Political Parties

Unless and until something better — democracy first.  First because democracy gives the power of governance to those governed.  Ours, democracy itself, is a work in progress. One that is always asking, what can we do to make our democracy work better?  Along that vein, herein is a look at some of the pros and cons of our two-party system, and a possible alternative. 

He said that the old man told him that he was born a Republican and a Baptist.

They do provide a means of selecting candidates for office. Alas and alack, this is an area of great failure lately.  One, the Republican Party, facilitated the selection of Trump, a do-nothing, cowardly, worse-than-worthless, Congressional majority,  and six clowns to the Supreme Court; and is pro-fascist, anti-democracy.

This same party is especially captive of special interests — so much so that it doesn’t even bother to go back home to go to town hall meetings with its constituents, those in a democracy whom it is supposed to represent.  This capture is facilitated by the special interests providing loads of money to campaigns and to assorted influencers under the aegis of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United.  The parties facilitate the capture by accepting the contributions.  Money corrupts politics; money in politics is an anathema to democracy.

Both parties use some form of primary to select candidates, primaries in which a small percentage of the party membership usually holds sway.  Something that is itself undemocratic and non representative.  Not by accident, this gives the party apparatchiks more control of the selection process and platform, the membership less.

Parties can and do serve as entry points, groom, and vet those who want to be politicians.  They can and do provide support for candidates’ campaigns, act as conduits for or suppressors of new ideas; they can be dictatorial or democratic, or some combination thereof.

Some argue that the two-party system provides a shadow government in case the one in power fails.  Of late, in the U.S., such changes have been more like drunken lurches to right wing extremism then back toward center.  This lurching, this partisanship, is hardly a prescription for sound long-term governance, especially when the party doing the lurching is also pro-fascist, anti-democracy.  Switching back and forth between ideologies is more akin to Europe’s centuries of war than to best thinking.  More likely, good governance is about pragmatically dealing with reality and has little or nothing to do with ideology — involves slight well-thought-out course changes.  The idea of two parties, itself, was purloined for lack of better thinking; is not in the Constitution. 

There is room for improvement.

A big part of the problem with our two party system is getting people’s attention.  Most voters and potential voters simply don’t have time for politics.  Minorities within the parties control the parties because they have the time, take the time, and show interest.  One could posit that this taking the time and showing interest qualifies them to make the initial choices.

What would be ‘best thinking’ in today’s world of internet and social media and almost unlimited communication?  Changing an existing paradigm can be a sisyphean task, so let’s go big.

In today’s world, both the internet and social media could provide an open forum for discussing new political ideas, new economic ideas, legislative proposals — open forums for any and all subjects of interest.  On political forums, aspiring politicians could be given equal access to make their pitch.  Those aspirants with the most liked ideas would advance in rating.  The public could choose.  Voting would be a civic duty. 

Today, social media is larger than ‘traditional’ media and continues to grow while traditional media continues to shrink.  Unfortunately, it is neither altruistic, patriotic, socially conscious, nor civic-minded; rather, it is being used to generate $Billions in profit or as a propaganda outlet for half-baked nerds.  Social media, for all intents and purposes, is unregulated in the United States.

There is still the option of requiring the internet and a well regulated social media to provide free and equal, unfettered access for public discourse. 

Where aspirants and candidates would be given equal access to open public internet forums, with strict rules in regard to permissible subject matter.  For example, there are to be no anti-democratic, racist, bigoted, hateful, or religious discussions in these forums.  

Open forums with the most-liked candidates/platforms advancing in a ranked choice competition until one has more than half of the total votes.   Winning candidates would be sworn in; winning initiatives/platforms would advance or be enacted into law.

Legislative bodies could use a similar process for selecting leaders/officers.  

Babies would no longer be born a Democrat or Republican. They would be born to be future voters in a democracy.  There would be no role for money in elections, no excuse for tyranny by a minority.