Countries like North Korea, China and Syria are single-party states. No one is allowed to venture from the established party line or the will of the state, which are really one and the same. No political dissent is tolerated. Countries like Jamaica and the United States are two-party states. Ostensibly, this system offers voters a "choice" between often diametrically opposed viewpoints. One often hears the two-party system touted as the best possible system out there, the veritable salvation of democracy, no less. Of course, only Republicans and Democrats say this—and why not? They are the biggest beneficiaries of the two-party status quo! These two acrimonious associations have their nests nicely feathered, thank you. Don't mess with what isn't broken, they say.
But it is broken. Indeed, the similarities between one-party and two-party rule are chilling. In the one-party state, if the people are hungry and restless, it's a simple matter to increase the bacon, toilet paper and gasoline rations. Let the poor buggers have heat for an extra hour each night. If an upstart political party starts to make trouble in Syria or China, it is a simple matter to send jackbooted thugs to bust up the party printing press and place party leaders under arrest under trumped up charges. Everything is better. Real reform. The state triumphs again!
I submit that two-party rule is only one better than one-party rule. Both systems operate in similar ways—with leaders of the "approved" party or parties promising (or threatening) whatever it takes to keep the people placated (or neutralized) and themselves in power. Admittedly, America's two-party system is much to be preferred over the iron fisted authoritarianism of China and North Korea—but it is not as much better as it should be. The two-party system purports to offer diverse "choices" to the people. But are the differences real or are they just political constructs floated to attract votes with no substance behind them? Are we just being placated? Just neutralized? In the current political climate of the U.S., I fear this is all too often the case.
In the U.S., the strong-arm tactics of China and North Korea would never be tolerated, so the Republicrats ensure their shared hold on power in other ways—by colluding to pass unconstitutional laws making it next to impossible for third parties to get on the ballot. They get their pointy heads together in legislatures all over the land and set arbitrary limits on who can participate in debates. Often, they will drag third parties into court to get them thrown off the ballot or otherwise waste precious resources. Someone will say this is very different from what China and Syria do. Perhaps so, but a suppressed party is no less suppressed just because it is accomplished without violence. Again, two-party rule is only one better.
No matter how badly things go, a single-party system never actually has to reform. (There is no competition) Sadly, neither does a two-party system. (There is only one competitor) When one of the two parties is thrown from power, it need only wait long enough for the people to grow tired of the second party. Rather than offer the voters true reform, in the two-party paradigm, the opposition party simply focuses on tearing down the party in power by any means necessary, so that the voters will grow tired of it. The very ideas the voters had previously rejected are repackaged and touted as "change" and "solutions" to the damage done by the party in power. With no other option available, the voters reelect the very party they had voted out just a few years (or even months) earlier. There is no reform. No change. Nothing new. A vicious cycle is repeated one more time. The state triumphs yet again!
Even allowing that a two-party system is the best choice, as some do, who is to say that the two parties must always be the Republican and Democratic parties? Perhaps another two would serve our nation better. I think this is quite plausible, but we will never know until the two-party system hegemony is ended. The "co-totalitarianism" of the Republicrats must be broken, and the only way that will happen is for the American voter to say "enough!" and demand that more choices and more voices be given a place at the political table. The people must stop allowing the "approved" parties to bully third parties into extinction. My sincere hope is that the American people will wake up to the damage being done to our republic and its Constitution by the much-vaunted two-party system. If the 2008 Presidential race doesn't wake a few of them up, I don't know what will.
©2008 Mike Blevins, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Mike Blevins only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Mike Blevins is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Mike Blevins of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Mike Blevins |
Reader Comments: