The two party system

"As President, I have no eyes but constitutional eyes; I cannot see you." --Abraham Lincoln

There is so much that can be said in this blog with the recent Republican debate, and the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race. However, I feel it is important to build a foundation before jumping into the issues of the candidates, their records, and what they stand for.

Many people wonder, why, in the United States, most people are polarized to the two major parties, Democrat or Republican. Other Democratic nations, (by the way, we are NOT a Democracy, we are a Democratic-Republic), tend to have 6-10 significant parties. However, in this nation, 3rd party candidates have a difficult time gaining credibility and votes. It's not that there CAN'T be more than two parties, it is just that other parties such as Libertarians or the Green Party just can't seem to gain enough support to do anything significant.

The United States has had two major political parties since approximately 1800. There were parties of credibility such as the Wigs that have faded into the background, and now we have the two major parties of Democrat and Republican. There are reasons for this polarization which are complex, but sensible.

There are historical foundations of two parties. The founding fathers of our nation were divided between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists tended to represent the Eastern states interests of manufacturing and merchants. The Anti-Federalists tended to represent the farmers and agricultural communities.

These two differing parties began to represent two distinct set of interests. The Anti-Federalists, which eventually became the Democrat party represented the frontier interests in the west and the agricultural interests of farmers in the South. The Federalists, which eventually evolved into the Republican party tended to support many of the commercial interests involving trade and ports in the East.

Because of the different representations certain areas of our early nation voted almost exclusively for one party. As time went on, the two political parties tended to polarizing their support with geographic and frequently financial divisions.

The most significant reason for the perpetuation of the two party system is that for the most part Americans have common goals. There may be differences of opinion on how to obtain those goals, but the goals are similar. This is why highly socialist parties such as the Green Party, and the Communists have a hard time gaining much of a foot hold in this nation. Although in our despair we may feel that no one cares about freedom or patriotism anymore, deep down they do. This was exemplified in the September 11th terrorist attacks. People stood in line to give blood, they waved their flags, they mourned as a nation. It seemed like the entire nation changed, even if for only a few weeks, and the fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty were at the forefront of everyone's mind. There is still hope for this nation, even though it is often complacent. If others overtly try to usurp our freedom, we will rise up to the challenge as a nation. Today is September 11th, and I will be doing a separate post about this day of remembrance.

The problem however, is when our freedom secretly, quietly slips away. If people don't get involved, or if the people are too divided in many directions, any crazy doctrine or idea can be passed off as truth. Harry S. Truman once said, "The combined thought and action of the whole people of any race, creed, or nationality, will always point in the right direction." It is important that the MASS of people are involved in elections and that they are generally united for the same cause.

Further, although this is a very religious nation, the distinction separating the government from religion with "No State Religion" has kept various religions from creating their own parties. It is not necessary in this country because most people can identify with one party or the other. An example of religious political parties would be the current situation in Iraq; there are the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, all fighting to gain control of the government. Religiously sponsored political parties can be very dangerous and devastating to a nation.

The divisions between the two parties tend to be based upon economic strategies, belief in world involvement, and positions of morality. Most Americans can find most of their beliefs with one of the major platforms, although they might not, and usually do not, agree completely with the party platform.

With the exception of ME and NE, the electoral college creates a "winner takes all" system. If the majority of one state agrees on one party, that party is represented with their states entire populus in Washington D.C. A state is always carried by only one candidate. That candidate gets all the votes for that state. This is why a person can win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral vote and not become president.

Although many Americans complain about the Electoral College system, preferring a popular vote system, the electoral college provides a large degree of protection for the nation. The electoral college makes it very difficult, but not impossible, for a third party to get a member elected to any position of real significance. Further, many state laws require fewer signatures for the two major parties than signatures for the minor parties to get on the ballot for office. This may seem like a bad thing, but think of the crack-pots it helps to keep from muddying the election.

History has many lessons to teach on this subject. The Nazis rise to power would have probably never happened had their not been so many parties and factions. Dividing up the votes in so many different directions can allow for "evil"-yes I do believe in evil, to slip through unnoticed. There were so many political parties in pre-Nazi Germany that the people's votes were divided sufficiently to allow the Nazis to rise to prominent positions of power.

The founders of this nation, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, agreed on one thing: that a Republic could only be maintained by both government structure combined with the virtue of the people. My research shows that nearly all the Founders agreed that if public virtue failed, so would the Republic. As Edmund Burke once said, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Madison also stated that ""The less virtue . . .possessed by the people, the more government they needed. The less able able they were to exercise their rights and liberties in moderation, the greater need there would be for government coercion and limitations on individual actions."

Virtue is a word that has been highly misunderstood, especially by constitutional revisionists. These are those who feel that the constitution is "outdated", and should be more flexible to fit the times. These revisionists of the constitution have failed to recognize the tremendous thought and sophisticated understanding of human nature that was held by the Founders. These revisionists have not understood that virtue can evolve with time. It is capable of adapting to current self-interest, the complexity of modern human existence, and the potential effects of the concept of the "common good" with acceptance of spirited public mindedness. The founders expected that virtue would come from people voluntarily tempering their own selfish demands and desires enough so that liberty could flourish. It also meant that those who sought for political office would temper their pride, rise above their selfish concerns, and would wish to maintain their positive reputation by representing the people honorably.

So the founders considered virtue to simply mean one thing: a means to assure individual liberty and self-government by putting the good of the whole above the good of the individual or a small group of individuals. Therefore, you can see how this idea of virtue can transcend through hundreds of years despite changes in technology, society, and a variety of religious and moral ideals.

From the beginning of our constitution, the Founders feared that if there was insufficient public virtue then order would have to be imposed by coercion and force. The founders saw virtue as a form of restraint against corruption and, at the same time, as a stimulator of positive moral action.

This is something very important to keep in mind over the next 14 months leading to the presidential election. "Virtue", what is it, and who has it. Are those seeking this office able to rise above their selfish desires for grandiosity and fame to take care of the public good. Will the future president understand his/her role in government and the powers that do and do not come with the office? Above all, the President of the United States takes an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. Will the next president honor this oath? These are all things to consider as we look at the candidates aiming for office.