How to speak the most and say the least

All joking aside, the heart of yesterdays post was one of the most important topics of modern American politics. Yes, we have always had a two party system in the past. Yes, it is has always worked. And of course, we do have one of the most stable governments in modern society. However, as Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” There are faults with our system, and any fault should be routinely examined in a modern context.

The main problem in a two party system is that the two sides polarize all of the issues of contention. Politicians are constantly trying to find where the majority of the citizens stand on a particular issue, and then position themselves accordingly. In the next many months of “electorama,” We will have the privilege of learning exactly what it means to be moderate on any topic. An election between two candidates becomes a popularity contest. No one wants to do too much to startle any potential voters, and each candidate’s only real concern is being more supported than their opponent. A candidate such as Hilary Clinton might seem un-electable if the majority of voters think that a universal health care system will wreck the country. A Republican will lose if he pushes forward in a theatre such as Iraq if not enough voters support this. Therefore the candidates discuss their pet issues as little as possible.

Though it makes for calculatingly predictable and often two-dimensional candidates, it breeds moderation. This slow moving and deliberate form of government might frustrate many with its unresponsive call to many issues such as the environment, globalization, and anti-trust laws, but the main reason it has been supported is for its “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it mentality.” We have an extremely moderate system that makes no sharp turns in its political maneuvering. We are a huge ship that takes quite a while to change its course. This is encouraging to many because of the stable and predictable occurrence of events in our country. Businessmen, who are too many the soul of the American dream, thrive on predictability. But at what costs are we choosing this consistency?

This was certainly a brilliant decision made by our founding fathers. At the time, no other nation believed that a country as vast as the USA could survive democracy. How would we constantly compromise in a way so that no group would feel alienated and seek succession? Individuals were too different back then, they felt, and issues such as religion, and later slavery would surely rip this nation apart. It was realized that any small faction with too much power would be disastrous to a country. Therefore, the founders created a flavor of democracy with many checks and balances and a political system to guard against this. Our variety is controlled by the two party system, where each side is so similar that we are incapable of making radical changes.

Yet, this slow moving predictability comes at the cost of progress. Issues do not surface in our political environment because politics is a continual popularity contest. It is not until the majority of the American public begin to fall behind an issue that politicians will begin to act on a topic. Why make proposals regarding an issue unless you are certain that it will gain you more votes than it will lose you? It is rarely done. Any candidate will tell you that running for office opens the doors to a new kind of calculus that only the insane can appreciate. Don’t say what you think, say what they feel. And those who play the game the best are remembered the fondest.

Being placed into a modern context has only exacerbated the shortcomings of the two party system. The media is a great thing, but it further polarizes the issues into two sides. We focus on a left and a right like they were two sides of a coin and forget that there are more views than there are issues. It cannot be argued that this theater of politics is more exciting to the average viewer in this context. It greatly simplifies things and places our parties on a relatively even stage, set for battle. It makes for sensational arguments, but what does all this time posturing really accomplish. Programs such as “Hardball,” are only at the beginning of this tendency. Realizing that this sensationalistic view of the news sells, whole networks have emerged having either a Republican or a Democratic slant,

The 24 hour news cycle and the inter connectivity created through the internet are changing everything. They have begun to reveal the grotesque side of politics that many of us have lay witness to for a long time. Everything is now under a microscope, and we realize how much there really isn't there. Why does it surprise so many that political interaction is at an all time low? We focus so much time on Halliburton and blowjobs, and never discuss the issues that the politicians are afraid to mention. Challenge yourself to come up with 20 issues that affect the country, and see how much time the media spends on each of them. Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner focus on what sells, and infotainment sells, not issues that no one is talking about. And still, because of a civic duty to participate, a dwindling percentage of our population chooses to participate and joins a major party. They buy into this “us” vs. “them” mentality and often, join right in. And when the time comes to vote for a candidate most Americans choose the lesser of two evils. Is this how our founders intended our government be run? Were we intended to select the worst candidate except for all those others that are running? I hope not.

Next: The solution—the parliamentary system.