’s minds too much.

I just think it was a time for change. I feel that maybe the Democrats were getting too lax on the Healthcare Bill by not trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. I think this challenge will produce a better and more accepted Healthcare Bill, if one gets passed. It all depends on how well the Republicans and Democrats can work with each other for a common goal. This should be interesting.

My sources:

1. http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/01/seven_things_at_stake_in_brown.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatuzIwL.TBs

Anya is horrified, but morbidly intrigued to see how this plays out. I do know it will mean a very centrist healthcare bill, far less liberal than I would have liked. Hopefully more bills will have bipartisan support now while still making the sweeping reforms we need. Congrats to Ashley on a very well written post :)

Am I a Bad Democrat?

Why, of course I was paying attention in AP Government today!  Whyever would you think I wasn't? :)  Anyway . . .

Is it bad for Reid that he has the "magic number" of 60 in his caucus?  Did it get his hopes up too high?  With 60, he might've thought that he could get a very liberal bill though without needing to compromise with the Republicans and that the more conservative Democrats and independents would fall in line just because of party loyalty.  In any case, when all is said and done, it would look very bad for Reid if the vote fell completely along party lines.  That would very quickly become the favored punching-bag for the Rush Limbaughs of the Republican party, who would immediately jump on Reid/Obama/Democrats in general for "forcing the bill through Congress", etc.

Anyway, going back to what was my main point.  I've been cheering for the negotiations going on in the Senate lately, especially surrounding what I see as the "big four": Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman, whose yay or nay votes are going to be absolutely critical when the bill in its complete form is debated on the floor.  Ultimately, I think we're going to have a better/more widely accepted healthcare bill because of it.

Obviously, I'm not happy with all the compromises.  There are places where I think we Democrats have bargained away too much, a la the public option being completely axed.  Honestly, I think private insurers have had their day, and squandered much of their goodwill on ineffective plans, discrimination against women, and obscenely high premiums in the name of profit.  But that's a topic for another day.  On the other hand, if Joe Lieberman wasn't willing to stand up and risk the anger of his Democratic colleagues and denounce the Medicare expansion, we'd have people ages 55 to 64 buying into Medicare while cutting the already underfunded program even more.

I suppose that's where I break away from the really liberal Democrats.  Well, that, and I support the trigger option.  I think a nonprofit corporation handling insurance with a "trigger" option for a plan with more government is a good idea.  Why?  Simple.  It comes from the center.  And . . . it has a really good chance of passing the Senate.  More than a straight-up public plan would.  It's a decent compromise which promises both bipartisan support (even if the only Republicans to support it are Snowe and Collins, it gives the bill more legitimacy) and improved healthcare (which is the most important thing, really).

But at the same time, I think that the liberal Democrats in the Senate have no excuse for not supporting the bill.  It's not going to be the best thing to come out of Congress, and it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's progress.  Howard Dean, the former DNC chairman, has said that the Senate should kill the bill and go back to the drawing board.  With all due respect to Mr. Dean, that is very five-year-old of him.  Opportunities like this for total overhaul only come around . . . well, much less frequently than Mr. Dean seems to think.  It was a fight to get the different committee bills written, it was a fight to get the bills reconciled, it was a fight to agree to debate the bill, the amendments are fights . . . and on and on.  The only things that will be accomplished by sending the bill back to the drawing board/refusing to pass the bill is we'll have wasted months of work, millions of Americans will still have little or no healthcare, and maybe there'll be even less chance of a bill getting passed.

So, at the end of the day, am I a bad Democrat?  No, I don't think so.  I've just got common sense, an eye for what direction the Senate's leaning on different issues, and a head full of Economics knowledge from last semester's econ class :)