Well, folks, ask and ye shall receive. I posed the following question: Something I’ve been mulling: Would the U.S. have more or less factionalism with a true three-party system..? Thoughts?
Here are the engaging, sometimes hilarious, ideas of an incredibly intelligent lot.
–Keith
The responses, in order received and original font (where it transferred), prefaced with each author’s name:
Elka–Hmmm. . . . Great question! You little pot-stirrer you! My knee-jerk response is to say yes, but I’m gonna think on it some more.
——————————————————-
Jerry–It seems that one of the outcomes of our Constitutional system, envisioned by the framers, was to allow factions their natural lives. The interplay among them and the individuals who make them up would be the catalyst for political stability, yet provide the arena for creative energy to keep the system evolving. What I perceive in our so-called two party system today is a stunting of movement both within and between the parties. New ideas have a hard time affecting the direction of the major parties which control the means for election and the political agenda once in office. Historically, third parties have shaken up the entrenched parties but then have faded or have had their platforms absorbed by the Democrats or Republicans, and then it is back to business as usual.
To make a long story short, we are politically flat-lined! Entertainment is passing for political dialogue and the polulace is moving further and further away from effective participation. Remeber the Caesars……keep them fed and entertained! Or how about Adolph Hitler….”Isn’t it good for leaders like me that the people don’t think.”………..Gotta run now…..the View just came on!
Love ya,
Jerry
———————————————————————–
Jon–a three party system could create more factionalism. And, although I think a three party system could really complicate our existing governmental systems; these complications notwithstanding, however, it seems to me that a three party system could offer more perspectives, choices, and ideas, that is, ideally, more quality ideas, choices and perspectives. Here’s the rub, there will always be positives and/or negative consequences along with any change: so the question that remains to ask is, “Will the benefits outweigh the negative consequences?” In this case, I’d be willing to find out. However, strictly speaking, we have more than a two party system already, do we not? It seems to me, the reality is that two parties simply dominate over all the others. Is that not so?Now are you sorry you asked? Jon.
———————————–
Larry–For me it depends on what is meant by factionalism (and faction). To answer your question, I guess we would get the same total amount offactionalism, roughly. The existence of three parties wouldn’t affectthe amount/magnitude of factionalism. Three parties would simply givefactions more options/choices/vehicles for acquiring and holdingpolitical and economic power. Larry (Does anyone understand what I mean?) (Keith/Maximus, you were mulling factionalism? wtf? Why not mullsomething more important like beer’s exclusion from the food pyramid,or how Max pulled the Grinch’s fully-loaded sled up the mountain above
Whoville, or why homeless people in LA have cell phones?)
——————–
Larry,In response to: [(Keith/Maximus, you were mulling factionalism? wtf? Why not mull
something more important like beer's exclusion from the food pyramid,
or how Max pulled the Grinch's fully-loaded sled up the mountain above
Whoville, or why homeless people in LA have cell phones?)]Surely you know me well enough to realize that I was drinking beer for breakfast while pondering factionalism among sneetches: some with stars on their bellies, some without. All this after a long conference call with Donovan and the wise, cell-phone toting homeless guy from LA.Thanks for all the responses, folks. I’m going to copy-n-paste ‘em to the website www.politicolor.comPeace, y’all!Keith
————————————————————–
Laura–Politics makes strange bedfellows (Shakespeare?). If there are 3 (relatively) equally powerful parties, none would ever have a true majority, or even a plurality. We’d see a lot of coalition-building by necessity, if anything were ever to get done.
If the people wanted our government to make any changes (like progress, maybe?), they would HAVE to get more involved (b/c the squeaky wheel gets the grease–I’m awash with quotes today!). Otherwise the inertia continues, regardless of “party.”
Makes it tough to teach government/poli sci classes–high school seniors are already jaded!
——————————————————
Rachel–Okay, I’m weighing in with my two sense here, and I’m actually going to reframe the question a little. My understanding, based on what I’ve read, is that if the US had a proportional representation system rather than a plurality system, we’d have more political parties. The question, for me, is would we have more or less factionalism (in the sense of different factions actively pursuing their own interests), and would this factionalism be expressed differently? PR systems tend to have more parties because parties have a chance of gaining representation in the legislature even if they gain only a small percentage of the popular vote; as you all know, Weimar Germany is an extreme example of this. Plurality systems, on the other hand, tend towards two parties because elections are “winner takes all.” The Green party, for instance, has a hard time gaining representation in the US. Does this mean that PR systems with more parties have less factionalism?
The question, for me at least, becomes: Which type of electoral system, and party system, promotes a healthy degree of factionalism? Does PR (with more parties gaining representation) increase or decrease factionalism (again in the sense of different factions actively pursuing their own interests)? India, for instance, has a plurality electoral system and, for a long time, was a once party system. Politics were dominated by the Congress party, but there was still a lot of “factionalism” in India. Factions pursued their interests within the one party. On the other hand, some European countries with PR systems have difficulty forming and maintaining coalition governments because so many parties gain representation in the parliament. This also seems to be factionalism in its extreme. I think that’s why the key question is which type of electoral system, and party system, promotes an ideal degree of factionalism.
An underlying question is: Is factionalism a bad thing? Isn’t some “factionalism” a good and healthy part of a well-functioning democracy? Factionalism becomes a problem when it prevents the healthy functioning of democracy (eg. governments constantly falling), but wouldn’t the opposite (no factionalism, everyone agreeing all of the time, one faction or homogeneous party completely dominating politics, other voices going unheard) also be hugely problematic for a political system that aspires to be democratic?
Some food for thought (or in other words, my “riff” for the evening).
Peace out! Hope everyone is well,
Rachel
——————————————————————–
Tim–the question of party may be irrelevant. its about interest groups. these (sigs) will exist always at a small scale. the nature of party is large scale. so even if there wwere many parties there may always be factions within party. tim
———————————————————————–
Luis–by their very nature, factions threaten the integrity of a whole (didn’t will stress this??). as larry suggested, a two-party system is the best way to temper and moderate their effects given the numerous interests that vie for power. the question of a three-party system strikes me as academic given that most states endorse the winner-take-all system. then again, i live in congressman tom tancredo’s district along with all the other god-fearing white people whose disdain for brown people is tempered only by their love for margaritas and mexican food–so long as the menu is printed in english. most of my neighbors would be tickled if tancredo were to run as the third-party representative of the “minuteman party” to round up them dang illegals.
i think rachel pointed out the importance of allowing multiple interests to compete. given the potential pitfalls of interest group dynamics (interest group liberalism, elitism, etc.), perhaps we should be asking questions about the nature of factions and the influence they exert:
–should money be considered a form of protected speech under the first amendment? if so, do wealthy PACs, 527 groups, etc. exert undue influence in ways that favor wealthy interests?
–have cozy relations between defense industries and the pentagon encouraged more fleecing through the production of new military systems needed to fight the evildoers? given that america now allocates more than 40% of the budget towards defense, is it realistic to assume that all interests exert equal influence in american policymaking?
–does grassroots lobbying have much relevance given the explosion of PACs and 527 groups?
now who’s being academic??
all the best,
lmt
——————————————————————-
Mario–Interest groups and factions are two different animals, in the following way. Ithink ofinterest groups as having no loyalty to any political party. Instead, bydefinition, theyare only interested in themselves. On the other hand, political parties arecreatures ofideology. In our case, the dems and reps represent different points of view.However, theproblem is one that we discussed this summer. The parties have lost sight of theideal ofamerica. The partie have lost the soul of the Constitution. Instead, interestgroups, $$$,PACs, and all those other first amendment groups have distorte the parties. Bynature, anytwo perty system has to cater to the center to remain in power, oor at least themessageneeds to gravitate to the center or the prty risks losing control. It’s like whatcicerosaid about political systems will by their nature inevitably deteriorate if thesystemfails to adapt. The two party system is an adaptation for stability. On the issueoffactions, not interest groups, the two party system co-opts, seduces and embracesdifferent factions so that the ruling party, which is not necessarily themajority, canremain in power. The message is easier to get out. We are no more a draconiannation todayas we have been for decades. I remember when I was younger, nalysts would talkabout theBalkanization of the USA. Well, the two party system prevails, but the message oftheconstitution is lost for the forseeable future. Even Obama, who was on messagefor solong, is now having to lose his heart for the sake of compromise and results. Weneed a
voice that yearns for the madisonian republic.
—————–
Kevin–Hey Keith and Larry! Long time listener first time caller. If you want third parties – we got ‘em in spades. We got Communists, Socialists, Greens, Nazis…even the Purple Party (they want to introduce monarchy to America – now that would be a novel approach). The problem is our third parties don’t win elections. The electorate is too afraid of throwing their vote away to a losing effort. The tradition of the two-party system limits the choices. Only a strong candidate (Ross Perot) or a divisive issue (slavery) can bring a third party to power. As for interest groups – they are factions and we have those in spades too! The diversity of our population leads to hyperpluralism. We have so many interests going in so many directions that we end up with legislation that doesn’t do anything. The details of legislation are left up to agencies and interest groups (iron triangle). What should we do about all these factions? Just ask Madison (Federalist 10). You smother liberty to squash the factions. Anybody want to put out the fire of liberty? As for our pitiful two parties – they are huge coalitions with very little direction. They are political amoebas that absorb any faction or voter that comes in their path. They are loosely formed around vague ideologies – liberal and conservative, but are willing to cross that ideological line to gain a vote or two. They act as enormous funnels leading the voters to the booth. What we are left with is a candidate-centered system floating in a plethora of factions. The party label becomes a name-brand label. Obama, Clinton, Guiliani…what does it matter? As long as they look good and sound good they will get votes. Why bother with Democrat and Republican? Why not Ford, DelMonte, or Budweiser. Ooops! You knew it would all come back to the beer. By the way, there is a Friends of Beer Party. They are very popular in Prague. I’d vote for them! Now there’s a true party platform. Vote Early, Vote Often. I’m Lord Voldemort and I want to be your next president. Brought to you by Republicans for Voldemort. Dick Cheney Treasurer
——————–
Kerryn–I have been pondering this for a while myself. I am not sure it would create greater factionalism but rather give people a bigger choice to express the inherent factionalism that is a part of the US. If you take into consideration the number of special interest groups and politically motivated groups that already exist then it would just be an extension of that.
I mean right now you have Christian conservatives that have voted for the GOP because they support their conservative moral agenda but not necessarily their economic agenda. What’s the Matter with Kansas comes to mind as an example of this. Harris describes how social conservatives have flocked to the GOP and cut their own throats economically. Are they making a choice or are they constained by the two party system. Their moral beliefs would not allow them to vote for a candidate that may be 98 % with their goals but will vote for gay rights or pro-choice thus negating them as a valid choice for these particular voters. Would more political parties solve this or make it worse? I have no idea.
I agree with Laura that more parties would necessitate more coallition building in that no one party could probably sustain the needed majority to force through their agenda, which should make things better in theory. Would it result in greater harmony? I seriously doubt that, but it would give us better choice when going into the voting booth. Right now we are often faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils or essentially throwing away our vote in order to make a politcal statement that will fall on deaf ears.
For instance would John McCain have sold his maverick soul in order to win favor with “W’s” GOP or would he have stuck to his guns and still rejected Jerry Falwell and others as he did in 2000 if he thought he had a viable chance as a third party candidate in 2008 or even 2004? Until the alternative parties start making strides at the local and state levels then we will be stuck with the 2 party system we have now. I mean look what happened to the debates after 1992 and 1996 when the League of Women Voters was told thanks but no thanks if you are going to allow anyone into the fray. The Dems and GOP decided after these elections that it was good to the king and didn’t want to allow anyone else into the dance any longer. They were scared and used their political muscle to force out the “David’s” of the world.
So would we be more factional as a nation if we had more parties, no I don’t think we would it would just be more obvious of the vast diversity of opinions and agenda that are already there.
Sorry for the long winded answer, but I am avoiding dealing with school. 2 1/2 weeks of hell left and then I am out of here. I will be unemployed and scared out of my mind, but I won’t be here.
k
——————————-
Larry–Self-interest is the basic stuff. When it is collectivized andexpressed in a political system, it is called faction. Parties are oneform of faction, a faction of factions perhaps. Larry (As you can tell, I’m stuck on roots. I like this from Fed. No. 10:“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.)
————————-
Jerry–Put any group of people in a room and observe their interactions. There willbe a natural coalesence that takes place. Gender, language, ethnicity,interests, mutual benefit, etc. will all come into play. Is faction natural?I say yes. The burning question is how a political paradigm can both allowfaction to express its inherent energy yet somehow enable it to contributeto the common good. Jerry Tony Soprano may have an answer for us!
————-
Laura–Self-interest takes us back to Hobbes! Adam Smith offered a perhaps more civic-minded direction w/ “enlightened” self interest. For either, we have to see how the common good benefits more than it costs us, before we buy into it.
The trouble arises when there are competing definitions of the common good. That’s when natural affinities, interest groups, factions, parties–even gangs–enact a philosophy of factionalism –us v. them, my way or the highway, my side’s bigger/stronger/smarter than your side so we can beat you (up!), or (my personal favorite) you do it your way and I’ll do it God’s way–and winner-take-all has been standard in this country since the Jackson administration!
I wonder if Old Hickory got the idea from Robespierre (I know he wasn’t well-educated, but the French Rev. would have been “current events” when Andy was a young man). Why did we as a nation adopt the spoils system as normative? Do y’all have any flashes of insight?
And how can a political paradigm be designed to foster the common good without manipulation?
————
Mario–Remember our Aritotilian primer from the Academy? “Man is by nature a political animal.”We look for community. We can call that factions, if you will. However, the factions orcommunity must to thrive be loyal to a vision of the whole to promote the foundationalideals of the whole. I think that it is the vision of “We the people” that we have ignoredfor the sake of self-interest. Vote Obama.
—————–
My thought was that a three-party system would better balance power amongst the power-brokers. It would bring heightened attention to peripheral interests, rather than the few that become the basis of elections: recently (and not so recently) 1) Security and 2) Economy. These causes have dominated the political scene for so long, I wondered when Liberty would again blossom as something for which to fight. It seems that we just scrape to hold on to what we have, that there is no growth toward what could be better: education, environment, solving our energy crisis. We seem stuck in this mode of reaction rather than pro action. Hope is a catch word used by most politicians, even if they don’t have the good luck to have been born there. Yet Hope is such an empty word: it doesn’t imply action at all, more like a waiting. Inspiration has come through the great speeches of our leaders (in government or out) who call for action ala JFK or MLK. The more we rely upon our video and audio to take us places, the more we forget how to ourselves create as well as create ourselves. Does anyone even talk about free will anymore, or is this just “Radio Nowhere”?
*Steps Down Off Soap Box*
–Keith
——————-
Laura–On hope: depends on whether that hope has any basis in reality or is only wishful thinking. If a doctor diagnoses cancer, but that type of cancer tends to be treatable and recoverable, a hopeful prognosis is based in reality (proven methodologies, statistics, etc.). If the treatment approach is “oh, maybe it’ll go away on its own,” that’s wishful thinking, not genuine hope.
On holding on to what we have: there’s an old story about a chimp that stuck its hand in a jar containing something to eat. It starved to death because it wouldn’t un-clinch its fist to remove both fist and food from the jar. Had it released its grip and poured out the snack, it would have lived longer.
Will holding on to what we have improve us as a nation or kill us? Pardon the teacher-esque buzz words, but I think we need a new set of problem-solving strategies.
Say we let the security issues simmer along on the back burner for a while. Yeah, they’re important, but the systems in place can run themselves for a bit–and it’s true that we haven’t had another 9/11-level invasion. Let the system work and refocus for a while. Same thing with the economy. Yeah, it’s important, too, but the leading economic indicators have been improving slowly for some time. Let it do its thing for a while turn the nation’s attention to other issues (like education, health care, environmental concerns).
Now what? The federal government has agencies that address these “peripherals,” but policies change every time the administration changes (like the tax code does–which is why I’m not an accountant!). There seems to be no coherent philosophy, no guiding principles that give direction to policy-making, and no leadership willing to make the tough decisions that might cost elections ( a.k.a. popularity contests) down the road. The “leaders” kowtow to whomever scratches their backs in the right places.
The whole “debate” thing is a sham. There is no public debate over real issues that affect your life and mine, and nothing is ever solved or resolved. Politicians can promise and posture all they want to, but only those who actually watch the entire display are even marginally qualified to form an opinion. The rest of us get 30-second sound bytes featuring the brilliance or the showmanship (Howard Dean’s scream!) of the media darlings and the bonehead remarks of the rest.
Maybe Keith is right: a viable third party might upset the existing apple-cart enough to force reorganization of the power structure. Just because it hasn’t happened in our lifetimes doesn’t mean it can’t happen (hope!). At any rate, I’m increasingly of the opinion that the internet is the greatest opportunity we have to foster the American treasury of creativity, inherited from our forebears–idealism tempered with pragmatism, justice with mercy, concern for each with concern for all. It gives little ol’ me a voice and a forum that I doubt I’d have otherwise. Will anything come of my ideas? I don’t know, but it could happen (hope again!)
Have any of you read The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman? I saw a presentation by the author about a year and a half ago, went home & told my husband about some of the ideas, and he said I didn’t know what I was talking about it. Then our stock-broker showed a power-point on the book at a Rotary Club luncheon, and Robert came home telling me about it!!! Go figure. Anyway it starts out telling economic success stories in India and China, but reaches beyond the global economy to domestic economic and education policy–two students in my econ class last year did a book report on it, so I had to peruse it then. Might be worth reading if any of you ever have time to read again! (Wasn’t this past summer a luxury in that regard???)
Just my two cents’ worth! Got a busy weekend ahead–take care!
Laura
