Our Two Party System

A number of systems of governance are employed throughout the modern world. There is the one party system used by the former Soviet Union where delegates are elected to a ruling body, which in turn selects the country’s leaders. The people have a choice in that they select the delegates or so the theory goes. In a parliamentary system representatives of many parties are elected to the ruling body. Most often there is not a single party that claims the majority and a coalition of various parties is formed to select the leaders.

Here in the US, though in fact we have candidates from various parties (Socialist & Libertarian for example) running in elections, as a practical matter we really have only two major parties that represent the entire electorate. Whereas in the parliamentary systems there are very many small groups representing special interests, Israel for example has 14 parties with seats in the Knesset and some of the smaller of these are made up of multiple parties and in Germany the ruling coalition headed by Angela Merkel is made up of the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria with the Social Democratic Party of Germany, The Left and the Alliance ‘90/The Greens the minority parties, in the two party system all the various special interest somehow, with ease or difficulty, need to be “shoe horned” into one of the two major parties. This represents a challenge to the candidates as is evidenced in the current primary battle for the presidency where, to attract primary voters, they have to take positions which will potentially alienate the majority of voters in the final election.

In our Free Market Capitalist System there is a natural competition between those selling and buying labor with each looking for advantages over the other. The major function of government is ensuring the prosperity of “we the people” (society) and in so doing try to even the “playing field” between these competing entities. From the most basic perspective, our two parties have aligned themselves, the Republicans with those earning their living from profits and rent and the Democrats with those living on wages. That is the principle difference between the two. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations writes about people’s subsistence coming from one of three sources, profits, rents and wages. Even during his simpler times there was some intermingling of the three. (Part of a shopkeeper’s earnings was in essence wages from his labor in the store with the balance coming from profits on capital he has invested in facilities and product.) Corporations were few and primarily made up of trading companies like the East India. Only a very small part of the population held shares in corporations. Most other businesses were either sole proprietorships or partnerships.

Today, though there still are small businesses like the one described above with income coming from a combination of wages and profits, there are a very large number of corporations many of which are publicly held. The ownership of the shares ranges from a large number of shares owned by an individual to institutional investors representing large numbers of individual each owning a small number of shares. It becomes a bit more difficult to place people into Smith’s three groupings of income from profit, rent and wages. Because of this complexity, in the following discussion relating to political parties, I will put those living primarily on profit or rent and the self employed in the “business” category and those living primarily on wages paid by others into the category of “labor”.

Beside the issue of how one makes a living there are a number of other considerations like freedom, equality, justice, opportunity, fairness and the environment to mention a few that tend to unite people. In a two party system, as mentioned above, these other interests need to find representation in one of the two parties.

In the Free Market Capitalist system businesses are driven by profit. Anything that adds to the cost of business, unless it results in greater revenues takes away from the profit. Businesses for the most part want to minimize any restrictions on their ability to make a profit. Though they do favor some regulations, these tend to fall more into the realm of monitory policy, government subsidies and more industry specific regulations minimizing competition like licensing requirements (liquor license requirements granted under the guise of public morality, as a practical matter, really limit the competition for bars and restaurants) and in the case of local businesses but not global ones, restrictions on foreign imports. The majority of regulations however, are intended to improve the prosperity of the society as a whole and tend to interfere with business and thus reduce profit.

The Republicans as representatives of business, having assumed the role of protectors of profit, properly become the “party of no” because at the most basic level most regulations, laws and expenditures, other than those related to protection of property and property rights, though they may benefit society, interfere with business activity. The Democrats, representing those selling labor want to implement policies that improve working conditions. They then become the party of regulations when viewed strictly through the lens of business and labor having pushed for workplace safety, restrictions on child labor, overtime pay, minimum wage and ability to collective bargain through unions.

Beside the basic there are tangential issues that “naturally” fall into the realm of either Democrats or Republicans. As the free market churns, creating and destroying, those most devastatingly affected tend to be the laborers. When the shoe industry moved offshore, workers in that industry often fell into poverty. Owners of the factories may have also suffered but more at the level of a change in life style. So social welfare naturally became an agenda of the Democrats. Having struggled to maximize their profits, people making their living from them don’t want to see their profits being eaten up by taxes especially where a portion of them may be used to increase regulations and thus further reduce profits. As representatives of business, the Republican’s effort to maximize the retention of profits also attract wealthy wage earners such as hedge fund managers, entertainers including athletes, CEOs, doctors and lawyers. All laws and regulations, by their very nature limit personal freedom. One challenge is to balances individual freedom and societal prosperity. The Democrats, representing the wage earners enact more regulations. therefore those leaning in favor of the individual (supporters of the NRA fall into this category) will turn to Republicans leaving those leaning toward society to the Democrats. The above are “natural” tendencies consistent with basic positions of the parties.

Having said that, demographics even with the addition of some “naturally” aligned special interests, still leave the Republicans short of followers relative to Democrats. The challenge becomes enticing wage earners to join their ranks with promises of something they value more than their own material well-being. The “trickle down” theory is one way to convince them that the advantages gained by the wealthy (“job creators” in conservative speak) will indeed flow down and enrich them. Another way to entice the wage earners is by dawning the mantle of conservatism, which at its core relies on the established wealth to maintain existing institutions. Up until the Civil Rights regulations passed during the sixties, the Democrats held a strong position in the formerly Confederate South. The southern segregationists, feeling betrayed by the Democratic Party turned to the Republicans who to this day woo them with subtle racial innuendos (the “Southern Strategy”) and an appeal to a new bigotry by stoking fear of Islam. To gain a numbers advantage, another group courted by the Republicans is the Fundamentalist Christian. A few decades ago their churches stayed out of politics. The Republican Party as a strategy decided to bring this group into their fold with three enticements all lumped under the category of “values”. Prior to that time, abortion was viewed as mostly a Catholic issue until a strong campaign by the Republican Party made it into a Protestant “right to life” issue. There was already an aversion to homosexuality in that community but the Republican effort made it a “family value” issue and gave it a means of expression. The third was the promise of a Christian Theocracy. Today on the campaign trail candidates routinely invoke God and if not outwardly than at least hint at a Christian God. Knowing that for the most part the Founders were Deists, Republicans still suggest that the founders had a government based on Christian principles in mind, citing the reference to the “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence as if it not only said “God” and not even the God of Abraham, (Christians Muslims and Jews all recognize the same One) but an exclusively Christian God. I believe the Founders intentionally left the interpretation of Creator to the individual. Had they meant God they would have said God and furthermore had they intended this to be a Christian country they would have invoked the name of Christ.

Republicans claim to stand for a Capitalist Free Market economy, which in its purest form, drives innovation and thus change, knows no boundaries and recognizes no racial, ethnic or religious differences. Their challenge is to rationalize this with the conservative desire to stand still, the patriotic drive for nationalism and the dream of returning to a white Christian past. The Democrats, for their part, play to the black and immigrant voters, who for the most part are poor, as the party in favor of social regulations. Also as the party of society and therefore regulation, they pander to the Environmentalists whose extreme agenda’s benefit to society may be questionable. Their challenge is to not get lost in the tangential details and focus on the primary role of government, which is to ensure the prosperity of its society. To do this they must continue to facilitate the operation of the Free Market while making sure it not only serves the self-interest of business but society as a whole.

In a Two Party System we as individuals need to balance and prioritize our personal agendas, determine what are our most important issues and select the Party that will support them. It becomes a challenge full of large compromises. Having said that, items that naturally fall into the Party become its platform, however the artificial ones tend to be spoken about and highlighted during the primaries and then forgotten anyway. In a Multi-Party System, representatives are chosen based on narrow agendas and throughout their tenure negotiate with other interests to advance their issues. I really had no interest in politics until I started following the Presidential race four years ago. I was of the opinion that there was no real difference between the parties. Now having listened and read more, not only have I become convinced that there is a great difference but I am starting to think that it may be irreconcilable.

Yes Virginia, Laws Interfere with Individual Freedom

There is much discussion today about more government or less, more regulations or fewer, too many laws or not enough. Much, though not all, of the discussion really can be boiled down to two issues; the cost of government and who should pay for it and the restrictions on business activities and personal freedoms. Success here and in fact in most of life’s endeavors comes in great part from the ability to balance disparate issues such as these. The beauty of our system is that until now we have been able to achieve a reasonable balance. The pendulum swings to the left and right and for short periods rests in the middle and as long as it is allowed to return, we as a nation will be fine.

The Buddhists call this traveling the middle path (I think). Socrates spoke of individual virtues with bravery being the balance between cowardice and brashness. Jumping between two twenty story buildings separated by fifty feet to save someone is stupid. Not jumping between two buildings separated by ten feet is cowardly but jumping when buildings are separated by twenty feet where there is a real chance, however slim, is bravery. In family life there is a need to balance time put into work with time spent with family and a bit of time for independent personal development and pleasure. Inability to strike some sort of balance leads to divorce or familial misery. To be truly successful, a football team needs to balance the running and passing games. Can’t get into the Super Bowl without it. And so balancing the drive for individuality with the needs of society is a government’s major role.

Genetically we humans are programmed to ensure our survival and that of our offspring while satisfying our urges for pleasure. This instinct obviously served us well before we started living in communities extending beyond our immediate families. As the number of us grew, we had to gather into communities to survive and to survive within a community, be it a village, a state or a notion, some basic instincts had to be compromised. The challenge become balancing individual freedom with the well being of society. Since man started living in communities this challenge has existed. At the extremes on either side of the middle are totalitarian regimes such as existed under Stalin and Hitler at one end and a Libertarian Utopia that to my knowledge has yet to exist, at the other.

Basically all laws, be they just or unjust, restrict someone’s individual freedoms. Nature has prepared females of our species to bear children at the age of 12 or 13 (and getting alarmingly younger) but over the years society had decided that for a variety of good reasons that was too young and in the industrialized countries laws exist that have elevated the age of child bearing to the late teens and custom to the twenties. Humans by nature may not be loyal mates so laws came down in the form of one of the Ten Commandments not to covet thy neighbors wife or governmental laws in some primitive Muslim societies punishing infidelity by stoning a woman to death. We cannot decide to drive on the left side of the road or up a one-way street. I imagine very few would argue against such an abridgment to our liberty. Other laws that infringe on freedom are open to debate. Should the government restrict smoking in a private facility even though it is used by the general public? Should government dictate what sex and between whom should be allowed? There are other laws that most people today would have issues with such as the law against interracial marriage. (There was a survey conducted in Mississippi last year asking whether such a law should be reinstated. Less than one half of the respondents thought it should not. The majority either thought it should or didn’t have an opinion.).

In a primitive village it is the chief or the council of elders who shoulder the responsibility of this balanc. In Medieval Europe or in today’s backward societies, much of the balance was in the hands of the clergy. In nation states today, the chore falls to the governing body. Our governments set the rules that interfere with our “freedoms”, some out of necessity, others out of custom or in response to screams by the general society or unfortunately, by special interest of smaller groups with loud voices. It is “common wisdom” that the conservative want fewer laws and the liberals more. The fact of the matter is that they both want laws, but ones that support them and their understanding of how the world turns. All laws whatever their end intent is, do interfere with individual freedoms. If we all, by nature drove on the right side of the road, or had no sex drives or any genetically driven instincts contrary to the interest of society at large. there would be no need for a laws whether mortal or divine.