America - Party or No Party
Our current two
party political system would have been discouraged by the founding fathers. They did not like the idea of parties
and the political battles created from them. In George Washington's Farewell Address, he warned that "factions" (parties)
were likely "to become potent engines by which . . . unprincipled men will
be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the
reins of government." James
Madison said that
parties were "much more disposed to vex and oppress each other
than to co-operate for their common good."
Alexander Hamilton in
the federalist papers said that " nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit
which has, at all times, characterized political parties." Thomas
Jefferson declared in
1789, "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there
at all."
Based on the founders’
comments, I contend that the America of today can do much better without them.
History:
In 1787,
the Federalist Papers were published. Approved of by men like Alexander
Hamilton and John Adams, the federalist papers were written to advance the idea
that the government should be broader and more powerful. The two main reasons
were so that the states could protect themselves against foreign enemies and concentrate
an efficient treasury into one spot to pay off old war debts. At that time the
revolutionary war had seen its soldiers dispersed to their states, while debt
was not being paid back, not to mention the confusion from many types of currency
being circulated.
The mantle of
"Federalist" was hung upon those in favor of the federalist papers,
and thus the first party was born. The anti-federalists (like Thomas Jefferson
and Patrick Henry) feared an overreaching government. Patrick Henry wrote
strongly against the federalist view. The concern was that individual rights
would be trampled upon - religious liberty, property rights, etc.
With the two
groups and their views circulating through the states, it was determined that congress
should amend the articles of confederation into a new constitution. In 1787, to create this new constitution, a summer-long event in Philadelphia consisted of
private (and lively) meetings between delegates from each state.
The federalists
went over each issue point by point and ruled the day, ultimately persuading
the majority of skeptics to adopt and sign the constitution. It had to be sent
back to the states for ratification and was ultimately approved...with the
assurance that a Bill of Rights would be forthcoming to satisfy the
anti-federalists.
The evolution of parties:
(See the link
below for a visual chart.)
The Federalists
and Anti-federalist eventually merged after the war of 1812 into the Democratic
Republican party...a period known as the "Era of Good Feelings".
Those "good feelings" vanished around 1824 and split into two
different groups. First, an emerging National Republican party, which never
fully gained ground until it, the Federalists, and the short lived Anti-masonic
party formed into the Whig party. Second was the Democratic Republican party, which Andrew
Jackson originally ran on, but opted for the new name Democratic party.
The Whigs was a
term borrowed from the English who abhorred royal tyranny and used to represent
their displeasure of Jackson's authoritarian presidency. In the 1840's the
Whigs saw their party intruded upon by the Liberty party (later Free-soil
party), and the Know Nothing party (later American party). By the late 1850's,
Slavery and expansion into western territories split apart both the
abolitionist Democrats and northern Whigs into the Republican party. There was
a brief moment for the Democratic party to join with the Liberal Republican party
in 1872, but for the most part the Democratic and Republican party stayed separate
until today. In 1875 the Greenback party was created but dissolved into the
Populist party, which lasted until the election of 1908. The Prohibition party
and socialist party ran through the 1920's and 1930's respectively. In the
1970's the Libertarian party came to life, along with the Green and Reform
parties in the 1990's, but the two remaining major political groups today are the
Republican and Democratic parties.
Today:
1 Current polls
show the lowest approval rating of our representatives in history. Time and again there are
procedural blocks or an all or nothing approach to governing. It seems
that Madison was correct to say that the common good is less important than a
party's own self interests.
2 The efficiency
of finding a candidate using parties is functional but with flaws. Although political parties are effective at finding a particular candidate, there are limits to the prospects of other choice candidates. In other words, there are many more qualified people available that cannot become viable candidates.
3 Campaign finance reforms were put into law to reduce corruption through influence via money. But without going into an additional article, it can be safely said that mischievous funding has continued to find its way regardless of these reforms.
3 Campaign finance reforms were put into law to reduce corruption through influence via money. But without going into an additional article, it can be safely said that mischievous funding has continued to find its way regardless of these reforms.
4 The party
system may be effective in mobilizing voters, but this mobilization also
creates an affiliation that is difficult to cross. There have been numerous
times that a person in one party may disagree with colleagues and yet is forced
to stay the party line.
In essence,
political parties today have become burdensome, self focused, and at times
corrupt. And in the end a huge majority of the population is dissatisfied with
the results. It's no wonder that the founders had good reason to be skeptical
of parties, thus never mentioning them in the constitution.
Solution:
The simple
answer is to eliminate parties altogether. Many would say that it would be too
complicated to find a candidate and organize politics, but I disagree. Just because we have something doesn't mean we have to keep it...especially something inferior.
Finding a
politician is as easy as looking out your front door. Millions of good men and
women stand ready to answer the call if only they were recognized. With
technology at our fingertips, we no longer have to send letters and notices at
a snail's pace.
Voting can be conducted
quickly on a local level through the internet to find the best possible
candidate.
The first stage would be the use of the internet to hold a primary
for a slotted number of people for state offices. Next would be a Secondary, to
allow a select number of candidates from each state for national offices.
Finally, a Tertiary level would be the last step in selection of the president
of the United States.
As a
rule, the higher the office, the longer the process. But as the candidates move
up through the primaries, the process becomes less intense, because candidates
will be weaned out by the time they reach the national level. A limit of a few
candidates could be determined for each stage. And without parties, Americans
can decide on the merits of the individual rather than the party affiliation.
There will
still be special interest groups, all vying for a place with the candidates.
But in the long run, Americans will be able to choose the candidates with the
greatest representation of values and ideals that match their own.
Sub-groups called caucuses in
congress will continue to be harboring special interests. But they will be made
up of moral and intellectual concepts of the districts rather
than party affiliation. Fore example, rural interests in New York may agree with rural interests in Texas. These sub-groups of congress will have to work together
not as a party but as members truly representing the desires of the people that elected them.
In the end, this
is a case where zero is greater than any sum. A no party system keeps social
conformity (also known as groupthink) out of politics and allows members free
to speak their minds for the good of those they represent. This means that
"We The People" have a larger voice in government and ultimately a
better representation for the American people.
Political
Parties
