The Two-Party System and Its Irrational Government Crisis
The sad and shameful spectacle recently provoked by the budget dispute between President Obama and the Senate on one side, and the House of Representatives on the other side has not only discredited the current American political system and the nation itself, but has also put in serious doubt the viability of the traditional and dominant two-party political system.
The increasingly huge difference in ideological positions of Republican extremist groups and Democrats closes the door to any possibility of a bi-partisan understanding, creating an alarming political paralysis and causing a serious government crisis, whose consequences are just beginning to be felt.
The problem is both sides are adopting inflexible demagogic positions with the sole purpose of discrediting the opponent and trying to impose their own agenda, regardless of the damage they may cause to the very people they have sworn to defend. That political monopoly—never contemplated in the founding of the republic, but resulting from an evolving political process, and until recently with the approval of the electorate itself—has simply distorted and ridiculed the United States’ until recently admirable political system.
It’s appropriate then, to question whether this irrational situation will emerge strengthening the self-styled independent vote—some estimate that it accounts for up to 25 percent of the voters—completely disillusioned with the current offerings, and, as a result, try to achieve a new balance of forces in the fatal parliamentary status quo. Poll after poll shows record low approval levels of the government and how the country is run—18 percent approval according to a recent Gallup survey. Similarly, a close examination by WSJ/NBC indicates that only 17 percent of the population believes that the country is headed in the right direction. The Washington Post highlights a recent study that states “the need of a third force has reached new extremes,” reinforcing the urgency of an independent legislative option that would avoid the potential political-economic collapse that the two-party system is leading us into and from which we will all leave seriously harmed.
Of course, throughout more than 200 years of Republican existence, the failed attempts at creating a moderate alternative are abundant, but partisan polarization has never been so apparent nor so irrational as it is now, nor has the forecast for future modification been so pessimistic.
In general, attempts have failed by focusing too much on controversial and specific topics—Ralph Nader’s Green agenda, Perot’s economic nationalism, Pat Buchanan’s isolationism policies, George Wallace and Strong Thurmond’s pro-segregation policies, etc.—and not enough on topics that are of interest to the entire electoral spectrum—economy, national debt, immigration reform, health, electoral and tax, and so on. The result has been that, with the exception of Ross Perot who achieved 18.6 percent of the votes in 1992, other attempts have resulted in miniscule percentages that have no possibility of influencing or altering the bi-partisan monopolistic agenda.
Without a doubt, the obstacles to supporting an alternative to the two-party system are numerous and difficult to overcome. To begin an electoral reform, the “winner takes all” system would need to be substituted by a proportional representation system that would expand participation in the presidential debates and above all else would make the system of campaign financing more balanced.
For the Hispanic community, given their alignment with moderate positions of both parties, finding and supporting independent leaders who share such positions would considerably improve the chances of finally achieving the immigration reform which the current two-party system has denied over and over again and has threatened to postpone indefinitely. The community and the country at large will have this great opportunity in 2014.
The increasingly huge difference in ideological positions of Republican extremist groups and Democrats closes the door to any possibility of a bi-partisan understanding, creating an alarming political paralysis and causing a serious government crisis, whose consequences are just beginning to be felt.
The problem is both sides are adopting inflexible demagogic positions with the sole purpose of discrediting the opponent and trying to impose their own agenda, regardless of the damage they may cause to the very people they have sworn to defend. That political monopoly—never contemplated in the founding of the republic, but resulting from an evolving political process, and until recently with the approval of the electorate itself—has simply distorted and ridiculed the United States’ until recently admirable political system.
It’s appropriate then, to question whether this irrational situation will emerge strengthening the self-styled independent vote—some estimate that it accounts for up to 25 percent of the voters—completely disillusioned with the current offerings, and, as a result, try to achieve a new balance of forces in the fatal parliamentary status quo. Poll after poll shows record low approval levels of the government and how the country is run—18 percent approval according to a recent Gallup survey. Similarly, a close examination by WSJ/NBC indicates that only 17 percent of the population believes that the country is headed in the right direction. The Washington Post highlights a recent study that states “the need of a third force has reached new extremes,” reinforcing the urgency of an independent legislative option that would avoid the potential political-economic collapse that the two-party system is leading us into and from which we will all leave seriously harmed.
Of course, throughout more than 200 years of Republican existence, the failed attempts at creating a moderate alternative are abundant, but partisan polarization has never been so apparent nor so irrational as it is now, nor has the forecast for future modification been so pessimistic.
In general, attempts have failed by focusing too much on controversial and specific topics—Ralph Nader’s Green agenda, Perot’s economic nationalism, Pat Buchanan’s isolationism policies, George Wallace and Strong Thurmond’s pro-segregation policies, etc.—and not enough on topics that are of interest to the entire electoral spectrum—economy, national debt, immigration reform, health, electoral and tax, and so on. The result has been that, with the exception of Ross Perot who achieved 18.6 percent of the votes in 1992, other attempts have resulted in miniscule percentages that have no possibility of influencing or altering the bi-partisan monopolistic agenda.
Without a doubt, the obstacles to supporting an alternative to the two-party system are numerous and difficult to overcome. To begin an electoral reform, the “winner takes all” system would need to be substituted by a proportional representation system that would expand participation in the presidential debates and above all else would make the system of campaign financing more balanced.
For the Hispanic community, given their alignment with moderate positions of both parties, finding and supporting independent leaders who share such positions would considerably improve the chances of finally achieving the immigration reform which the current two-party system has denied over and over again and has threatened to postpone indefinitely. The community and the country at large will have this great opportunity in 2014.
Next article![]( "On NSA Spying: The United States Must Abide by \"Village Rules\"")
