The United States Political Parties - Essay Example

?The United s Political Parties Introduction The United s is governed by two major political parties, mainly, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats are generally considered to be the more liberal party and the Republican Party is considered to be more conservative. This two-party system traces its roots as far back as the American Civil War in the 1860s when the Union and the Confederates battled it out for political rule over its territories. The ideals of these two parties have sometimes been seen at opposing ends of the political spectrum, but for the most part, these ideals have been based on balancing the governance of the American people. This paper shall consider the strengths and the weaknesses of this two-party system in America. It shall also consider why this is the case and whether or not such system is good or bad for the country. This essay is being undertaken in order to establish a comprehensive and academic discussion of the issue while considering all the relevant elements which impact on the governance and politics of this country. Discussion America’s history has had a major influence on its current two-party system. As was mentioned, this system traces its roots back to the American Civil War when the Federalists and the anti-federalists were at opposite ends of the political continuum. From then on, although its application has not been as extreme as was seen during the years preceding and those following the civil war, the two-party system became the dominant political belief system of the US. The people widely accepted this system and as years, many elections, and political regimes passed, changing such system became an unthinkable consideration (Wood and Sansone, 2000). The belief system in the US has also been largely shared and supported by the people. Where other countries have a wider range of beliefs with more disagreements in between, America has mostly considered two major parties. These parties were considered in the elections, but it has not negated the existence of other viewpoints. “The broad ideological consensus in the United States encouraged just two large parties – with overlapping points of view-whose main focus is to win elections, not to represent vastly different sets of beliefs” (Wood and Sansone, 2000). The two-party system has been the norm in the United States because its electoral system has been traditionally run as a winner-take-all system, not so much a proportional representation system (Janda, Berry, and Goldman, 2008). In this case, the winner is the candidate who gets the most number of votes, not the candidate who wins the majority vote. In the elections, one person can represent people within a small area or district and no matter how many representatives run, the candidate with the most number of votes still wins (Janda, Berry, and Goldman, 2008). For parties with smaller members and supporters, they often end up losing the elections and have a hard time making any kind of difference in the electoral process. Third parties have tried to penetrate the two-party system in the US, however, only few have made any lasting impact on the political system. The winner-take-all system has mostly left them no chance at winning any seat in the elections (Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes, 2008). These parties have included the Free Soil party, the Know Nothings, the Liberty party, the Greenback party, the Populists, and similar minimal and almost inconsequential parties (Wood and Sansone, 2000). Other democratic nations have allowed as many candidates to run for office, and as many of them who win proportional votes can later be considered as representatives in office. In the United States however, these various interest groups and candidates have been encouraged to “work within the two major parties, for only one candidate in each race stands a chance of being elected under popular voting” (Janda, Berry, and Goodman, 2008, p. 245). This political system has worked well for the United States since it has ushered in many successful elections and a relatively smooth management of the political turnover and governance. Despite the seemingly smooth application of this system, questions have been raised on whether or not this system is good or bad for America. Its strengths and weakness have also been considered and for purposes of this paper, these considerations shall now be reviewed. Strengths/Advantages of the two-party system Magstadt (2008) sets forth that the two-party system helps ensure political and government stability. This stability is based on the continuity of policies where two parties avoid the extremes in political processes and beliefs, and adapt middle-of-the-road policies in order to appeal to the wide range of middle class interests (Magstadt, 2008). In effect, the two-party system helps ensure that regardless of the party in power, the shift in policies would not require a major overhaul or adjustment. In essence, the policies in place would serve the majority interests of the people – not the extremely liberal or the extremely conservative interests of the people – but the middle of the road interests which considers the welfare of the people above all other considerations. The two-party system in America has also effectively prevented extremist parties from making it into political power (Herrnson and Green, 2002). These parties include the extremely liberal and the extremely conservative parties which seek to fulfill their political agenda and implement these in the legislative and executive policies. These extremist parties are considered minority beliefs and parties in the United States and they are often overshadowed and dominated by the dominant Democratic and Republican parties. For the most part, these extremist parties find it difficult to gain any political office because they are not majority or popular views. The two-party system in America is also more transparent than the multi-party system in other countries. The two-party system is more competitive for candidates because each party has limited opportunities to convince voters to support their candidacy (Strom, Muller, and Bergman, 2002). If they fail in these opportunities, then they lose votes and lose the election as a whole. In this case, the process of election and of considering one’s choices is less confusing to the voters; moreover, it is also more transparent. There are only two parties to keep track of and the electoral process is less affected by myriad beliefs and opinions about issues (Strom, Muller, and Bergman, 2002). This transparency also translates to an easier means of evaluating the effectiveness of a party. Since only the dominant political party can govern the US, the failure of the executive department can easily be traced to the actions and decisions of the President; this can also apply to the legislative bodies which may or may not be dominated by the ruling executive party. Nevertheless, the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of a party is an easier and more transparent process to carry out (Strom, Muller, and Bergman, 2002). Weaknesses/disadvantages of the two-party system There are different disadvantages and weaknesses of the two-party system in America. In a nation which encourages and embraces the concept of multiple ideologies, religions, beliefs, and opinions, the two-party system seems to be a contradiction (Disch, 2002). Inasmuch as the two-party system provides stability to the government, this stability does not also mean a stable democracy (Ferguson and Rogers, 1984). The priority is given more on achieving a stable government process. However, beyond the halls of political governance, the practice and the elements of democracy – especially the least popular beliefs – are suppressed in favor of the more conformist beliefs. In other words, the minority beliefs are not given a voice in the general political processes since they are neither Democratic nor Republican beliefs. All in all, when considering the purest ideals and principles of democracy, the two-party system is hardly the best system upon which democratic principles can exist. The two-party system is also criticized by different interest parties for sometimes running on negative campaigns (Sidlow and Henschen, 2008). These negative campaigns largely revolve around the opposing parties pointing out each other’s flaws and differentiating themselves from the other party (Sidlow and Henschen, 2008). In instances when one party is weak, then the opposing party can easily win the elections even if its ideals and political platform may not be efficient in addressing the issues of the nation. In effect, the campaign process for opposing parties in the two-party system can sometimes be based on personal qualities and on what the other party does not have or possess. When these flaws are highlighted, and the other party does not have any damaging flaws, then he can easily win – there is just no other choice which the people can consider (Sidlow and Henschen, 2008). The discussions and debate in the two-party system can sometimes also be considered as adversarial rather than constructive; in this case, they can be based on limited perceptions of policies and issues (Colomer, 2002). This adversarial type of debate can sometimes create political governance which is based on the other party automatically disagreeing with the other party and blocking the policies which the other party seeks to implement. This adversarial system can make the political process long and arduous for the dominant political party, thereby causing deadlocks and disagreements at every point and stage of governance (Colomer, 2002). Opinion Based on the discussion above, the two-party system can have both its advantages and disadvantages. After evaluating such advantages and disadvantages, I have adopted the opinion that the two-party system is an appropriate system for the United States. For the most part, my position on the matter is largely based on almost 200 years of tradition. This two-party system has managed to keep the stability of this country intact and in the process has afforded its citizens opportunities to explore and express their beliefs and interests. Although some of these interests and beliefs may not be the most popular, they do have a place in American society, if not American politics or governance. Our two-party system has been protected by a strong Constitution and policies which have managed to protect the interests of minority parties and interest groups. Although these third parties and interest groups have not managed to penetrate the exclusive halls of the two-party political system, the interests of these groups have not been totally ignored by both parties. I also support the two-party system as a system which fits the American landscape because allowing a multi-party system to emerge from the varied interests and beliefs of the people would create chaos and instability in the American government. America encourages the expression and the practice of many beliefs, opinions, and even religions; allowing a multi-party system to emerge from these multiple beliefs and opinions would also mean allowing an unstable political system to emerge. One system in a multi-party system may not necessarily represent the interest of the majority. In the end, such winning system may just be another minority party unsuccessfully seeking support for policies and legislative enactments. The two-party system is also favorable for America because it helps to stabilize its multiple belief systems. Since these multiple beliefs cannot all have a place in the political governance, the interested minority groups have to make the necessary adjustments in their beliefs. They are prompted to make a compromise for the common good and for the benefit of the bigger majority; even the extremist political thinkers have a place in this two-party system – maybe not in terms of governance, but in terms of possible reforms. In the end, the two-party system fits the needs of the American people, regardless of their beliefs and interests. Works Cited Colomer, J. (2002) Political institutions in Europe. New York: Routledge Disch, L. (2002) The tyranny of the two-party system. New York: Columbia Press Ferguson, T. & Rogers, J. (1984) The Political economy: readings in the politics and economics of American public policy. New York: M.E Sharpe Herrnson, P. & Green, J. (2002) Multiparty politics in America: prospects and performance. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Janda, K., Berry, J., & Goldman, J. (2008) The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Texas Edition. California: Cengage Learning Magstadt, T. (2008) Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. California: Cengage Learning. Schmidt, S., Shelley, M., & Bardes, B. (2008) American Government & Politics Today. California: Cengage Learning. Sidlow, E. & Henschen, B. (2008) America at Odds. California: Cengage Learning Strom, K., Muller, W., & Bergman, T. (2002) Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. New York: Oxford University Press Wood, E. and Sansone, S. (2000) American Government – A Complete Coursebook. Wilmington, Massachusetts: Great Source Education Group. Read More