Washington Matters
Time to End theTwo-Party System?
More politicians -- and more voters -- are feeling out of place in either the Democratic or Republican Party.
By Mark Willen, Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
April 22, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
In just a few days, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will have to make a fateful decision -- whether to abandon his fight for the GOP Senate nomination and seek election as an independent. A lifelong Republican considered for the vice presidential nomination and once seen as GOP presidential prospect, Crist has fallen far behind conservative challenger Marco Rubio in the primary. Though Crist’s GOP credentials were once unchallenged, his embrace of President Obama’s stimulus money (and of Obama himself in a now fateful photo) has made him the target of Tea Party activists.
In Arizona, meanwhile, former presidential candidate John McCain is fighting for his political life against a more conservative primary challenger, ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth. In an effort to move to the right, McCain now denies the maverick label he once championed, says he made a mistake in voting for the 2008 financial bailout, and no longer supports a comprehensive immigration bill. Just last week he went so far as to accuse illegal immigrants of “intentionally crashing cars on the freeway” in an interview on Fox. (I guess he thinks they’re eager to be arrested by Arizona police, who will soon be newly empowered to put illegal immigrants in jail.)
In Utah, GOP Sen. Bob Bennett, whose conservative credentials go back decades, is under attack for voting for the financial bailout and for cosponsoring a bipartisan alternative to President Obama’s health care bill. He may well lose his state’s primary.
Republicans are feeling the heat more than Democrats because of the rise of the Tea Party, most of whose members are registered Republicans, and because of long established conservative groups like the Club for Growth. But Democrats are hardly immune. They’re under attack for divergences from a strict party line. Ark. Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a tough primary because of her lack of enthusiasm for the health care law and other Obama initiatives. And in North Carolina, no fewer than three Democratic incumbents are being challenged by labor unions unhappy with their refusal to vote with the Democratic majority.
What’s odd is that the two parties are being pushed further left and right, despite the fact that a big majority of Americans put themselves in the middle. In fact, Obama won the election in 2008 by appealing to the middle and promising to govern from the center. Liberal Democrats complain that he’s lived up to that promise, making too many compromises they don’t like. Conservative Republicans insist he’s so radical that he’s pushing the U.S. into socialism.
I tend to believe Obama is seeking the center, with the stimulus and health care bills being prime examples. The stimulus was half the size he originally sought (many economists still think bigger would have been better), and he dropped the public option and made scores of other compromises on the health care bill. I’m sure the comments to this post will say I’m crazy -- that Obama is so far left he’s un-American -- but that will just prove my point.
The tendency toward extreme political views is only growing stronger, in part because the media make a lot of money by pushing it. It’s not a coincidence that half of Tea Party members (in a recent NYT/CBS poll) get most of their “news” from Fox while liberals get theirs from MSNBC. As National Journal’s Charlie Cook noted this week in a column aptly headlined “Home of the Whopper,” commentators on both sides have become very skilled at twisting selected facts to “prove” their presumptions. Unlike the old days (20 years ago), when most Americans read or listened to journalists who at least tried to be objective in giving people facts so they could draw their own conclusions, today’s cable commentators and Web sites give too many people arguments to support the conclusions they already believe in.
That leaves the silent middle with nowhere to go and, worse, no representation in the political arena.
But that will be hard to come by in the foreseeable future. If Charlie Crist runs as an independent, he’ll probably lose, in part because he won’t have the machinery and money. Nate Silver makes a strong case for that today, and in the process explains why it’s so hard for any third party candidate to make any headway. Unless or until we do that, it’ll only get worse.
The only way to change that is to create a new party (a big and long-term challenge) or for the silent middle to speak up -- and to vote. The reason so many moderates face tough primary elections is that primaries are dominated by hard-core party members.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy



Reader Comments (74)
Posted by: Clint Zupancic at 04/22/2010 04:15:50 PM
No sir. You are wrong. The reason voters are moving left or right is because there are socialists (left) who are not satisfied with not enough entitlements that someone else pays for with their freedom...and self reliant capitalists who know that "moderate" is a code word for "moving to the left". Being left or right is about winning sir! The "moderates" are tired of not winning...because they lose their freedom or they do not get more entitlements.
Posted by: Jessie at 04/22/2010 07:09:02 PM
The problem is that Obama has turned the Democratic party into the socialist party. He's not even an American.
Posted by: Drew at 04/23/2010 10:03:04 AM
Hey look, the author called it. First two comments claim Obama is "too far left". Let's hope they are just filled with a lot of sarcasm. Clint - This isn't a high school football game. Stop thinking that keeping together a whole nation means that you have to be right and everyone else must be wrong. You will HAVE to find compromise, understanding and workable solutions. Or do you like the prospect of becoming a nation of tribes battling for absolute control and no compromise - because, as you know, thats working so well in the middle east and africa... Jessie - And what exactly does it mean to be American? Is he not an American because he doesn't fit every last criteria of your limited view? Oh, and socialist Democratic party - thats very original. We should just agree that Republicans are fascists while we are at it. Because obviously if you want to help the masses who aren't fortunate (supposedly socialist and christian view point) but also don't want to overspend your income (supposedly republican) you must be a fool. If this country fails in any sense of the word. It's because the foolish populace of this country can't work together because of their ignorance, lack of community, and team pride. Political puppets cheering on your team while the stadium around you collapses. For the record, I'm not happy with all of Obama's choices. But for pity's sake, how can I listen to the Republican or Tea Party side when all they can muster is insults and fear. Act like an adult, and I'll listen. Because honestly I don't disagree with some of the core ideas.
Posted by: Ed at 04/23/2010 12:38:56 PM
I'm one who no longer claims either party. The far left and far right are both too radical. I stand on the sideline and vote for each individual person, regardless of their party. I especially dislike politicians who vote strictly by party lines.
Posted by: Kent at 04/23/2010 12:40:31 PM
“It is time that the great center of our people, those who reject the violence and unreasonableness of both the extreme right and the extreme left ... shed their intimidated silence and declared their consciences.” Margaret Chase Smith
Posted by: Nomen at 04/23/2010 12:41:28 PM
What's really going on???? Step back and look. Divide and conquer works as well now as it did thousands of years ago. Create as much misinformation and chaos as possible. Make every truth a half truth. Our National strengths of belief, unity, nationalism and patriotism are being replaced by liberal and conservative lies along with diversity training under the masquerade that it is progress and good. All for the global economy. Just wait for the global wage and standard of living. Until then, the two party system is just a puppet show to distract us.
Posted by: In total AGREEMENT at 04/23/2010 01:37:26 PM
I am in total agreement with your article! I am your 'middle'! I am a registered independent and would love to have an alternative candidate to the two party system that I could vote for and feel as though I was not 'throwing my vote away'! I voted for Obama because he represented the middle, and for the most part I have been happy with what he has done so far. I read alot of the political articles and I am never surprised to hear the same old retoric over and over from both the liberals and the conservatives in the comments. I hear little from the vast majority of us...middle members. Even I rarely speak up....I just shake my head and go back to work. It is a shame that we feel so powerless. The system has failed us and I would love to know what the fix is.
Posted by: gaz2inf at 04/23/2010 03:00:52 PM
It is high time for this country to rebuke the crazies on the left and the right. A centrist party of moderates is long overdue. It will take courage from those running and the middle of the road gang to get vocal, show up, open their check books and insist that special interests stay out of their political business. They also need an open primary system that allows the voters, not party insiders to pick their candidates. The moderate electorate is far more sensible than party insiders and their picks may well drag this country out of its doldrums for the long term.
Posted by: JD at 04/23/2010 03:38:52 PM
The two party system is a false demon. It's a consequence, not a cause. There are inevitably two main positions on any issue, and the same people tend to align with the same positions on multiple issues. We've seen parties dissolve and new ones arise before, and the result is always the same - we settle into two. And this makes sense. Our problems will not be solved by creating a new party - it will either fail or be rolled into or replace an existing party.
Posted by: Bob at 04/23/2010 05:32:02 PM
The simple solution would be to outlaw political parties and impose term limits(12 years maximum). Have an open public primary and let the top two have a run off at taxpayer expense. Allow only one month to campaign and no private donations. Lobbyists should not be allowed to give money(bribes) or special favors(trips,etc.) to any elected official. Our whole system has been corrupted by career politicians and so much special interest money buying the results. Also, no revolving door between government jobs and the businesses that they regulate. No judges should be appointed for life either.
Posted by: S at 04/23/2010 07:15:02 PM
"It’s not a coincidence that half of Tea Party members (in a recent NYT/CBS poll) get most of their “news” from Fox while liberals get theirs from MSNBC." Yeah, but one those networks calls themselves "fair and balanced".
Posted by: Dan at 04/23/2010 07:29:24 PM
Mr. Willen, have you picked up a copy of the NY times or the Washington Post lately? Have you listened to the evening news on NBC owned by GE who was a heavy contributor to the Obama campaign? ABC and CBS are only mildly less slanted. These "news" sources are practically advertising agencies for Obama. You choose to spread the same falsehoods as the media and the administration. There are no journalists anymore. You are all sellouts. America is sick and tired of this dead weight government on our backs. Centrist and bi-partisan are merely code words for "we are jointly stealing your money." Do us a favor, go get an honest job.
Posted by: bill lees at 04/23/2010 07:39:29 PM
The demopublicans only represent special interests.The people got lost in the shuffle somewhere between the photo opps and sound bites.
Posted by: Conservative Liiberal at 04/24/2010 03:26:48 AM
I stopped reading after the first "He's not even an american" line read. You guys need a new one, that one is old.
Posted by: Joe T at 04/24/2010 04:51:46 AM
Amazing how possessed of forethought our founding fathers were. George Washington himself was against the party system in American government and politics, believing it would only lead to corruption and weakening of the federal government's ability to govern effectively and in the best interest of its citizens. The past few decades of this country's history are more than adequate proof of his worst fears in the party system becoming realized. Even at a time when we have a president more willing to govern from the center than many of his predecessors, Washington and most of the country have become so wrapped up in its partisan politics and special interests that little comes from it that has not been tainted by this divisive nature. The two parties have become so certain that their vision is what is best for the people and what they want that they often forget to actually ask the people. The so-called "Tea Part"y has only served to polarize issues further and inject them with greater misdirected anger and fear without actually adding anything constructive or productive to the process. One of the subjects that so many people in this country do poorly in is History, and when the lessons and hardships of our own country's history are not learned and heeded, we are bound to continually repeat them.
Posted by: anushrut at 04/24/2010 06:01:02 AM
this cartoon says the same thing : www.packetlog.com/packetlog/2007/11/once-upon-a-tim.html
Posted by: Realist at 04/24/2010 06:16:53 AM
I think George Washington agrees I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. The problem isn't having 2 parties, its having parties at all.
Posted by: JJ at 04/24/2010 06:50:12 AM
Hey come on. Both Democrats and Republicans are extreme right parties.
Posted by: freeman at 04/24/2010 07:01:36 AM
"Code word" is a code phrase for "I don't want to think for myself".
Posted by: Dweeb at 04/24/2010 07:48:39 AM
There are already a number of alternative political parties in the US. In fact, if there's one thing Democratic and Republican lawmakers agree on, it's that those parties must be stopped at all costs. They have made it nearly impossible for alternative candidates to even appear on ballots in most states.
Posted by: CoconutMonkey at 04/24/2010 07:51:51 AM
Okay, I think you've established that both parties aren't accurately representing their constituents enough. Now here come the questions: -What would a major 3rd party's platform actually be? -Who would be a good fit for it now (i.e. defectors)?
Posted by: Massimo at 04/24/2010 08:00:09 AM
When I look at both left and right in America, they seem to be scared of anybody with an intellect, that's why we get these muppets in power, voters hate smart people. This anti-intellectualism is taking America to third world status, let's face it the last administration almost did the job single handedly, Obama is continuing this mess, and god forbid if we get president Palin, she's practically illiterate. America needs a third party, ruled by rationale, intellect and common sense before it's too late.
Posted by: George Woods at 04/24/2010 08:52:30 AM
This might be one of worst headlines I have read in a while for a story. We will never abandon our two-party system. This is not an issue of ideology, but rather an issue of the structure of US elections. A multi-party system is a reality in many governments, but this is only possible when you have a system like party-list proportional representation. This is not to say that we are stuck with the same old republicans and democrats for all eternity. Parties have changed in the past. The problem is that more than two parties can only exist for a short period of time and it will quickly fall back to two parties. Given this "two part"y certainty, it is not surprising that they tend towards polarized and opposite positions. I would agree with Mr. Willen that the parties are becoming more extreme. I would argue that this is occurring because of each perceiving a weakness of their base. Republicans are going to vote republican and democrats will vote democrats. In the past, there has been a desire to court swing voters. These current trends are working from the idea that you can win an election simply be energizing your base. i.e. If you can get republicans really excited, they will vote in such strong numbers that you can win. This actually makes sense.
Posted by: Jason at 04/24/2010 08:57:51 AM
In all that we spend and kill in the name of Democracy....let me ask you one question. How many more choices for Presdient do we have than the N. Korean's have for Emporerer? Give up.....1. We have either Republican or Democrat.... The system is designed to keep it that way - don't believe me, then spend a few minutes learning about our electoral system. We need to get rid of ALL requirements for a party to run in any election....and then we need some REAL journalism...not turn news into entertainment for profits....
Posted by: No, It's The Electoral College, Baby at 04/24/2010 09:31:42 AM
I'm also an independent voter, but not so naive as to think a third party can ever gain serious traction: A two-party system is largely mandated because of the Electoral College process as detailed in the Constitution. Because one candidate has to win a majority of the Electoral College votes to win the Presidency, and because almost all states are winner-take-all, a third party has almost zero chance of winning the electoral votes in most states, let alone in a majority of them. Consider Perot's effort, where he got 20% or so of t he popular vote, but zero electoral college votes. 20% in each state nets you zero chance of winning a Presidency. Without a chance at taking the White House, a third party will be underfunded and insufficiently popular to have any serious chances against the other two parties in any given state. You may get a few outlying cases, but on the whole, third party candidates have no chance. Ultimately it's the competition between the two parties that produces the middle ground results. More problems occur when one party controls everything (either party). Better is to vote for checks and balances by voting bi-partisan: See www.aburt.com/checks-balances.ht
Posted by: eric at 04/24/2010 09:32:13 AM
The people will be the ones ultimately to take the country back from politicians of both parties. The U.S. has been losing its identity over time and drifting toward a european entitlement - top down system. There are no moderate politicians on either side, a so called moderate republican votes with the democrats on occasion and a so called moderate democrat votes in lock step with the party line whomever has the strongest pull, now it is far left. Survey says that 40% of americans are conservative while 20% are liberal, looks like there is no representation here.
Posted by: Dorian at 04/24/2010 10:23:06 AM
I hate both parties equally. One is controlled by state-worshiping lawyers, and the other is controlled by Ayn Rand-worshiping libertarian grifters, who are also lawyers. What really needs to be examined is how lawyers have inflated their own importance in the government to the point where everything, every national issue, is bifurcated and given entirely to one side or the other. We'll never get anywhere until the plaintiff v. defendant mentality is done away with. I say, ban lawyers from public office, and impose strict term limits. Public office should be a public duty, not a career for lawyers.
Posted by: Chad at 04/24/2010 10:28:04 AM
It's time to end the party system period. The elected person is supposed to represent the people.
Posted by: raul at 04/24/2010 10:29:13 AM
JD at 04/23/2010 03:38:52 PM There are inevitably two main positions on any issue... JD, do you mean "for" or "against"? That is so much not true! It is a mind limited in its ability or willingness to think rationally that makes it appear so.
Posted by: Storm Boris at 04/24/2010 10:37:39 AM
Ah, it's that self-righteous time of the year. The point you forget to mention is that the only reason Obama has passed bipartisan peaces of legislation is due to the difficulties he has had in passing his liberal legislation. The original, Keynesian's dream stimulus Obama wanted to pass couldn't get through congress, so he was forced to bring it to the center. The same is true for health care. The only reason it looks like we will have a tough finance bill is due to the political costs associated with the republicans (once again) standing up for wall street.
Posted by: Howard Brazee at 04/24/2010 10:48:54 AM
A big problem with more parties is that it increases the chances for an extremist party to gain power with a less-than-majority vote. It happened with Hitler.
Posted by: Alex at 04/24/2010 10:50:39 AM
The far left and the far right are the ones that make the most noise and are the ones that make the infotainment based nightly news and web sites. Looked at wholistically the country, for better or worse, leans just to the right on fiscal and foriegn policy issues and slighty to the left on social issues. More and more I find my self gravitating to one extreme or the other based on which political group, right or left, managed to make me the angriest on any given day. Unfortunately for the left, they've been making me the angriest with their fiscal and foriegn policies, more so than the right on social issues. Both have been scoring equally well in the lunacy department, which is why we see a Tea Party, a Coffee Party and why Christ, who has been dancing in the middle and doing well during his tenure as Governor finds himself fighting for poitical survival. Unfortunaely for Christ I will likely vote for Rubio if only to provide some balance to the what has lately been a very left leaning national agenda and likely vote farther to the right in the midterms as well...
Posted by: Neosopheus at 04/24/2010 11:02:08 AM
Enough of the "Obama is not an American" rhetoric. It is old and tired and if that is the best you have got then you might as well keep quiet. In 1929, when the stock market crashed, the gap between the rich and the poor was the highest it had ever been. And what resulted from the crash? Social Security in 1935 because a great many average, working class Americans lost and never recovered a great deal of their wealth. Now fast forward about 70 years and we have history repeating itself. The gap between the rich and the poor is now the highest it has ever been. Now what has come out of it? Another "social" program that has the right up in arms. I think it is fair to say that our system is inherently stacked in favor of the wealthy. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money. I am not in favor of socialism, but surely many of you can agree that something needs to be done to level the playing field and stop concentrating the wealth into the hands of a few.
Posted by: Jack at 04/24/2010 12:00:44 PM
Just because Crist changes to an independent doesn't mean I would vote for him. He is bought and paid for just like the rest of our politicians. And Dick Cheney giving Rubio an endorsement automatically knocks him out as a candidate for me. It's not until we get the corruption politicians out of the system and have quality candidate that really do care about the people that we will see change. I mean there are so many resources online to check up on a candidate running for office, yet people go in there and vote for who their friend told them to or because they have the best TV commercial. It's so sad, cause I think we are screwed.
Posted by: GL at 04/24/2010 12:02:38 PM
The 3rd Party already exists!!! It's called the Libertarian Party!! Look it up and understand that the Tea Party is really the Libertarian Party in disguise. Screw Socialism in the US and in the World. There is nothing more important the freedom. And giving up freedom in exchange for the lie of "economic or physical securit"y is the ULTIMATE DECEPTION. Regain control of our monetary creation and our national spending.
Posted by: hs at 04/24/2010 12:12:59 PM
There's a lot of truth to what the author says. I'm no Obama fan, but it is clear he gets a lot of criticism for trying to compromise. Is he too far left? That's opinion, as much of politics are. However, I think what the author says is true - both the right and left have their beliefs and aren't open to compromise. Both sides basically feel they are right, period. Politicians who try to govern from the middle generally aren't successful because they don't make either side happy. If we get away from the "I have to have it all" mentality and give and take a little, it would go a long ways to making progress. In fact, the people who say the author is wrong, just proves his point.
Posted by: Approve! at 04/24/2010 12:27:29 PM
Fix it and much more with approval voting. www.approvalvoting.org bit.ly/aveBaI
Posted by: illthoughts at 04/24/2010 12:33:10 PM
We do need other alternatives. Republicans and Democrats stick to their guns like Bloods and Crips. A republican would dare say that he might agree with Dem on a certain issue because he will be demonized for it.(Charlie Crist) We have political figures yelling and screaming about issues that they don"t even believe in just so they can keep their jobs. Rethuglicans don't want to work with Obama on any issue because they want to win the next election. Homocrats are too soft at times to go with their agenda almost like they're afraid of the RED. This doesn't help our country when you argue and fight like gang members instead of responsible adults. I don't see myself as neither, I vote on the individual. Like Chris Rock says " there's some things that I'm conservative about and there's some things I'm liberal about". A comedian making more sense than the rest of the world.
Posted by: Mike at 04/24/2010 01:25:46 PM
I find it sad when people choose parties like they choose sports teams. They just cheer for their party no matter what. In sports it is fine to cheer for a bad team, I am a Knicks fan, have been for years even though they have been terrible for a long time now. No harm in that. In politics however, supporting a party no matter what is dangerous. You end up electing officials who go directly against your ideals, and then you end up trying to defend their actions, despite their obvious hypocrisy. Both parties do it- Clinton- This guy laid the framework for the financial crisis by signing into law the repealing of Glass-Steagall act. No liberal would ever repeal the very act that protected us from failing banks. As Molly Ivins once said- only a Republican would be dumb enough to think that Clinton was a liberal. Bush- No President has ever gone on such a large military campaign without raising taxes of some sort to pay for it. Also, Republicans are against nation-building as a whole, Bush even said this multiple times during the 2001 election. But Bush gets into office, spends obscene amounts of money and decides to build two nations from the ground up. And just the other day I saw a bunch of tea bag protesters talking about how much they love Bush. Obama- Despite the ramblings of the far right, he just gave America pretty much the Republican answer to health care- mandated private insurance. There is nothing socialist about this bill. He also increased troops in Afghanistan. In all seriousness, I have no idea who the right wingers are talking about when they rail against Obama, politically speaking Obama is just a little more left wing than George HW Bush, who was essentially a pragmatic corporatist. To make things worse, we are presented with this false left-right paradigm. We are told that there are always two divergent views and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I call bullcrap on that one. Sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. For instance, a balanced budget is a great thing to have, and we should only have a deficit in the most rare of circumstances, the right wingers are right on that. Health care should be socialized, like the rest of the industrialized world, the lefties are correct on that issue. So I call complete BS on those people who claim that the truth is somewhere in between, because often times it is not. I fully support getting rid of the two party system, I want to see out politicians debate the issues on facts, not on party lines and talking points. It gets old real fast.
Posted by: John at 04/24/2010 01:28:27 PM
Thank you Clint and Jessie for being the quintessential ignorants who are helping drive this country apart on the basis of misinformation and frothing irrationality. Please, for once in your life pick up a book and actually understand the ideas you stand behind. I'm so tired of all this socialism crap. Socialism is a working class political movement, by definition it can only exist if brought about by the people. Frankly, the tea party would make great socialists. If you're going to criticize policies at least use proper terms that reflect their ideologies, like egalitarian. Hate to break it to you, but it's not even close to the skewed socialism you're thinking about. Now if you want to continue nursing Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck's teet of misinformation and fear mongering go ahead, but please don't come back until you have something substantially intelligent to say.
Posted by: Jordan at 04/24/2010 02:07:07 PM
no, sirs, you both are wrong! the real problem is the Republicans - socialists who decry all other socialists for not being their own kind. Who has increased military creation and spending the most historically? Who has increased welfare and Medicare spending the most? Who attacks and opposes all other values, morals, religions, and beliefs (other than so-called "Christian" moral values? REPUBLICANS! I repeat, Republicans! All of those programs and initiatives are Socialist, which one would know if they truly understood Socialism. Socialism is neither good or bad - it is way to a mean. Roads, police, military, medicare/caid, public transportation/water/'ANYTHING with "PUBLIC" in the name, are ALL aspects and policies impossible without SOCIALISM! Oh, and socialism is older than democracy, so in a way, democracy, the use of elected government making decisions, is a republican (representative govt, not party) style of socialism. Know what you are talking about before you speak, because you only embarrass yourselves, your states, your communities, and your NATION! (btw, i am a Socialist Catholic who believes in complete free-market of ideas, so i welcome any and ALL comments and critiques! please, the ability to argue whatever one thinks and believes is what makes this country the best on this planet)
Posted by: Randy Smith at 04/24/2010 02:13:46 PM
a pointless argument. the current 2-parties own the media which means any other party will get no coverage, which means of course they will get no votes.
Posted by: Dave at 04/24/2010 02:39:34 PM
"If this country fails in any sense of the word. It's because the foolish populace of this country can't work together because of their ignorance, lack of community, and team pride." This, my parents always voted Republican until 208, I consider myself a moderate, the first election I was eligible to vote in, I reelected Bush. The people I work with though listen to Rush Limbaugh all day long and seem to think that not enjoying him is a sign that I'm some raging liberal(lets go arrest Rove at a book signing!). All I hear when they turn the radio on is the same crazy arguments I heard from the 911 conspiracy theorists talking about Bush. Everything their opposition does is not only the wrong thing to do, its un-American and part of some plot to destroy the country. If that's what its going to be for the next few decades I might die from vomiting.
Posted by: Dave at 04/24/2010 02:40:23 PM
"If this country fails in any sense of the word. It's because the foolish populace of this country can't work together because of their ignorance, lack of community, and team pride." This, my parents always voted Republican until 2008, I consider myself a moderate, the first election I was eligible to vote in, I reelected Bush. The people I work with though listen to Rush Limbaugh all day long and seem to think that not enjoying him is a sign that I'm some raging liberal(lets go arrest Rove at a book signing!). All I hear when they turn the radio on is the same crazy arguments I heard from the 911 conspiracy theorists talking about Bush. Everything their opposition does is not only the wrong thing to do, its un-American and part of some plot to destroy the country. If that's what its going to be for the next few decades I might die from vomiting.
Posted by: Jake Long at 04/24/2010 03:07:03 PM
WOW....americans can be dumb!
Posted by: KillTheDumb at 04/24/2010 03:20:34 PM
One Obama is American, I've seen his birth cert. You can see it too, it's called google. Two Socialist party?? Do you even know what the means? You are all very very stupid!!
Posted by: MikeF at 04/24/2010 03:55:26 PM
The immigrants are intentionally crashing their cars to accuse the other driver and collect the insurance money, NOT to go to jail.
Posted by: Elliot at 04/24/2010 04:03:30 PM
Can the 6th grade rednecks who cant be bothered to open a political science textbook refrain from posting comments. Thank you
Posted by: andrew at 04/24/2010 04:16:23 PM
@ clint zupancic and jessie you are idiot
Posted by: Ambika at 04/24/2010 04:20:49 PM
Mr. Willen, I am curious as to your thoughts about the structure of the US political system. Any student of Political Science and American Politics learns that the rules and systems of voting laid out by the constitution (plurality victory, geographic representation) create a two party system. The Democrat-Republican two-party paradigm is not the first in our nations history, for example in the 1790s it was the Federalist-Republican paradigm. How does your cry for an end to the two-party system reconcile with the rules laid down by the founding fathers?
Posted by: GregH at 04/24/2010 06:40:00 PM
Third parties will naturally arise, but over time increasing the number of one-termers will rebalance the scale. The tragedy is we're always voting against rather than for!
Posted by: Angie at 04/24/2010 07:02:59 PM
I love you all. I do not like to use those two labels anymore.
Posted by: agebo at 04/24/2010 07:17:38 PM
I'm a Canadian, but I've been following American politics for quite a while. In Canada, we have four main parties, but pretty much two main parties depending on which province you live in. This shows that people need more choice; people need regional representation. What it seems like is happening in the US is instead of people being represented by their parties, they are being made to identify more and more heavily with their parties; they represent their parties as a statement about their values, instead of vice-versa. Without doubt, I'm positive that there are Democrats who, in other countries, would be socialists, and Republicans who, in other countries (in other times), would support fascism.
Posted by: David at 04/24/2010 07:46:11 PM
Duverger's Law: Majority voting system leads to 2 parties. Co'xs Law: District magnitude (i.e. M=1) has at most M+1 = 2 parties. Solution: Change the way we vote. Things that won't happen in the US: Change the way we vote. How do we change the way we vote? Amend the Constitution. Things that the US never does? Amend the Constitution. People who are in charge of amending the Constitution: The controlling parties. People who are content with being the only two parties: The controlling parties.
Posted by: Hector at 04/24/2010 08:08:06 PM
This article is stupid. There are already several different parties. From the green party to the libertarian party to plain old independents, there is no lack of parties. It's just that the system is set up so that a third party can never win. If you really want more parties to take power, the only way to do that is to completely change the American electoral system at federal, state and local levels from the ground up... And why would the two parties in power ever consider allowing that?
Posted by: Hector at 04/24/2010 08:13:30 PM
And you people talking about radical left and radical right have no idea what you're talking about. Today's democratic and republican parties are closer in philosophy than ever before. The dems just passed a healthcare bill that they opposed in 94 when Bob Dole proposed it and Romney instituted it in Massachusetts. Obama increased military funding is opening up more oil drilling and Bush bailed out the banks and gave prescription benefits to seniors. It's all the same difference, the only issue is who gets to claim they came up with the ideas. If a democrat sponsored it, the republicans will oppose it, and vice-versa. You sheeps need to stop buying the whole Fox versus MSNBC BS, in reality, both parties are competing like pepsi and coke, they both sell you cola, but they'll be damned if you don't think two different sides are competing for your dollars.
Posted by: ornithologist at 04/24/2010 08:34:27 PM
I have been telling People all over this Country for the Last 40 Years that the Two Party Sytem in this Country is actually DESTROYING This Country!! The Republicans are in Fact Democrats and the Democrats are actually Socialists!! WHY can,t ' Peoiple See this?? WE are so COMPLACENT in this Country! EVERY MAN WOMAN AND Child over the age of 10 MUST,By Law Read and COMPREHEND Our US COnstitution!! EVERTHING THAT THIS COUNTRY Does must be reviewed for its Constutionality. WE Must have at Least a ThirdParty and Even a Fourth Party! The Libertarians are too far to the Left But THe Tea Party is Looking like it has a Chance if it Can Separate Fact from Fiction.!! Does any of the Politicans Know how to REALLY Tell the Truth and Stand up for their Convictions?? The DEmocrats BLINDLY Follow the Party Lines IRREGARDLESS what they are,Good or Bad for the People of this cOuntry. The Republicans AUTOMATICALLY Vote against the Democrats Irregardless if it is INJURIOUS to the People of this Country!! So as a REsult NEITHER Party REALLY Cares about their Constituents Because they are At WAR Withe other Opposing Party!! THIS DEvisiveness is Literally Destroying This Country..
Posted by: Michael at 04/24/2010 08:51:10 PM
The two party system, many advertising strategies, and the manipulations of some religious advisors are likely tactics and vestiges of the reptile brain. The reptile brain reduces things down to their absolutes. It makes gross simplifications out of a range of possibility. Good or bad, heaven or hell, winner or loser! You are either with us or you’re against us. Politician’s avoidance of debates and especially the avoidance of the inclusion of third parties is reptile brain entrapment. However, If you’re about to plow into the back of a truck, its the reptile brain not a drawn out logical response and it’s contrapositive, that’s going to save you. So it does have it’s place. But I think it’s important to be self aware of where these thoughts are arising from. The current Republican way of thinking is primitive. It's reptilian and is going down like the American Indian went down. The more they fight it the more trouble they are going to have.
Posted by: Michael at 04/24/2010 08:53:41 PM
As long as the same monied interests continue to support both parties and third party candidates are denied access to forums such as debates, all of our emperors will continue to be naked. - Pete Seeger, musician (1919 - )
Posted by: Scott at 04/24/2010 10:29:32 PM
Saying we need to move away from a 2 party system is all well and good, but getting it done is significantly more difficult. Even when a third party does become a major political player, one of the parties will eventually drop out and we will be back to a two party system. This has happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. The problem is the way the US electoral system is set up. In a winner take all system, in which the candidate with the most votes wins, people are much more hesitant to vote for a third party because they will "throw away their vote". What we need to do is switch to a runoff system in which the only way to win is to get over 50% of the vote. If one candidate does not get 50%, then the one with the lowest vote total is forced to drop out and we vote again (or you could use an instant run-off system). This way, people will feel much more comfortable voting for a candidate who may not win because they can always recast their vote. The major problem is that the only people who can switch the electoral system are the same ones who profit from the current system. Why would you want to institute a new system if it means you will loose political power? Democrats? Republicans? Same crap, different pile.
Posted by: Scott at 04/24/2010 10:37:22 PM
oh yeah, and in my opinion, the reason why the parties are moving further left or right is partially because of the polarization of news coverage combined with the fact that people are more likely to get their news from only one news source. The other reason is gerrymandering. When you revamp the electoral map so that districts contain an electorate that tends to vote in one specific way (e.g., democrats redo the electoral map so that most republican voters are concentrated in one district, therefore making it easier to elect democratic candidates in other districts), extremism is rewarded.
Posted by: Jeffery at 04/25/2010 12:01:39 AM
I come from a multi-generational Republican family. I have watched my family split to the point that politics can no longer be discussed without harsh feelings arising. I remember watching Fox News in 2005 thinking, “What the hell is going on here?” when the reporting on the Iraq war was getting all “patriotic” and everyone in the middle east were considered as rag-heads. Anyone who did not like the war was considered “un-patriotic” and were being accused of not caring or to not “support our troops.” Anyone who simply questioned Israel's dealings with Hamas were considered ignorant and out of touch with Christian values. There seems to be a large degree of arrogance and bigotry in the character of the population. I also blame much of this on the population's choices of media sources geared to biases and ratings that have more to do with shaping public opinion than carefully, factually informing an (assumed) intelligent and rational community. To this day I warn friends against focusing on MSNBC and FOX as primary news sources, saying that you will not be informed, but indoctrinated. Both have polarizing tendencies by mixing opinion with news. Both have broadcasted disrespectful, even hateful accusations against our last two presidents. And the left and right's behavior follows them. Plato, in his writing of “Republic,” demonstrated through reason and example how a democracy can be dangerous... The general population is easily swayed by the continual shifting winds of rumor, doubt and fear, depending on their biases. His prime example was the condemnation and execution of an innocent man, Socrates, by a general population vote. Those who didn't know anything about him, other than fearful rumors. The wind blown grass analogy is exemplified again by this nations 75% approval polls of healthcare reform with the public option, as compared to polls 7 months and a huge amount of congressional work later at 43% in favor of healthcare reform with no public option. The rage continues and the wind blows in all directions. I liken this fickle, angry and hateful behavior of the people to that of my teenage children. Law makers must listen to the people, but act in the people's best interest... even if they get mad. This happens in a Republic. When Benjamin Franklin and the other founding fathers finished ratifying the Constitution, he was asked what kind of government will we have by those waiting outside. His response was, "A Republic! A Republic, if you can keep it!" Of course, for a Republic to work, there needs to be elected representatives of integrity... but that's another long topic.
Posted by: Tim at 04/25/2010 09:53:39 AM
When each party refuses to compromise, and considers each other the enemy, the system will collapse.
Posted by: MIke at 04/25/2010 01:32:38 PM
The center is the place. But, do we get a proper representation when we go to the polls? No, we get to choose the lesser of the candiates. Just replacing one or both of the current parties will not suffice. We actually need a third party, but with serious, grounded people. That probably will not happen, so we need term limits for all.
Posted by: Charles at 04/25/2010 01:55:34 PM
I find most of the comments posted here interesting and well worth reading. I am, however, disturbed by the number of writers who feel compelled to call those who do not agree with them stupid or ignorant, or to suggest that they are uneducated, or unable to understand the wisdom of the writers point of view. One writer goes even farther by saying, "The current Republican way of thinking is primitive. It's reptilian ..." The purpose of debate, I believe, is to persuade the other side to accept your position, or at least to move in that direction, by displaying the wisdom of your argument. No one will ever consider the merits off an argument whose only point is that you must be too stupid to comprehend its worth.
Posted by: John Rivera at 04/25/2010 03:24:10 PM
I've been fighting against the two-party system for decades. I believe the time is ripe for real "change." And there can be no change unless we break the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have over our government. What prevents us from having choice in who governs us is incumbency. And the only way to force out incumbents is through term limits. They stay in power because they have the money (given to them by Wall St.) Since the two parties won't give us term limits we must impose it on them. Therefore, come November, vote out every member of Congress who's been in office for 10 or more years. I call this the People's Term Limits. Because only then can we begin to establish a government that truly represents We The People.
Posted by: Sheffler at 04/25/2010 04:23:36 PM
A NEW/OLD IDEA - How about we reduce the size and influence of the federal government. That way it really won't matter all that much who the parties put up for office or who is buying off whom. We will be running our own lives again and the states and local governments nearest to our individual interests will rise again. In reading our founding documents, I believe this is the way it was always supposed to be. The reason we are so polarized today is that the stakes for who holds power in Washington are so high.
Posted by: Tom at 04/26/2010 10:50:43 AM
I'm in absolute agreement. While I understand the concept of having multiple parties representing different views, it doesn't help anybody when most of the time is spent butting heads. The comments on this post pretty much prove that point. Most of the name-calling (Socialist, Fundamentalist, Nazi?! [are you f***ing KIDDING ME?]) does nothing more than draw otherwise relatively intelligent individuals to take a side that they really don't understand. I would dare to suggest "maybe there shouldn't be 'sides' "but obviously that screams dictatorship, or monarchy, or whatever. No, the problem is the money that goes into pockets on BOTH SIDES, and people being too ignorant (read: STUPID) to actually do their own research instead of inheriting the opinions/propaganda of the media. A new party sounds great to me, so long as there are no lobbies contributing to it, and if the news could just go back to REPORTING and not OPINING and presenting absolutely outlandish crap. Just please, PLEASE don't let the new party start with "Tea."
Posted by: Jeffery at 04/26/2010 08:35:00 PM
All would be fine with or without a two party system, IF we would: 1) Completely outlaw all of lobbyists financial contributions to congress in all forms, but fully allow lobbyists to be heard. 2) Publicly condemn any media that does not maintain integrity in reporting by completely separating opinion from fact by obvious time, program and orator categories. 3) Publicly condemn all antagonization, demonization and hate talk done by all. 4) The public becomes accepting of the fact that they will not get their way all of the time and stand behind those that are legally and fairly elected. 5) The public becomes accepting of a democratic Republic instead of trying to turn us into a full Democracy. 6) Congress becomes willing to work together for the common good of the American people, businesses and nation, with as much balance as possible. 7) Primarily vote according to a candidate's integrity and qualifications. In short, integrity practiced by all.
Posted by: JD at 04/29/2010 10:45:05 AM
Throw all the bums out, Republicans AND Democrats alike! Start all over with plain everyday people instead of that usual crowd of pimp-mentality, greedy, fornicating, career criminals AKA politicians.
Posted by: JD Straw at 04/29/2010 10:59:19 AM
To Charles at 04/25/2010 01:55:34 PM: Amen! You said a mouthful because this happens too frequently on forums and comment sections. It is virtually impossible for everyone to agree on issues but that's no excuse for rudeness and disrespect toward those who don't. Thank you for your sage comments Charles. Blessings to you.
Posted by: nick at 04/30/2010 09:37:31 PM
The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when (the pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it shittier." -- Lewis Black. Personally I think the all politicians are corrupt because of lobbyist groups.
Posted by: Jonathan Rogers at 05/19/2010 12:56:23 AM
I think the only hope to reign in the Federal Government and reconstitute the Republic that our founding fathers gave us (and which Lincoln began the eventual extinction of with the civil war to crush States rights) is to end the Two-Party System. It is time for Americans to, with one united voice, reject both the Republicans and the Democrats wholesale. So long as the two parties continue to dominate the political landscape in America by continually pitting Americans against eachother along party lines then nothing will never change for the better no matter who is in the White House or Congress because the People will lose regardless. I see no difference at all between the Republicans and Democrats except in their rhetoric but both , if they were honest, LOVE big government as long as they are the ones in charge of it. George W Bush expanded the Federal Government far more than any Democrat did..and even Obama has only done what Bush opened the door for him to do but neither party is truly interested in the limited government of checks and balances that the founding fathers intended when they drafted the Constitution..both are in essence enemies of the Constitution. The one last chance Americans have to salvage the Republic by peaceful means lay in abandoning the two party system..the only other alternative is State-by-State Secession from the Union which, although I would hope it would be able to be done peacefully, the Federal Government would never let go without shedding of blood. The fate of the American Republic rests in the hands of its people..let's hope there is still time to fix things within the system.
Posted by: vallan at 07/22/2010 09:13:06 AM
I am an Independant and do not endorse either party !!! The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt. And I mean both Houses and both major parties. I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy, but, as a group they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch to ever disgrace our Nation. In November of 2010 the entire House of Representatives will stand for re-election; all 435 of them. One third of the Senate, a total of 33 of them, will also stand for re-election. Vote every incumbent out.. And I mean every one of them. No matter their Party affiliation. Let's start all over in the House of Representatives with 435 people who have absolutely no experience in running that body, with no political favors owed to anyone but their own constituents. Let's make them understand that they work for us.They answer to us and they simply have to run that body with some common sense. Two years later, in 2012, vote the next third of the incumbents in the Senate out. Then, we can do the same thing in 2014 and, by that time we will have put all new people in that body as well.