A Manifesto for Renewal
Preamble: The spirit of democracy, liberty, and social welfare is under siege. Special interests, corporations, and apathy threaten to undermine all that our founding patriots fought hard for. Special interests threaten to stagnate our democracy and establish an oligarchy of the wealthy. Corporations threaten to undermine the very concept of democracy and instead supplant it with governance by the companies. Finally, apathy threatens to destroy everything as the citizen body ignores the erosion of our democracy, liberty, and social welfare. I dictate this manifesto in the hopes of saving that hallowed but threatened spirit.
Part I: The Fundamental Problem of Governance
The threats that the spirit of democracy, liberty, and social welfare (hereafter referenced as “the spirit”) faces are derived largely from a fundamental problem of governance and government. This problem takes the form of a two-party system. That is to say, the problem that serves as the fundamental basis for the threats to “the spirit” is derived from the two-party system of governance. This is the fundamental problem because the two-party system breeds division, partisanship, and all the other conditions within which the threats can develop.
In a two-party state the two parties are bitterly divided in a struggle for power. They are not forced to cooperate with one another nor any other possible party with the end result being an increasingly concrete partisan society. In a two-party state, far from cooperating on the basis of the democratic tradition the parties battle it out in the combative tradition of partisanship. This subsequent combative tradition results in the crystallization of private interests (and the multiplicity of special interests) in two diametrically opposed camps. As such instead of preserving the democratic and necessary tradition of pluralism (when defined as a multiplicity of groups competing for power, which necessarily prevents one single group from dominating) the two-party state leads to interest dominated camps. This means regardless of what party dominates the government, some form of special interest will be paramount.
A two-party state not only encourages the dominance of special interests by strangling the concept of pluralism (as defined above) but also encourages the spirit of apathy that is increasingly prevalent. This spirit of apathy is created by the crystallization of certain opinions within the two participating parties and the marginalization of opinions not held by the two participating parties. This apathy then leads to low citizen participation levels and a general weakening of the institutions of democracy. How after all can we hold to “the spirit” and operate a democratic country if the majority of citizens do not participate in the process?
Finally the two-party state allows for the dominance of corporations on the political scene. This is the result of the two-party system’s huge costs (candidates are running against members of the opposition party and their own party and need financial backing to a very significant degree). The only parties that can effectively provide the necessary level of funding are PACs effectively operated by corporate interests. Since there is such a stagnate degree of competition in the two-party state corporations are easily able to dominate both camps, which is why such concepts as the iron triangle, etc… even exist. This dominance subsequently erodes the aforementioned “spirit”.
In the end the two-party model of “democracy” breeds the very elements by which democracy is brought to an end. It allows the development of a number of threats to “the spirit” which sustains democracy. The end result of this can only be the end of democracy (whether veiled or out in the open) and its replacement with some other form of government.
Part II: The Solution
The solutions to the fundamental problem facing our democratic spirit are varied and favored to differing degrees on the basis of what part of the political spectrum one holds to. Because of this I will propose two solutions to try and appeal to the broad political spectrum. The first solution harkens back to the wise words of our first president’s farewell address (George Washington warned of the danger of political parties in, and involves the elimination of all political parties and associated interests. The second solution envisions expanding the number of political parties participating in the governing process thereby preserving true plurality.
If solution one were to be the favored course of action the government would have to implement laws banning the formulation and existence of all political parties. While that might sound preferable it is unfortunately not a feasible solution to the two-party issue at hand. Indeed while we might legally ban political parties it is impossible to ban the formulation of alternative special interests and citizen groups (without of course sliding towards an entirely unacceptable form of government). As such, though it sounds nice (and though I agree with President Washington on the danger of political parties) I see no real way to effectively implement solution one without endangering or destroying democracy.
Because solution one cannot be implemented without dramatically harming the democratic spirit and process, I find myself drawn to solution two. Solution two, instead of envisioning a nation free of political parties, favors a nation with a multiplicity of political parties. This multiplicity would then preserve and strengthen the plurality so very vital to democratic institutions. The method and implementation of solution two is open to opinion, but it is my opinion that it is best established on the same model as numerous parliamentary democracies around the world. That is to say, I believe we should allow the total participation of any and all political parties and organizations within the democratic framework of government that we have (with some necessary adjustments for effective implementation).
Those adjustments largely revolve around eliminating the winner takes all system and replacing it with proportional representation. Thus instead of a candidate winning all the votes, say when he/she only gets 51 percent of the vote, the system will apportion seats according to the respective percentage of votes received by the various participating parties. In this fashion the true representation of the people’s political desires might best be had (as opposed to the current polarized system they have to choose from).
This particular adjustment would apply to the House of Representatives with the Senate requiring its own particular modifications. Indeed for the Senate I suggest giving the states the power to appoint one senator apiece (thus preserving our unique federalism) while the second senator would be elected at large by the voters of the said state. I suggest this system for the Senate so that the states continue to have some measure of influence over the Federal government and so that the voters still have some say over the Senate. Of course this also restores some restraint on the popular passions in the legislature that our forefathers envisioned.
To also effectively eliminate the threat of the two party system and the special interest domination of it I suggest the elimination of the Electoral College and the easing of candidacy requirements in Presidential elections. This way not only does true democracy reign, but also the multitude of candidates should prevent a unified or domineering involvement by special interests (especially if candidates are supported through a public candidacy fund). With a public candidacy fund (and without the Electoral College) the field of candidates for Presidential office will expand sufficiently so as to prevent a unified effort by special interests in supporting any one candidate. Besides it also makes the system much more open to competition and should increase popular participation in the electoral process.
Thus my suggestion is for several significant adjustments to the American political machine in order that the domination of the two-party system (and associated special interests) is broken. If this can be accomplished then true democracy might return to the people and the people might actually participate. The apathy forced on them by the two-party system and its associated poisons might be brought to an end and popular democracy might once more define the American political scene.
Part III: Final Commentary
I would like to finish this manifesto by stating that this is by no means the finished product. Over time I plan on editing, editing, and reediting this piece so that it might better reflect my increased understanding of politics and political philosophy. As of right now it simply reflects a college sophomore’s budding understanding of the political realm but as I grow, so shall this manifesto. I hope you like what you read here and I encourage you to check back for more as I continue my political musings, etc…
Just some words to muse on:
“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…”- Declaration of Independence 1776 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp)
