March 28, 2008
by Steve Palmer

Since the presidency of George Washington, the United States has adopted a two-party political system that ensures that all, or nearly all, elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties obtaining the highest number of votes. Defenders of the two-party system cite the political stability that it produces and the inherent filter of extremism that it provides.

However, two problems that are becoming increasingly apparent in American politics are the almost indistinguishable character of the two main parties, and the distortion and redefining of long-held and widely-debated political definitions.

Historically, the two viewpoints we see in the Democratic and Republican parties arose from the philosophical differences that existed between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton believed in a strong federal government influence over local governments and individuals, while Jefferson believed strongly in individual rights and a limited federal government.

Democrats seemingly reflect the Hamiltonian perspective and push for more governmental intervention economically and for increased social programs such as welfare, universal health care coverage, and affirmative action. Republicans in theory take Jefferson's stance and assert individual responsibility  and condemn the encroachment of the federal government upon individual liberty.

The U.S. population in the political realm consists of three main groups: liberals, conservatives, and so-called "moderates," which are also labeled swing voters. Each political party will always have a definite constituency that can be counted on to vote along party lines, and therefore candidates put relatively little effort into campaigning for the votes of their clearly defined base. Instead, hopeful candidates spend the bulk of their time and efforts catering to the vacillating swing voters.

The result of this is that previously defined party lines and definitions are now obscured and concealed behind ambivalent rhetoric, propaganda, and proposals designed to entice voters from all sides. A perfect example of this is President George Bush's $400 billion proposal for prescription-drug benefits for seniors, which has traditionally been a key Democratic issue. His obvious strategy was to steal the issue from the Democrats in an attempt to entice both swing votes and Democratic votes, knowing full well that even staunch conservatives will still vote to reelect him.

(Article Continues Below)

In the current political climate, candidates can use the over-simplified party designation as a simple matter of convenience to further their careers, while hiding disagreeable positions and special-interest affiliations behind the title. Gunnar Myrdal, a contemporary political economist, stated that, "Political parties . . . have to take up a fighting position at least at election times when they have to stimulate the lazy and undecided voters to vote, and to vote for them. All politicians. . . have, however, an interest in preserving favorable conditions for the normal day-to-day cooperation and collective bargaining among them all."

He added that, "We tend to arrive at a situation where there is a large measure of agreement among all the political parties. They sometimes even compete in propagating new and constantly more sweeping redistributional reforms as levels of income rise. In any case, we have seen very few examples, if any, where the coming into power of a more conservative political party has meant a substantial retraction of reforms previously carried through by a party which was further left."

This general obscuring of issues of principle leaves the voting public with virtually no clear choice and has turned the election process into an arbitrary roll of the dice. Political candidates no longer have defined principles; only general tendencies and ambiguous slogans, and often voters feel an acute sense of being misrepresented and an attitude of futility toward the election process.   

The current prevailing strategy among voters seems to be that of "defensive" voting: They vote for the candidate on their side with the highest poll numbers for fear that by voting for another candidate they will "split" the vote, thereby handing the election to their opponent.

Unless voters begin to cast their votes in alignment with their conscience and principles, as opposed to choosing the perceived lesser of two evils, the two parties will continue to merge into one, both in theory and in practice, as they compete for the swing votes.

Voters must choose candidates who espouse explicit and unequivocal visions and whose political views are reflected in their actions.

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active:

Click Here for the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Stephen Palmer [send him email] is a scholar, writer, entrepreneur, and teacher. As a graduate of George Wythe College (www.gwc.edu) with a degree in Statesmanship, Stephen is devoted to moving the cause of liberty worldwide.