Topic: Political Parties
What If They Threw a Party and No One Came?
Is it time to end the partisan Party system and just elect those we feel will do the best job?
by Raven West, J.D.
(libertarian)
Friday, May 1, 2009

After receiving thousands of emails from protesting swine, the World Health Organization announced they were changing the name of Swine Flu to Influenza A-H1N1. The politically correct organization swiftly changed the name of the flu to a less offensive, more scientifically correct moniker. However, whether or not one is afflicted with Swine Flue, or Influenza A-H1N1, the symptoms are exactly the same. A flu, by any other name, would feel the same.

So it is with political parties. The news of Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party spread through the media faster than the above mentioned flu. Most of the reports are speculating that the only reason for his sudden switch is to insure he'll win his sixth term next year, as a Democrat. Does that mean Specter's political views have changed, or is he an elephant in a donkey suit?
 
What exactly did Arlen Specter do to change his status from Republican to Democrat? Did he move his office across the hall? Throw away all those little elephants and replace them with jack-asses , I mean donkeys?

It is a well known fact that a third party designated candidate has little orno no chance of being elected to Congress, let alone the Presidency.
Candidates jump party ships once they recognize their ship is sinking and eagerly climb aboard the one with the strongest sails, leaving their political principles and ideals, along with their former constituents, to sink slowly into the west.

It's hard to stand up for what you believe in, when the deck you're standing up on is sinking. Those who feel it is more important to win an election, even if it means compromising their principles, are nothing more than self-serving cowards who would rather abandon ship.

Ron Paul was a Republican, then he defected to the Libertarian Party when they asked him to be their candidate for President in 1988. After he lost the election, (no great surprise) he returned to the Republican Party so he could be elected to Congress. Whatever his political philosophy, he knew that he could never accomplish any change in government unless he were in a position of power, and the only way to gain entrance into that exclusive club called Congress, was to return to a major political party. Then, instead of coming out in favor of either the Libertarian Party or Republican Party candidate, he backed the nominee of the Constitution Party.

So, does that make Ron Paul a Constiliberican? One can only imagine what their logo would look like!

Yet with all Paul's Internet coverage, the money bombs, the revolutionary ideas of smaller government, lower taxes and individual liberty, the Republican Party electorate chose someone else. And they lost.

Political party lines are continually blurred. It someone is pro-choice, but is also totally against gun control, two opposing issues on any one political party platform, what box do they check on their registration? There is a growing trend for people to check "American Independent", not knowing that it's also is a political party.

So, what would happen if there were no parties? No us against them, no cute logos or animals to wear on a t-shirt. There would be no sides to choose, no labels such as liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. No giant political machine steering the direction of the country, one way or the other.

What if we only elected individuals with ideas similar to our own? What if we could elect those who have the intelligence, experience and ability to balance all the many ideologies under one umbrella, and not have to jump ship every time their Party starts sailing into rougher waters?

Then we would know our candidates as people, not platforms. We would know how they stand on important issues and what they think, independent of what their Party tells them. They would win or lose their election based solely on these issues, not the box they checked on the voter registration form, or what floor their office was located. Then perhaps, politicians such as Arlen Specter and Ron Paul wouldn't have to keep changing the color of their ties in order to remain in office.

What if they threw a Party and no one came?

©2009 Raven West, J.D., all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, May 1, 2009
Last modified: Friday, May 1, 2009

The views expressed in this article are those of Raven West, J.D. only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Raven West, J.D. 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 Raven West, J.D. of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.

More Articles By Raven West, J.D.

Reader Comments:

Posted By: David S
Date: 2009-05-01 15:15:15

"Is it time to end the partisan Party system and just elect those we feel will do the best job?"

I would say that's long overdue. But unfortunately the American people will only elect Ds or Rs and maybe the occasional socialist.

Report violation

Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-05-01 17:39:00

Dear Raven -

My sentiments exactly.  I had been registered with the Republican party, and wasn't tempted to change in '08 with RP running, but when I had to make a decision myself?  

Obviously I understand why voters would belong to either party, but as a candidate I couldnt live with myself as a candidate for the failed Duopoly!

Jake

Report violation

Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-05-01 23:43:24

Hi Raven West,

  I agree with the sentiment.  The reality is that we have a two party system.  If you could wave a magic wand to end it, without changing the constitution it will return in the first election cycle.  The constitution defines the rules of the game; political parties form to increase the odds of control of the government .  The two-party system is a naturally occuring pattern based on the rules in the Constitution for how our elections will operate.  

Political power and results cannot be created with a magic wand or by an occasional self-created martyr on a pedestal of principle.  The only way to achieve political results is through coalition building.  Our election rules create the necessity for coalitions to be formed prior to an election, thus, two powerful parties are inevitable.  Israel's election rules necessitate coalition forming after an election so a multitude of sub-parties is the natural power play in their politics.

There are certainly pros and cons of each system.  I'll leave that debate to the academic navel-gazers.

Our reality is that two dominant parties exist and will continue to exist.  There isn't going to be a mass moment of unity to disband them spontaneously.  Political parties are powerful and dangerous tools that can shape the future of mankind, for good or for bad.  It is naive to think that no one will use these tools just because some people get disgusted and walk away.  

In US politics there are only two choices,:

1. Fight to control what kinds of candidates are produced by a political party

or

2.  Leave that job to your enemies.

Discussion of other considerations is  just self-marginalizing rationalization aimed at avoiding the necessary work and responsibilities associated with aligning ones actions with their stated goals.  Grandstanding.  Ego-stroking.  Whatever the right word is, it has nothing to do with pursuing results.

Ron Paul stands as the ultimate role model.  His being a Republican is the MOST important aspect of anything Ron Paul symbolizes yet still many of his fans refuse to give up ego-stroking self-marginalization and take up Dr. Paul's example.  To me that is a strong indication that we are nowhere near the kind of Revolution the die hard Paul fans think they are creating.  It is a sad, sad illusion. So much potential, so little understanding of the relationship between actions and consequences.

-Jahfre Fire Eater

Report violation

Posted By: Robin Westmiller
Date: 2009-05-02 11:29:59

 " The constitution defines the rules of the game;:"
  
In fact, the Constitution does not even mention political parties. Political parties just happened; and, even after 22 amendments, political parties remained outside the purview of our Constitution.
 
However, Thomas Jefferson understood that Politics naturally divides people when he stated "Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. 
 

Report violation