The Rise (and Fall) of the Republicrats

by: Stephen Palmer Monday, December 21st, 2009

Since the presidency of George Washington, the United States has adopted a two-party political system which ensures that nearly all elected offices are held only by the candidates of the two parties obtaining the highest number of votes.

Defenders of the two-party system cite the political stability that it produces and the inherent filter of extremism that it provides.

However, two problems that are becoming increasingly apparent with the evolution of politics in America are 1) the almost indistinguishable character of the two main parties, and 2) the distortion and redefining of long-held and widely-debated political definitions.

The two current parties vying for power are the Democrats and the Republicans, which also are often loosely categorized as liberals and conservatives.

Historically the two viewpoints arose from the philosophical differences that existed between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

Hamilton believed in a strong federal government influence over local governments and individuals, while Jefferson believed strongly in individual rights and a limited federal government.

Democrats seemingly reflect the Hamiltonian perspective and push for more governmental intervention economically and for increased social programs such as welfare, universal health care coverage, and affirmative action.

Republicans appear to take Jefferson’s stance and assert individual responsibility and condemn the encroachment of the federal government upon individual liberty.

Catering To the Swing Votes

The U.S. population in the political realm consists of three main groups: liberals, conservatives, and so-called “moderates,” which are also labeled swing voters.

Each political party will always have a definite constituency that can be counted on to vote along party lines, and therefore candidates put relatively little effort into campaigning for the votes of their clearly defined base.

Instead, hopeful candidates spend the bulk of their time and efforts catering to the vacillating swing voters.

The result of this is that previously defined party lines and definitions are now obscured and concealed behind ambivalent rhetoric, propaganda, and proposals designed to entice voters from all sides.

A perfect example of this is President George W. Bush’s $400 billion proposal for prescription-drug benefits for seniors, which has traditionally been a key Democratic issue.

His obvious strategy was to steal the issue from the Democrats in an attempt to entice both swing votes and Democratic votes, knowing full well that even staunch conservatives will still vote to reelect him.

In the current political climate, candidates can use the over-simplified party designation as a simple matter of convenience to further their careers, while hiding disagreeable positions and special-interest affiliations behind the title.

Gunnar Myrdal, a contemporary political economist, stated that,

“Political parties . . . have to take up a fighting position at least at election times when they have to stimulate the lazy and undecided voters to vote, and to vote for them. All politicians . . . have, however, an interest in preserving favorable conditions for the normal day-to-day cooperation and collective bargaining among them all.”

He added that,

“We tend to arrive at a situation where there is a large measure of agreement among all the political parties. They sometimes even compete in propagating new and constantly more sweeping redistributional reforms as levels of income rise.

“In any case, we have seen very few examples, if any, where the coming into power of a more conservative political party has meant a substantial retraction of reforms previously carried through by a party which was further left.”

This general obscuring of issues of principle leaves the voting public with virtually no clear choice and has turned the election process into an arbitrary roll of the dice.

Political candidates no longer have defined principles; only general tendencies and ambiguous slogans, and often voters feel an acute sense of being misrepresented and an attitude of futility toward the election process.

The current prevailing strategy among voters seems to be that of “defensive” voting: they vote for the candidate on their side with the highest poll numbers for fear that by voting for another candidate they will “split” the vote, thereby handing the election to their opponent.

Unless the voting public begins to cast their votes in alignment with their conscience and principles, as opposed to choosing the perceived lesser of two evils, the two parties will continue to merge into one, both in theory and in practice, as they compete for the swing votes.

Voters must choose candidates who espouse explicit and unequivocal visions and whose political views are reflected in their actions.

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.