The rise to prominence of two major political parties in America was likely a development the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned. They certainly wouldn't be able to fathom how the system has evolved over the years, particularly considering the influence that special interests and other elements of society have brought to bear on the two major parties. However, the original intent of the founding fathers is still relevant today.
Because of decentralization, there are a myriad of entities within a political party acting in concert at times, but for the most part acting independently at the local, state and national levels. Heterogeneity explains the broad diversity found amongst the populace, and the pulse of the people dictates the agendas of the major parties, specifically during the election cycle.
One observation I would like to make in regard to the two major parties is this. If we accept the premise that the main objective of the major parties is to win elections, then logic suggests that they would do or say anything to achieve this goal. They will engage in relentless pandering towards a wide variety of demographics, then conveniently forget whatever promises or concessions were made after the election concludes.
As far as the state of both parties after the recent election, the Democrats seem to be much healthier than the Republicans for obvious reasons. The McCain campaign was an unmitigated disaster, and their rhetoric rings hollow and is rather outdated. I suppose they were doomed anyway because of the economy and the completely justified link between Bush and McCain. Whatever the reasons, there is a massive power vacuum in the Republican Party that needs to be filled and will therefore determine the future direction of the party. I , for one, am amused by their current struggles.
"They will engage in relentless pandering towards a wide variety of demographics, then conveniently forget whatever promises or concessions were made after the election concludes."
ReplyDeleteNot quite. They might need to hold to promises in order to try and get re-elected. I'd imagine that presidents after GHWBush are quite wary of making say no new taxes pledges.
While I certainly agree that the primary goal of political parties may be to win election or retain control/power, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that they do this via pandering immediately followed by uber-convenient amnesia as far as their campaign “promises” or concessions go. Do we see everything a politician campaigns for come to fruition? Of course not, however these promises cannot simply be dismissed or cast aside after winning an election (whatever election that may be) without seriously jeopardizing a politician’s likelihood of remaining in office or being re-elected (which, remember, is the ultimate goal). Decentralization (and our internet-savvy world) means that the public is not merely pandered to with wholly empty promises for the sake of the “process” of it all. Decentralization means that public opinion matters, not exclusively, but it does matter!
ReplyDeleteThough the framers took specific action to prevent the influence of faction in our government, I don't feel that the two party system would have come as much of a shock to them. At the very time of the ratification, America's political culture was dominated by two opposing groups of ideologues: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. These two camps may have ushered in the party-system we see today, all at a time when factionism(?) was the hot button issue. If two parties could survive in that environment, they'll survive forever. Well, that's a little hyperbolist, but you know what I mean.
ReplyDelete