All the King's Horses
columnist: Patrick Saint James

Topic: Politics
A Third Party will not be allowed in the US... yet

---

America's lauded two-party system has evolved into a truly rigid institution, one that may have already reached its sell-by-date. Rather than being a real bona fide choice of alternatives, the modern "Democrat vs Republican" offering has become a one dimensional, 'Hobson's Choice'.

---

by Patrick Saint James
(libertarian)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The current "Democrat vs Republican" two-party system was never officially imposed on the American people, nor are the American people bound to it by their Constitutional framework. This reminds me of an old saying, "In the end, Americans get the government they deserve."

We have witnessed some very strong support for the Libertarian, Constitutionalist and Green Parties. The merits of these parties' policies are clearly outlined in their manifestos and resonate with a number of voters.  But many active, educated and well-meaning Americans still maintain that such a move would be "ineffective" and that we must "be realistic" and "work within the two-party system if we expect to make a difference". On the whole, the electorate have simply chosen not to risk supporting any parties that fall outside Democrat and Republican lines. Why? Some say it's simply an American cultural characteristic: a fear of not being on the "winning side". 

And how about the manifestos of the Democratic and Republican parties? Well, no one actually knows where they stand on anything right now. The currency of both parties' manifestos are found in their abilities to be as vague as possible on policy, avoid economics at all costs and to revise numerous 'talking points' on an hourly basis. No joy there.

The reality is that a successful third party run, ala Ross Perot, is almost impossible in the United States. There are three main reasons for this absence of a third, or even a forth party on US political landscape.

The first reason for the two-party system is cultural. Americans are now bound to it as a cultural institution, and like any cultural institution, its architecture is set and will naturally resist any change. For most Americans, it's simply easy and does not require any real thinking or innovation.  The danger here is that the scope of the current two-party system will almost certainly become even more narrow over time.  

The second reason is a practical one. After examination, you will quickly find that America's two-party system is fairly well-rigged against any new or independent party activities, particularly on a national level. For starters, you have obvious problems with the Electoral College and state caususes, a system of king-making where all power is consolidated within the Democrat and Republican state committees. Both the voter registration and candidate eligibility processes are fraught with difficulties for third parties. Even today, in many states, if you are not registered as a Democrat or a Republican, you are officially classed as an "Undecided" or "Independent". To a voter this means that in most states, you cannot participate at all in the Presidential primary electoral process- a clear case of discrimination... or even disenfranchisement?  As a potential candidate, a third party means that in most states, you cannot even get on to the ballot! On top of this, campaign finance and finance laws are difficult for third parties. Added to the fact that you will not be included in any major scientific polls, the chief drivers of any successful political campaign... and you can see the tip of this slippery iceberg. 

The third reason is the media. When it comes to media coverage, the situation can only be classed as dire. In the present US 2008 Presidential Election, no one can argue that outside of the media's top three favorite candidates on either side on the two-party coin, all other candidates, Democrat, Republican or otherwise, are given no real media coverage. In the most predictable of all dog and pony shows, year in and year out, the mainstream media pre-pick their favorites, leaving the fabled "Free and Objective Press" trapped within the fantasy realm. This has been glaringly obvious in the 2008 GOP Primaries, where networks like FOX and NBC would actually discount some popular runners from their own staged TV national debates. Those who did not make it on those debates, would remain virtually unknown to the general populace.

One GOP candidate, Congressman Ron Paul (TX), only received a fraction of the mainstream media's valuable air time, as major networks chose instead to throw their backing behind other runners, some of whom would eventually drop out of the race- in this case, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Despite repeated censorship and discrimination, Ron Paul still continues to post impressive numbers, moving forward as the 3rd place GOP candidate- exposing the media's damaging inability to spot who are the true front runners. Many pundits have speculated about Congressman Paul's chances at an Independent run in the General Election next fall, although Paul's campaign maintains that they will not deviate from the Republican line. A daunting prospect for anyone.

Certainly, this chronic handicap on the part of the media signals that it struggles to serves the democratic process in the US, if only for its entertainment value...

Now this comparison may seem a little harsh at first, but look carefully. We do have the largest government in the history of the US now, and with it, comes some of the trappings of a real super-state. That includes a compliant media. By nature, the centralized, corporate-controlled media in America has become almost identical in function to the Soviet-style, state controlled model, one that is simply unable to deviate from strict party lines. Maintain the status quo. There is no question, that at this end of the American democratic system, it mirrors the Russian-Soviet media model, completely rigged, and in the end, utterly bland.

Bare in mind that with the current Bush government is experiencing the lowest approval ratings in the history of the republic and its dead-end foreign policy of multiple, endless overseas wars, the day of mass disenchantment could actually become a reality. Should the government somehow "overstep"  the fine line on which it is currently treading, large portions of the electorate could be driven away from the monopoly of the two-party system, defecting to a more meaningful enterprise. 

At the time, many Americans were unaware at the significance of the fact that for four long years, a Neoconservative Republican apparatus held control of every major branch of the Federal government- the Executive and Judicial branches, the Congress and the Senate. Clearly, the founders did not envisage this when designing their 'checks and balances'- that one party could maintain such an iron grip on the country's domestic and foreign policies.

In reality, when a political and governmental apparatus does not offer any real choice.... it's a officially a super-state. In this way... and here comes that harsh comparison again... the two-party system will begin  to resemble a Chinese or Soviet-style controlled system, whereby, voters go to the polls and are presented with the one choice. The only difference between the Soviet model of elections and America today is that instead of one party- you get two... but those two are now virtually the same.

Institutionally marginalized by a locked-down system, and you can begin to suspect why other parties do not stand a chance in the democracy which is the United States today.

So here we are,  the United States in 2008, a playng field where big money, expensive commissioned polling and big media coverage determine all major election outcomes, and at the top-tier, one can hardly tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans. What we see and hear so much of today in American politics, 'Left vs. Right' or 'Democrat vs. Republican', are essentially two false paradigms spun into action. No longer can we tell the difference between the two; no longer can we rely on predictable 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' policy behaviors. Witness how successive Bush Republicans have grown their  supersocialist governments to unprecidented levels, and see how 'Pro-War' Democrats in Congress have funded the colonial occupation of Iraq to a tune exceeding $200 Billion since last year. Confused? A bit.

And what about the upper echelons of the ideological pyramid? It's now so culturally ingrained in today's political and governmental spectrum- a very centralized affair controlled by a ruling elite, and wholly unable to accommodate any serious opposition to it. The late Georgetown Professor and CFR elitist of note, Dr Carroll Quigley, outlined his support for this false paradigm in his famous book "Tragedy and Hope". Quigley illustrates, "The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shift in policy." In short, where there is no real choice, it's easier to rule.

For the last century and a half, America's noted two-party system has not evolved into anything beyond a one dimensional concentration of homogenous power, a homogenized system that has probably reached its sell-by-date. Rather than being a real bona fide choice of alternatives, the modern "Democrat vs. Republican" offering is just a one dimensional 'Hobson's Choice'.

A Constitutional Republic is never guaranteed by governments, only by the people. Third parties and new ideas could definately play a positive role in reshaping and improving the American political landscape.

So take a good long look at this system we have today. Do you like what you see? Should it be reformed, or should we just leave it the way it is... and hope for the best? Well, you certainly could. In the end, you get the government you deserve.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
15 thumbs so far

©2008 Patrick Saint James, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, February 14, 2009

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