In America’s modern political landscape, the presence of the two main political parties (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party) is a defining aspect of how our government is run. Both parties seem automatically attracted to the opposite side of their opponents; in fact, the reaction that the majority of America seems to have when senators and representatives cross the aisle to get work done in washington is either one of complete amazement or outrage.
Congressmen are often afraid of not coming off as conservative or liberal enough for their party. Without their party’s backing it becomes difficult to raise the funds and garner enough votes to retain their position. The political parties have (in my own opinion) prevented our politicians from doing the job they were meant to do. Instead of serving the interests of their constituents, they are serving the interests of their party.
We have seen many examples of this throughout the last few years. Most recently we’ve seen Democrats attack [1] (while Republicans applaud) Democrats who voice opposition to healthcare reform. Meanwhile Republicans are angered by the actions of Senator Olympia Snowe [2] and is championed by Democrats. Both sides are open to bipartisanship, provided that it’s the opposition party that comes over to their side.
Despite general acceptance of the political system as it currently stands, I feel comfortable criticizing the effects that political parties have on American politics because I stand in the company of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and George Washington.
In his farewell address, George Washington warned Americans of the dangers of political parties. He states, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” [3] He goes on to warn that political parties also open the country to the influence of foreign nations.
Rousseau also attacks the idea of political parties in On the Social Contract in Book II, Chapter III. Rousseau is addressing whether or not the general will can err. Rousseau states, “…when intrigues and partial associations come into being at the expense of the large association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members and particular in relations to the state… the differences become less numerous and yield a result that is less general… the result is no longer a general will, and the opinion that dominates is merely a private opinion.” [4] In other words, because politicians are representing the interests of the party instead of the interests of their districts and states, what happens in the government is determined by the interests of two entities instead of the interests of the entire nation.
Rousseau, Washington, and I agree when it comes to political parties. What are your thoughts?
Footnotes:
- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09315/1012505-473.stm
- http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/is-snowe-popular-enough-in-maine-to-withstand-anger-from-the-right.php
- http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
- On the Social Contract Book II, Chapter III (pages 437 and 438 in our textbook)
*Bonus Link*
I thought some people might like this, since professor brought it up in lecture:
Political parties were invented to reduce the effects of individual fighting and personal attacks. The main flaw with our system seems to be that we only have two parties. Each party tries to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible, in order to get as many votes as it can, and eventually stands for nothing, at least nothing different than the other party. Both of our parties stand for roughly the same things (for example, Republicans aiding Big Business and Democrats doing the same) and both blame the other side for not getting done what in reality neither of them actually wants to get done.
While parties do clearly have a use in society, it is unclear whether or not they are a good thing for our culture. They largely shape the way in which people think and make it easier for individuals to be active in politics without exerting a particularly large amount of effort. However, they also group ideologies together. For example, they essentially state that for someone to run with the democratic party, they must be both pro-choice and pro-gun control. Despite this, what happens if there is someone who shares one of those opinions with the majority of democrats, but not the other? How do they participate in politics? Furthermore, political parties have created a strict dichotomy between the beliefs of people in the country. As a result, beliefs are generally polarized, and so the country is deeply divided on essentially every major issue facing the country today.
When people that have similar ideas meet together they end up leaving with even stronger beliefs or ideas. Polarizing beliefs often occur, and many people on the outside feel that they cannot relate. The current system may be flawed, but unfortunately I do not see it going anywhere in the immediate future.
What seems to me to be the problem is the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have become so huge that other, smaller parties, which may have just as much if not more to offer in the ways of innovation, ideas, and headway for our country are being drowned out by the sounds of Democrats and Republicans. For example, in the last election, the fact that both an African American man and a woman were running gained much publicity. However, the nominee from the much smaller Green Party, Cynthia McKinney, who is both African American and a woman, received little to no media attention. What could this woman have offered to our country, both in the ways of nationwide progress (she ran on a platform of “single-payer universal health care, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, reparations for African Americans, and the creation of a Department of Peace”, according to Wikipedia), and social/historical progress as an amalgamation of the two “controversial” types of people that ran? Because the Republican and Democratic parties are as huge and all-powerful as they are, and because she did not compromise her platform to conform to that of the Dems or Repubs, we may never know.
Even though the two parties may seem to have some flaws, they have led this country since the beginning. This country is considered the number one country in the world and it, i think, arguably has the most stable government in the world. Through the policies made by the politicians of the two parties this country has grown from a little powerless country to the strongest country in the world.
i think one of the main problems with the US that formed these political parties is the “Winner takes all” system. The fact that no small parties can really have a significant say in government as a whole just discourages small parties from forming. It also discourages individuals from voting for who or what they actually want, due to fear that their voice will not be heard. Washington, though he warned against political factions was around when the statutes that led to the formation of a two party system were created so he had the option of fighting more fervently against him (not that it would have made much of a difference). The other thing is that the modern political parties are much more in agreement with each other than political parties were in the past, which is what washington and Rousseau would be worried about if they were around.
I think that political parties are a good, they generally distinguish separate beliefs. However, a common misconception is that the parties each hold consistently different beliefs. This misconception brings about a problem with political parties. Many people vote based strictly upon party affiliation even if they are totally against what they are voting for. People need to take responsibility and learn about things they are voting for or they should not vote at all. Like Kant, I think that people need to be autonomous and make well informed decisions. The problem with political parties starts when people become, as Kant puts it, “lazy.”
Section 003
I think that political parties are a good idea, they generally establish differences in political views. However, a common misconception is that the parties consistently hold different views. This misconception can lead to a problem with political parties. Many people start to vote based solely upon what party they affiliate with, even if what they are voting for is not what they actually believe in. Like Kant, I believe that people need to be autonomous and make well informed decisions. Voting based upon party affiliation is not autonomous, it would be, as Kant would say, “lazy.” The political parties should be viewed as guidelines, not definite answers.
I would agree as well, but more so because I think that the domination of two main political parties prohibit diversity in opinion and creativity. This is probably a modern concern due to the fact that American political parties are normally discussed as either the right or the left. In order for someone to have a better chance at being elected into office, they must align themselves with a party, and with it, the party’s values and ideas. In a way this is unproductive, especially because if you look at those who think that they are “far right” and “far left,” one finds that those people actually have the same opinions but for different reasons. I also think that the two party political system decreases creativity because we are fearful of parting from the group. This also halts productivity because we refuse to discuss with other people because they are either left or right and there is no gray area for open discussion.
Its not so much that political parties are a bad thing, or a hindrance to our government; I think its that most people have share a few beliefs with one party (like their opinion on health care, gay marriage, or any number of things) and those few beliefs decide their party. And this leads to voting along party lines no matter what. People get lazy and will vote Democrat or Republican simply because it is easier than figuring out who they truly agree with.
This is why having a two-party system can be less effectual than a multiple-party system, like other democracies throughout the world.
I think political parties have caused some corruption in the political process, you mentioned that representatives favor party lines as opposed to needs of constituents, but they do make the process easier. The candidates that represent these parties have generally similar views. For example, many democratic candidates support social reform and many republicans support stricter spending. I think when it comes to voting, having political parties keeps people involved because they allow people to vote for candidates in positions they may not have researched (such as city commissioner) and can put some trust in. I don’t think it is right for representatives to criticize party members strictly for having opposing ideas, but I think identifying with a party allows people with similar beliefs to band together to get legislation passed, watch spending and reform society.
Political parties are simply a way for voters to immediately stereotype and bias a candidate as soon as they find out what political party they represent.
I also believe that Political Parties are not beneficial for this country, however the alternative forces every voter to be educated on where the candidate stands for each issue. Its much easier for people to make assumptions as soon as they hear a party affiliation then it is for them to research on the candidate themselves. Ideal for this country, but not likely to happen anytime soon.
India, the largest democracy int he world, has dozens of prominent political parties that vie for leadership every election. I believe this gives the voter a broader spectrum of choice, and forces them to find where each individual stands on each issue, rather than it being such a black and white assumption.
While I do agree that parties have become extremely polarized and may not be beneficial to us as much presently as they were intended to be, I believe that way in which the writer used Rousseau’s argument was not the way it was intended to be used either. I would argue that Rousseau is not all that against political parties, because he believes that autonomy is freedom. The idea of having autonomy is essentially that the laws someone is bound by are laws of their own making. Rousseau as well as Kant view having autonomy as having political freedom. This is because the laws were essentially of the people’s making, because they were created by those the people elected and put into power. They believe the laws express the will of the people who are to be bound by them, because their votes were the foundation for the law to come into being. I believe that what Rousseau meant by “intrigues” or “partial associations” can be equated to our modern day factions. In Rousseau’s writing he refers to these as “private wills.” Because both the politicians and the factions are using each other to achieve what they want, the medium through which it is done is the political party. The faction will support the party and the candidate, in turn for the candidate to see to it that his party looks out for the interests of the faction. Rousseau reasons that “We always want what is good for us, but we do not always see what it is.” This could actually be an argument in favor of political parties because a large party would be better for protecting against the “will of all” and instead looking out for the “general will” which he considers to “always be good.” I think Rousseau’s critique would not be on the general idea of political parties, but on how they could become because he realizes there is so much potential for corruption, abuse, and being able to stray from original intentions.
Great post. I’ve been saying that for awhile, and its only been made more obvious with the healthcare debacle. Politicians and candidates don’t need a party dictating what they should support, the people being represented should decide that. Everyone is raised differently and has their own set of ideals. Attempting to sort the values of the melting pot that is America into two rigid groups is oversimplification at its finest. Different regions should elect candidates that represent their own distinct beliefs and concerns instead of following the career politicians in Washington pursuing their own agendas. Needless to say, a change will never happen. There is too much power and money tied into American politics and, more importantly, a highly indifferent population. Less than 60% of the voting age population turned out in last year’s presidential election, and that was the highest in forty years. Despite Washington’s warning, political parties have become part of America’s culture.
I kind of disagree with you a little bit on this subject. Honestly, I don’t think that the two parties are really that different. I think as a whole, Americans share a general consensus on many different topics, it’s just the way to act on those things that people have different opinions on. For instance, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people in America would say that we need healthcare reform, education should be better, people should have jobs…etc. However, the two parties arise when we look for a way to reform healtcare or fund education. I think that will always naturally happen and I think if there weren’t any political parties then not as much would get done becaue of a lack of support…
Perhaps political parties may be slowly on their way out. The last few elections have shown the importance of independent voters, and many politicians (Snowe being a prominent example) are comfortable with breaking party dogmas. We may never great rid of them entirely, but maybe they will decline in influence in the coming decades.
I am a strong believer in American politics, electoral process and governing. With this being said, my complaint is the control of the two main political parties. During the previous presidential campaigns, democrat and republican candidates made all the headlines, that candidates of smaller parties, such as Ron Paul, are unable to get their views out to the public. I can’t think of a good alternative, the democrat and republican party are too entrenched in America for other parties to contend. I find myself confused on the issue of parties for this reason. While i feel that they are representative and have worked well for more than 200 years, they have started to limit less popular minority parties’ platforms.