by Megan
I don't usually like to write about political topics because I believe that politics rests on many other prior areas of philosophy, and I don't feel comfortable forming strong political views until I have reached definite conclusions in those other areas. I do, however, feel comfortable making some political judgments based on the way that I think about ethics or on pragmatic grounds. For instance, I place great importance on individual rights, which leads me to support the right to have an abortion and the right to bind oneself legally to whomever one chooses (i.e., gay marriage). Another political issue about which I am quite opinionated is the U.S. two-party system.
As the election draws nearer, I find myself feeling increasingly frustrated that I have only two real choices for my vote. I could never vote for McCain because he refuses to acknowledge women's right to have abortions and because he is just generally scary. Also, if he dies or becomes senile in office, that terrifying lady would take over. Obama seems like someone I could respect greatly as a friend and trust to actually think about his decisions before he makes them, but his socialist tendencies make me extremely uncomfortable and he always seems to be promising the impossible. Of course, there's always the option of not voting at all, but as long as I wish to consider myself a part of this country, it seems that I should take part in the democratic process that is so essential to it. And as always there is a small array of third-party candidates on whom I could waste my vote, knowing that they stand no chance of winning. Effectively, there are only two choices: McCain and Obama.
The real problem is not the candidates themselves, but the two-party system that has made them the only choices. With two parties so completely dominating the political scene, there will never be any more than two real choices. Any person who does not consider herself a republican or a democrat knows that she will never see a major candidate whom she would really like to vote for, and this is certainly not a situation that leads to pride in one's country and confidence in one's leaders. I think that many people use political parties as a way to avoid having to actually think about the candidates; they can just say, "I always vote republican," and they don't even have to look at the names on the ballot. Any person who is interested in thinking carefully and critically about the presidential candidates should be frustrated by the fact that there are really only two.
Another problem with the two-party system is that it leads to an atmosphere of "us versus them", where each candidate can focus on bashing his opponent rather than actually articulating any positive views himself. It seems to me that if there were more candidates, they would have to put forth their own views rather than attack everyone else's simply because there would be too many people to attack effectively.
The two-party system also means that the candidates for those two parties receive a ridiculous amount of funding, making it impossible for a someone without ties to a dominant political party or a vast fortune to even make themselves known to the same degree. If more than two parties were taken seriously, funding would be more evenly distributed among candidates than it currently is, and candidacy would not be restricted to the political and financial elite.
It seems to me that the best solution to all of this would be to get rid of political parties altogether. This would force people to actually look at the candidates as individuals and scrutinize their policies rather than simply checking to see what party they belong to--people would have to actually think before voting. Candidates would have to be very clear about their views to distinguish themselves from others instead of taking the easier road of simply bad-mouthing each other. Further, people without access to ridiculous amounts of money would have a better chance of at least having people become aware of their candidacy.
Getting rid of the two-party system--now that's change I can believe in.
I don't usually like to write about political topics because I believe that politics rests on many other prior areas of philosophy, and I don't feel comfortable forming strong political views until I have reached definite conclusions in those other areas. I do, however, feel comfortable making some political judgments based on the way that I think about ethics or on pragmatic grounds. For instance, I place great importance on individual rights, which leads me to support the right to have an abortion and the right to bind oneself legally to whomever one chooses (i.e., gay marriage). Another political issue about which I am quite opinionated is the U.S. two-party system.
As the election draws nearer, I find myself feeling increasingly frustrated that I have only two real choices for my vote. I could never vote for McCain because he refuses to acknowledge women's right to have abortions and because he is just generally scary. Also, if he dies or becomes senile in office, that terrifying lady would take over. Obama seems like someone I could respect greatly as a friend and trust to actually think about his decisions before he makes them, but his socialist tendencies make me extremely uncomfortable and he always seems to be promising the impossible. Of course, there's always the option of not voting at all, but as long as I wish to consider myself a part of this country, it seems that I should take part in the democratic process that is so essential to it. And as always there is a small array of third-party candidates on whom I could waste my vote, knowing that they stand no chance of winning. Effectively, there are only two choices: McCain and Obama.
The real problem is not the candidates themselves, but the two-party system that has made them the only choices. With two parties so completely dominating the political scene, there will never be any more than two real choices. Any person who does not consider herself a republican or a democrat knows that she will never see a major candidate whom she would really like to vote for, and this is certainly not a situation that leads to pride in one's country and confidence in one's leaders. I think that many people use political parties as a way to avoid having to actually think about the candidates; they can just say, "I always vote republican," and they don't even have to look at the names on the ballot. Any person who is interested in thinking carefully and critically about the presidential candidates should be frustrated by the fact that there are really only two.
Another problem with the two-party system is that it leads to an atmosphere of "us versus them", where each candidate can focus on bashing his opponent rather than actually articulating any positive views himself. It seems to me that if there were more candidates, they would have to put forth their own views rather than attack everyone else's simply because there would be too many people to attack effectively.
The two-party system also means that the candidates for those two parties receive a ridiculous amount of funding, making it impossible for a someone without ties to a dominant political party or a vast fortune to even make themselves known to the same degree. If more than two parties were taken seriously, funding would be more evenly distributed among candidates than it currently is, and candidacy would not be restricted to the political and financial elite.
It seems to me that the best solution to all of this would be to get rid of political parties altogether. This would force people to actually look at the candidates as individuals and scrutinize their policies rather than simply checking to see what party they belong to--people would have to actually think before voting. Candidates would have to be very clear about their views to distinguish themselves from others instead of taking the easier road of simply bad-mouthing each other. Further, people without access to ridiculous amounts of money would have a better chance of at least having people become aware of their candidacy.
Getting rid of the two-party system--now that's change I can believe in.
Posts
5 comments:
I haven't really though too much about the two-party system, but I don't see how you would get rid of it.
Also I think individual rights and the rule of law are more essential to this country than democracy.
Having a multiple party system would be worse. Either a minority could gain influence and power to easily. (I can easily magine hardcore greens/socialists/religionists winning if there was a split over, lets say, 6 parties.) The other option would be to have one of those disasterous 'coalition' governments that plague too many 'democracies'.
I agree with the above poster. Ultimately, if the right ideas are common (individual rights, rule of law) the two-party system will be just fine.
Were we to reinstate the ideals of a Republic, and a government of laws and not of men, it would not matter who was in office.
Renee,
I think that the only way to get rid of the two-party system would be for people to simply stop donating so much money to those two parties and starting developing more nuanced political views. Certainly that is something that would have to occur gradually. Also, I agree with you about individual rights and law being more essential than democracy--I think I was using 'essential' in a colloquial (and unclear) sense that just meant 'important', so I've changed it after your comment. Thanks.
Minroad,
I would rather not have political parties at all than have a multiple party system. Also, given that rational ideas are generally not shared among all government officials, I think that it is destructive to have a system where those same ideas just keep getting recycled behind different faces. So, I agree that the ideas are most important, but I think that right now the two-party system is standing in the way of those ideas making their way to the forefront.
Jason,
I think you're right to an extent, but it's important to keep in mind that the Constitution is a document that must be interpreted before it can be applied. Since the president is the one who appoints people to the Supreme Court, the president would still have a significant influence on how the republic functions. So it seems to me that it will always matter who is in office.
Thanks for the comments!
-Megan
No problem. :)
Post a Comment