Defending the Party System
I haven’t taken the opportunity to rant about the elections or the candidates, and although we’re still about six weeks out (I’m pretty sure this election has been going on for at least 5 years), My buddy Bitner’s recent election post and some good commentary I heard on the radio got me thinking.
I’ve got a good friend who fancies himself something of an independent. He maintains that he thinks it’s more important to vote for the person he thinks is best qualified for the job, regardless of party lines. This is a pretty common mentality and is all well and good for some people, and I’m sure that there are a good many who are sincere.
But I personally think that a lot of people like to claim that level of independence for two reasons: 1) They’re really conservatives but it seems like everyone around them is a liberal; claiming to be a liberal would make them throw up in their mouths, but they don’t want to be written off as ignorant (common liberal-to-conservative attack) or otherwise stigmatized by their liberal friends. 2) On some level they’ve convinced themselves that the party system is evil. These are the folks who don’t like being pigeonholed or made to feel like they’re being pigeonholed. In the end, if they even decide to vote, they’ll probably do so with one party or the other the vast majority of the time. They just won’t register with the party and thereby avoid the accompanying phone calls and letters soliciting donations. Good for them.
The bottom line is this, and allow me to dust off my political science degree to explain: the party system isn’t as big of an evil as it’s sometimes hip to act like it is. Specifics of the way our legislative and executive election process are designed contribute to a two-party only system. As such, each party represents a myriad of interests, none of which apply to every member thereof. Although this can provide some frustration as no one elected official seems to harmonize exactly with your interests at any one time, I suggest that it should be embraced for the convenience that it is.
For example, the relative strengths and weaknesses of Obama’s or McCain’s character is fun to talk about and can do a lot to inspire or deflate the enthusiasm of lukewarm voters. But it’s largely irrelevant to the policies they will be able to enact, for two reasons: 1) Who runs Congress is a vastly underrated question when it comes to domestic policy. Ask Slick Willy how easy it was for him to get things done under Newt’s regime. And 2) Once Mr. Personality motivates the right amount of voters to get him or her elected, Mr. Personality becomes, quite simply, Mr. President and, with few exceptions, acts like most other presidents of their party would under the same set of circumstances.
So don’t hate on parties. I’ve had a couple of buddies and family members say that this election boils down to which candidate will do the least amount of damage for the next 4 years. Cynical, yes, but that’s probably a pretty good summation. In the end, I think you’ll answer that question by picking the one who belongs to the party that, generally, has a coalition of values, special interests, and platforms that most align themselves with your viewpoint. Isn’t that about the best you can ask for in a president?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Interesting perspective. Can you elaborate on the perceived convenience of the party system?
Speaking of a "coalition of values", how do you feel about the (impossible, I know) case of the US adopting a proportional representation/coalition-style parliamentary government? Would that bolster party "convenience", perhaps at the cost of institutional checks/balances, and lead to less "strategic" and more transparent political dialog?
I personally find the idea of US coalition government to be very enticing, especially in the face of social flux/strain created by an accelerating degree of culturally-disruptive technological advancements, and global economic challenges.
Wow. You're really making me bust out the tweed jacket with the leather elbow patches on that one. Don't make me get the bow-tie out. Since my notes got fried with my hard drive, I'll try to remember my Comparative Government class as best as possible.
So to elaborate on the convenience of the party system, in my opinion it mostly has to do with the way the average voter treats politics generally and becomes more convenient as the size of the constituency increases. Joe and Jane Voter don't typically have the time to think about every single issue out there, or if they do, the relative importance those issues have for them fluctuates with time and circumstance. (Remember when the economy was good and everyone cared about the environment? Remember how that dropped when the housing bubble burst? Following Gallup's info on that sort of thing in lieu of national events is a good read.) A party, then, allows you to not have to make a decision regarding every issue on a party's platform. Instead, you pick the party that most aligns with what your priorities are and remain happily apathetic about those things that aren't. In short, you pick your poison and temper that with a knowledge of how limited the President really is in going too extreme one way or the other and bank on your local officials to more truly represent more of your interests.
With regards to going to a proportional representation system, I'd probably put out there that the net effect is really not that different than what we have now, but it would appear so on the face. For example, you'd probably have some party-splitting on racial, religious, or socio-economic status lines (i.e. Democrats split into Hollywood, "StuffWhitePeopleLike.com" factions v. ethnic minority factions, Republicans split into Southern Christian Right and fiscally conservative factions.) You'd end up with some shuffling, but the thing about multi-party systems is that they end up having to make coalitions with each other and sacrificing some of their core values in order to unite and gain enough majority to get anything done.
I suspect that, were that the case, not only would you get a similar alignment to Republican/Democrat, especially on domestic affairs, but you'd also end up with similar levels of contentment or discontentment with government in either scenario. I'm not sure if we'd feel like our government was any more responsive or attuned to our priorities, but it could have the benefit of helping us feel a bit better about our local reps. Besides, what we feel that we lack in satisfaction with our parties we typically make up for in special interest groups that we become members of.
We do have to remember something, and I'm asking you to indulge me here, because this might seem a bit outrageous at first. We Americans really don't disagree on that much. It seems like we do because our minorities our loud and because we feel passionately about those things upon which we do disagree, but we really don't. I mean, we have to keep in perspective that the right wing factions in other countries (even in democracies) tend towards the nationalistic/fascist variety while that left tends towards the communist. We're not arguing over values so much as the proper execution of those values in government. I don't think that Republicans who oppose Affirmative Action do so because they are bigots and don't believe in notions of equality any more than I believe that Democrats are typically okay with higher taxes because they want our government to be Socialist/Communist. If you step back from the rhetoric for a minute, I think you'll see that's true.
BRAVO!!! ENCORE!!!
Chris- the last paragraph of your comment is dead on. It is interesting that you mention a social view of Republicans but an economic view of Democrats. The inverse of that (conservative economics and liberal social policy) would be the party I would be most eager to join, but alas, Democrats want in my pocket and Republicans want in my bedroom.
Thanks for your thorough and interesting response.
I see what you mean by convenience, and I agree the parties provide that value. However I still find the implications of that a little troubling. The cost of that convenience is a simplified understanding of political issues and governmental mechanics, entrusting the party with your political welfare, and a more adversarial political culture.
Rather than embracing that, I would rather see a more conversational culture that relies less on ideological resolve and more on ideological synthesis and construction. A lot of the problem I see is rooted in the erosion of seeing the "other side" as having any form of rationality or logic. If we start every conversation with the acknowledgment that there is some kind of logic or rationality to the opposing view, then we are setting ourselves up to discuss things in terms of the deeper issues and motives, which I believe to be far more constructive and humane. This is much in the same spirit as acknowledging that we have more in common with people of opposing views than we might first think. And I blame what has become of the party system for much of this dehumanized political culture.
How do we get to that point? I couldn't say for sure =)
As for the same Republican/Democrat lines forming in a coalition system, I would say that very possible, but still speculative. I get the feeling that a lot of Democrats don't feel big government or hands-on economics are ideal. As do I get the feeling that lots of Republicans are becoming more amenable to social change. A number of stabilizing forces prevent these groups from organizing and sustaining themselves, but I think one of the biggest is an educational misunderstanding by the general public that the Democratic and Republican parties are institutionalized in our government itself.
You have an interesting blog in general. Good to know you're doing well.
Great post and commentary. You should do this kind of thing more often. I learned a lot.
Post a Comment