The Death of Parties?

And every good argument deserves an equally good counter-argument. Not that I could aptly debate Anya's very good points, but for the sake of argument, and a balanced opinion, I will try to do so.

To understand the importance of political parties, we first have to look at why they originally came about (at least in the United States). In Federalist No.10, Madison basically says that "factions" are a necessary evil. Madison states, "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed...The latent causes of faction are thus sown into the nature of man; and we see them everywhere...a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well as speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than co-operate for their common good." He goes on to say the development of factions is inevitable though because, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects".

And Madison believed that the Constitution was the means to control the effects. Madison is essentially telling us that yes, these factions cause problems, but they are a necessary evil in that we, as humans, naturally develop these factions in a democratic form of government. He says that eliminating democracy to eliminate the factions is absurd, and to make everybody think the same way and hold the same beliefs is also equally absurd. So, he proposes we don't eliminate the factions at all, we just deal with the effects of them. He thought the Constitution would handle the effects, and for the most part I agree with him. I also agree that it is in our human nature to form the factions, or political parties, because we like to form groups, we like having a consistent platform and having unwavering ideals. Anya mentions Bernie Sanders, and although I don't like his politics, he does have unwavering ideals. I think parties strengthen these ideals, not weaken them. What better way to stick to your ideals if you have other people backing you up? We like having a sense of safety and consistency because everything else in the world is wacky. On a psychological level, I think abolishing parties would be harmful for people's well-being and we would somehow find a way to drift back to a party system; it's just in our nature like Madison suggests.

We also have a long history of political parties in this country. Our political parties were developed very early on, one could stay it's essence started with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists being supporters of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists being the people who didn't want the Constitution. These, however, weren't official parties. Then came the Federalist party and the Jeffersonian Democrats, or Democratic-Republicans. And why is having this history important? We know it works pretty well. Our political system was copied by many other countries, people are dying to live here, and we do get things done. Now, I don't always advocate complacency, but there's something to be said for, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Anya seems to believe our government is "broke" and I happen to disagree with this. Also, the reliance on history to keep a decision is a common legal argument. The Supreme Court very often relies on stare decisis, or adhesion to past decisions, when deciding cases. It takes a lot for them to overturn their decisions. Just like it would take a lot for us to overturn our party system in exchange for something that would be perceived as chaotic as well as uncharted territory. But, if anything could make a no party system work, it would definitely be the fighting spirit and lion's heart of the people of the United States.

For the most part I think we, as humans, like a party system. That combined with the fact it has been with us since the early inception of our government, makes it very unlikely we will have a no party system. But, who knows what the future holds for us?

Oh, and also we are happy to say this is our 50th blog post! We are so glad to have made it to 50, now on to 100!

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.

What Really is the Tea Party Movement? "America's most vibrant political force"? Or a force that spreads lies and propaganda?

What really is the Tea Party movement? This is a tough question to answer because it seems like one can never get an objective response. Either Tea Partiers are super-religious, anti-abortion, and too conservative for their own good, spreading blatant lies about the people in power, and plain evil, or they are seen as gods bringing back real conservatism and willing to fight for what's right against power-hungry Obama and his lackeys in Congress. I find both of those descriptions to be inaccurate. I see them as fiscally conservative people who are outraged about how we're spending taxpayer's money and want to make a change. But, if you don't agree let's look at the facts.

The Tea party movement is a movement that coordinates protests and these have seemed to stem out of legislation that Congress has passed, specifically the 2008 bailouts, 2009 stimulus package, 2009-2010 health care reform bills. The name is a throwback to the times of the first Tea Party where their war chant was "no taxation without representation"(an phrase current Tea Partiers are now using to describe our government) and dumping the Tea into the Boston harbor. And let me ask you the common denominator between the pieces of legislation mentioned above? That's right, a lot of money was spent in creating them and a lot of money will, or has been spent on executing them. To some (like the Tea Partiers) this display of spending would seem like a gross amount and that makes them angry. So, basically they got fed up with the huge amounts of government spending and decided to have protests to show the world their discontent (and it seems like the world has been listening. The Economist, a British publication, has called the Tea Party "America's most vibrant political force"). This doesn't seem to unreasonable to me and I wouldn't qualify it as evil either, but let's go over some more things.

The Contract from America (inspired from Gingrich's Contract with America) is the agenda of the Tea Party that they would like Congressional candidates to follow. The agenda is listed as:

1). Identify constitutionality of every new law, which basically means they want to make sure Congress has the power from the Constitution to pass said law. This is written to regulate Congresses interference into our private lives and would also help limit the power and scope of the Federal government a little.

2). Reject emission trading, which would stop cap and trade, which would make companies who go over their "cap" (set amount of how much they are allowed to pollute) be punished by paying extra money. But, what's bad for the company is also bad for the consumer like in an energy company. Energy creation production is an inelastic good (which means that people need it so when the price goes up they usually end up paying for it rather than stop using it). So, the Tea Party would like to offer economic incentives to stop pollution. This is basically reward instead of punishment and would alleviate the consumers undue economic burden.

3). Demand a balanced federal budget. They would like an amendment to demand a balanced budget with two thirds majority needed for any tax modification. So, if you want to increase/decrease taxes you must have a two thirds majority under this amendment. I'm not so sure if an actual constitutional amendment is needed for the end goal of a balanced budget. I think since Paygo was re-instated it could get the job done. Paygo says that the government can't spend more money than it has which would help stop the deficit, however some modifications would be necessary. For it to do real good, it shouldn't be so easy to opt-out of. It should also have a lasting life, and shouldn't have keep on being reinstated. Maybe, this unfortunate part of Paygo is why the Tea Party wants a Constitutional amendment.

4). Simplify the tax system. They want to replace the internal revenue code with a shorter version no longer than 4,543 words (don't ask where they got that number) and it would establish a single-rate tax system. I agree that the tax codes NEED to be simplified. We should understand why we are paying money to our government for Pete's sake.

5). Audit federal government institutions for their constitutionality. There would be a special task force that would asses the constitutionality of federal agencies and would look at waste, ineffectiveness, duplication, and agencies that would be suited for local and state governments instead of the federal government. This would cut down a lot of our money waste. It would also help get back some more states rights if they found that many federal programs could actually be devolved onto the states (like Welfare). This would just make things more easier to regulate and it would save a lot of money because our money would be put to more effective uses.

6). Limit annual growth of federal spending. This would limit our annual spending growth to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. I suppose this would stop us spending beyond our means. I think to limit our spending growth maybe a modified version of Paygo could be used.

7). Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010. This is pretty self-explanatory I think. Members of the tea party don't like the healthcare legislation that was passed. I don't know all the reasons but one is that it basically had NO bipartisan support and that it was passed in an unusual, some would say tricky, fashion that did not appeal to a lot of people. Also, they probably don't like the individual mandate where everyone is required to buy health insurance because it interferes with a person's right to choose if he wants health insurance or not (even though this mandate is better for the insurance companies and is cheaper for us). Actually, the whole idea of anything close to government-run healthcare is pretty repulsive to tea partiers.

8). Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy. This would allow us to search for new ways to get our energy and help us get away from our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody wants to be under the thumb of a depleting resource.

9). Reduce earmarks. No earmarks until there is a balanced budget and would require a 2/3rds majority to pass an earmark. During the healthcare bill debate there were many complaints about these earmarks that were making the bill more expensive. Basically, they can be added onto bills to make it more expensive because it's money for individual projects and Congress can also specifically mandate where all of the money goes.

10). Permanently repeal all recent tax increases that are scheduled to being in 2011. This would help our economy because instead of giving more money to the government we would be using it to put into banks, the stock market, consumer goods, etc. which directly helps the economy. It seems to me whenever the government gets money almost all of it disappears before it reaches "the economy" and us.

Basically, the Tea Party is a movement that encourages government to stay out of our "private lives" and therefore wants lower taxes, more responsibility with the taxpayers money, etc. It is not something evil and cannot be defined by just the people who represent them. In my opinion, many things stated by the Tea Party are valid points and it seems to be the liking of fiscally conservative Republicans and Libertarians.

So, I urge to to give it a chance. You don't have to agree or like what they find important but it's just as valid as any other political movement/party in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

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 :)