_____  

From: 
Subject: 

 

 

 

By Woody Smith
 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Two-is-the-RIGHT-number-of-by-Woody-Smith-
081219-289.html> Two Is The RIGHT Number Of Political Parties.
A defense of the two-party system based on the fact that society is
politically divided into two basic parts, the property owners and the
workers.

 

 


 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Two-is-the-RIGHT-number-of-by-Woody-Smith-
081219-289.html> Two is the RIGHT number of political parties.

by Woody Smith <http://www.opednews.com/author/author7247.html>      Page 1
of 1 page(s) 

www.opednews.com

                

Occasionally I read articles (most recently one by Edip Yuksel here on
OpEdNews) and submissions to various websites decrying our two-party system.
These people seem to be highly aggrieved by how seldom anyone other than
Democrats or Republicans ever get elected in the United States.  They see
this as a dreadful shortcoming in our system of government, and tend to
blame this relative dearth of what they view as "diversity" for many of the
woes we as a society suffer.

This tends to make me chuckle.  It usually comes from Greens, Naderites or
"Libertarians," hoping to build support for some system that might give the
parties to whom they give their political allegiance a better chance to win
elections somehow.  Most of these people are still pretty young and
therefore they think that they have some path to absolute truth that us
geezers, in our willful blindness, fail to comprehend.  They tend, with some
but not enough reason, to view the Democratic and Republican parties as
being Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, equally corrupt, equally beholden to
corporate interests, and equally ineffective in implementing a government of
the People, by the People, and for the People, as Abe Lincoln so eloquently
praised in his Gettysburg Address.

Of course, they ignore the significant differences between our two parties,
differences that should be readily apparent after viewing the outcomes of
our two most recent administrations, the first Democratic and the second
Republican.  The first left us with a stunning budgetary surplus, a strong
dollar, full employment, prosperous, in a position of technological,
economic, industrial, military, political and moral leadership throughout
the entire world, and at a level of peace that had never before been seen on
our planet since Lucy the australopithecine walked alone in the vales of
Kenya (and probably not then, either), while the other resulted in economic
ruin, with record deficits, a crumbling infrastructure, a rapidly shrinking
industrial base, a frayed social structure, the target of international
terrorism, our influence waning, our dollar failing, and America as a pariah
nation fighting two hopeless wars far away.  Yes, there are major
differences between our two parties, if the "proof-o'-the-puddin'" is any
indication.

But what really makes me laugh is the notion that somehow a proliferation of
minor political parties will solve, or at least mitigate, some of the
problems that we face.  It isn't like multiple party systems haven't been
tried before in places like Italy and Israel, which have parliamentary forms
of government specifically designed to permit the forming of ruling
coalitions.  It's just that they never really work.  Italy has been a mess
since the fall of Mussolini, and Israel has never known anything but war and
its internal politics is marred by internecine strife that makes our
squabbles seem like friendly cooperation by comparison. 



Of course, we are only a two-party system in a de facto sense.  Officially,
we are a multi-party system with a wide variety of political parties, many
of whose candidates appear on our ballots to the extent that they become
confusing to voters.  It's just that two of these parties are significantly
stronger than the others.  As I shall explain below, this is how it should
be.

All stable democracies since the invention by the Greeks of democracy itself
have been two-party systems.  This is because the whole of any democratic
society falls into two overarching political divisions, one whose sustenance
is obtained by the fruits of their labors and the other whose livelihood is
derived from their ownership of property.  These two divisions have been
represented, respectively, by the Demokrats and the Oligarchs in Greece, the
Plebeians and the Patricians in Rome, the Whigs/Liberals/Labour and the
Tories in England, and the Jeffersonians/Democrats vs. the
Federalists/Whigs/Republicans here in the United States.  It is the peasant
vs. the aristocrat, the worker vs. the owner, and this is how it has always
been and how it always shall be.

Republicans, at least the Republican party leaders, recognize this line that
divides our society.  They have fought hard for their natural constituents,
the fatcats among us, with a clear purpose, without compunction,
interruption or hesitation.  They continue to do so.  Every action of theirs
makes sense when weighed on the scale of class interest.  Think about their
opposition to the automaker bailout.  They oppose it because they see
bankruptcy as a way to strike a blow against unions, and so they prefer that
our Big Three take that path and to hell with the UAW.

Unions are the biggest threat to the ruling prerogatives of the aristocratic
class.  Unless workers band together, they can always be easily subjugated
by dealing as powerful forces against powerless individuals.  When workers
DO band together for a common cause, however, their unified power places
them beyond the aristocrats' control.

Unfortunately, Democrats, both in the party leadership and in the
rank-and-file, do not recognize this primary political division, a division
that exists in all but the most comprehensively authoritarian societies.
Most Democrats, even among our leadership, regard politics as being about
specific issues like civil rights, or health care, or the environment, or
budgets, or taxes, or war, or other limited aspects of our overall society.
And of course it IS about those things when we speak of governmental
policies. But political parties represent something greater, something much
broader of which these things are merely hoped-for results of programs that
are devised in service to the working class.

This compartmentalized view of politics that infects Democratic Party
affairs permits the Republicans to practice a divide and conquer strategy,
paring away portions of our natural constituencies by appealing to emotions
like fear and bigotry ("War on Terrorism," anti-immigration), by accenting
parochialism (opposition by southern senators to the auto bailout;
resentment of the "academic elite"), by exploiting religious prejudices
(abortion, "family values"), by pandering to greed (anti-taxation), and by
harping on a particularly jingoistic brand of patriotism based less on this
nation's interests than on simpleminded arrogance.

If the Democratic Party would wake up to its actual identity, which is as
the party that represents workers and the families of workers, then there
would not be these periodic pushes for additional parties.  There is a
yearning on the part of many Americans for a political party that genuinely
stands up for them, and the Democratic Party has, at least in part, lost its
way in this regard.  This gives rise to a sort of political balkanization
where a party will be created to represent a position on a specific issue,
like the Greens for environmental protection, the Naderites for consumer
protection, the Libertarians to oppose the more culturally oppressive
aspects of our society, etc. etc. etc.

The problem here is that, whenever a third party movement gains any
strength, that strength is subtracted from whatever party most closely
represents the views of the new party.  Greens took many environmentalist
votes away from Democrats, just as the Libertarians took liberty-loving
votes away in the '60s before they really lost their way -- now they take
away mainly the stoners from the Democratic ranks.

So third parties tend to help the party that represents aristocratic
interests, which in the United States is the Republican party, as they
balkanize the various interests within the working class that should be
supporting Democratic candidates.  Their proliferation even in a
parliamentary system leads to instability and ineffectiveness; in a system
like ours it leads to discarded votes and distorted election outcomes, and
turns right-wing losers into election victors.

Third parties are NOT the answer.  Setting the Democratic party back on
track is the answer.  It will be good for America and good for the Democrats
politically because, after all, the Republicans only represent the true
interests of somewhere between 0.5% and 2% of the American population, and
the Democratic Party represents the rest of us.  98-2 wins most elections
(except maybe in Florida).

The answer, by the way, is genuine campaign finance reform, including an
absolute prohibition of private campaign contributions from any and all
sources.  Our campaigns should be fully and exclusively funded by the
Treasury, advertising time should be donated by the licensed broadcasters in
equal amounts, transportation should be provided by licensed common
carriers, and any contribution should be regarded as the bribery it is.

Perhaps then one of our parties will be able to appeal to the needs of the
workers, who make up the vast majority of the voters but who are seldom in
position to purchase influence and access to policymakers via the campaign
contribution route. 

 

www.bareknuckles.org

I've worked with computers since 1978.  I helped to author the original
version of the anti-virus application that evolved through various
iterations to the larded-up-to-the-point-of-total-uselessness monstrosity
now known as McAfee (more...
<http://www.opednews.com/author/author7247.html> )

 

 

 

 

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet
Browser. Please check  <http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr> http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr
for more real news posts and support the truth! (sorry but don't have time
to email all posts) free book download:
<http://www.lulu.com/content/165077> http://www.lulu.com/content/165077  ***
Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only.
***  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They
may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
recourse, nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of
this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955
Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody &
satire & are all intended for entertainment and amusement only. To be
removed from the weekly list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"

 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"total_truth_sciences" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to