Crashing the Party

In his farewell address, President George Washington demonstrated hope that political parties would never form in the newly established United States of America. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote of the dangers of political factions. The founding fathers never intended for American politics to be defined by partisanship and ideology. And yet today, the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans is practically mandated by law.

It was Hamilton and Madison—the very men who had advocated so adamantly against political factionalism—who headed the first true American political organizations: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The fundamental difference between these parties was their stance on states’ rights. The former advocated for a powerful central government, and the latter for self-governance on the state level. That was centuries ago; today, the parties and the issues that define American politics are different, but the basic division of governance into two camps remains.

The apparent advantage of a party system is that it allows like-minded people to collaborate to achieve common goals. However, this assumes that each party is united by one cohesive dogma. This could not be further from the truth; within the parties, there are so many dramatic ideological differences that this point is moot. For instance, the Democratic Party suffers from the extreme division of its moderate and progressive constituents. Progressivism has become a staple of the Democratic Party. As the party moves further left with no end in sight, moderate Democrats are left behind in the dust, feeling ostracized within their own party.

Furthermore, the ideals of modern liberalism are often conflated with the ideals of the Democratic Party, much as conservatism is often conflated with Republicanism. The fact of the matter is, conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans do exist. At their very cores, the two parties rather resemble the Anti-Federalist and Federalist parties; each is defined by its stance on states’ rights. Though conservative and liberal ideas tend to overlap significantly with their respective parties, these words lack the precision necessary to describe an individual’s entire ideology in depth.

Another drawback of the party system is that uninformed or apathetic voters may cast their ballot in favor of the party with which they are affiliated without even understanding what their candidate stands for. Voters often lack understanding of what exactly it is that their parties represent, let alone a candidate’s personal set of beliefs. In order to truly understand what a politician’s agenda consists of, voters must educate themselves on individual candidates rather than make generalizations based on party affiliations.

Not only this, but the support for the two-party model inherent in the American system also renders independent voters (who, according to a Gallup poll, outnumber both their Democratic and Republican counterparts) unlikely to vote for their preferred candidate. It is unfortunate, but many regard voting independent as throwing away one's vote. American elections are based around a model of “first past the post” politics—essentially, a winner-take-all system. Independent voters, who are far more sparsely located throughout the country than either Republicans or Democrats, stand little chance of winning any elections, which only serves to further perpetuate the idea that voting Independent is a lost cause.

Possibly the greatest weakness of any party system is the inherent tribalism it inspires. Rather than assembling like-minded people and encouraging cooperation, parties facilitate the development of a sense of belonging within one’s party, and therefore, a disdain for the opposition. Rather than bringing together the people of our country in both their agreements and quarrels, the two-party system promotes a sense of “self” against “other,” from which no average citizen benefits.

Unfortunately, attempting moderation in politics, though laudable, often leads to more conflict than collaboration. Senator Joe Manchin should have received commendation for attempting to work with Republican lawmakers to achieve their common goals. Instead, he was met with backlash. Senator Susan Collins should have been praised for her willingness to vote with Democrats rather than blindly supporting her party. Instead, she was shunned by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Were the two-party system done away with, voters would no longer be able to lean on the crutch that is party affiliation when choosing a candidate to support. Furthermore, seats of office in the federal government would no longer be virtually unattainable to independent candidates. Though political unions and organizations will inevitably arise in some shape or form, abolishing parties would diminish factionalism significantly. So long as political parties oppose one another, they will only grow more polarized. So as long as political parties exist, the political climate in America will remain hostile and unproductive. If we hope to come together as a country rather than cater to parties that do not represent the people, we must abolish the two-party system which presently dominates our government.