No, Third Parties Will Not Save American Democracy

If you follow national politics even the slightest bit, you are probably a little bit fed up with partisan politics. "Polarization" is what it's called: an affliction that is stymying legislative progress and keeping our federal government in a seemingly eternal state of gridlock. Examples of this include Congress's inability to pass universal background checks on firearms purchases despite overwhelming public support, the inability to compromise on the federal budget that led to the sequester, and Congress's continuing battle over health care legislation passed years ago.

Some people suggest that the problem with American democracy is systemic. Their argument is that the two-party system is intrinsically flawed since it only provides two options for voters. If we only had more options, we would have more of a chance of having a government that actually represents the people of our country, a people who are arguably more moderate than our current party options.

There are three assumptions of this argument that expose the issue with the deus ex machina third-party solution.

First, the argument that third parties will allow for people to choose parties that more closely align with their personal beliefs follows a consumer model of government. The idea is that each individual has an claim to get the product that they want and that producers will provide them with it if demand is high enough.

While this may be a good approach for fast-food, it doesn't work so well in government. This is because government by the people is what Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor terms an "irreducibly social good." Irreducibly social goods are goods that cannot be reduced to the good accrued to individuals. An intrinsic aspect of political life is interaction, and with interaction comes negotiation of the self with others. If we atomize politics, we diminish the most important aspect of politics: its social aspect. Fostering the growth of third parties will not create parties that perfectly align with individuals, but will only create new avenues for compromise. 

Second, advocating for third parties often hinges on a belief that the two parties are too polarized and that a political middle needs to be found. The problem with this is that contemporary polarization in practice is not the fault of both parties, but is actually the fault of the Republican party.

People compare the Tea Party and the Occupy movement, but only one of these fringe movements has been able to successfully infiltrate the party, create a party caucus, and make moderates in its party pay for not holding ideologically pure positions. There was no high-profile primary upending in the Democratic party on the level of Senator Richard Lugar's embarrassing 2012 defeat. Spending cuts have been agreed to by both parties, but it took a near-implosion of the economy to get Republicans to agree to tax rates lower than the Clinton years. On top of that, President Obama's heritage-foundation based health care reform law has been widely called "socialist" by those on the right, stretching the term to the point of meaninglessness. Obama's economic policy platform would have put him in the mainstream of the Republican party 30 years ago and his social policy platform sides with the majority of Americans today. For those who feel like there is no place for a centrist in America today, look no further than the Democratic party.

Lastly, there is an assumption that polarization is an outgrowth of Washington and that "regular people" are more centrist than their representatives in Washington. The reality is that the American people are just as divided as their representatives in Washington. In the last mayoral election here in Omaha, an open primary was held with all parties going head-to-head and the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election. Out of the five candidates, two were radical right-wing candidates, two were moderates, and one was a strong left-wing candidates. One of the radical right-wing candidates and the left-wing candidate floated to the top.

While third parties are fun for someone who is fascinated with politics, they are not the solution to America's political polarization problem. What we need to look to is voter access. Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and partisan politicians in state director of election positions pose a much more present threat to American democracy than the two-party system. Let's see what we can do to fix issues that can really bring America closer to its promise of a country of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Romney's "47% Speech" Misses Point of Government Assistance

Mitt Romney's campaign has been struggling recently, suffering from a subpar convention, internal struggles, and a botched response to the recent tragedy in Libya. But the miscue that is making the most news this week is a video posted by Mother Jones Magazine in which Romney characterizes half the country as welfare-dependent freeloaders who he has no need to "worry about."

While much has been written about the factual inaccuracies in Romney's claims in the video, in particular him claiming that the 47% of Americans who do not pay income taxes (many of whom are paying payroll taxes, in the military, or retired) are the same 47% of Americans who receive some sort of benefit from the government and are the same 47% who are currently supporting President Obama's reelection. Others have talked about the troubling ramifications of Romney's assertion that it is "not my job to worry about these people," implying that 47% of Americans should not be of his concern because he cannot ever hope to get their votes

What has not been covered, however, is Romney's troubling misunderstanding of the purpose of government assistance. Throughout the campaign, Romney has railed against a culture of "dependence," trying to paint the current administration and the Democratic Party as a whole as heartless socialists, trying to create a class of Americans that are dependent on government programs and thus dependent on the Democratic Party for subsistence. This came to a head with the Romney campaign's absurd allegations that the Obama administration was somehow trying to gut the Clinton administration work requirement from the current welfare system.

The problem with Romney's rhetoric about government programs is that he consistently overstates his case. While Romney will often pay lip service to the importance of government intervention to help those who are in dire circumstances, he will just as often make the mistake of characterizing all government assistance as demeaning and frivolous.

Both major parties in the United States today are essentially liberal in their political philosophy. Both the Republican and Democratic party espouse the same central values of liberty and equality put forth by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: that men 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."

The function of the government in the eyes of both parties is to, at its core, secure life and liberty for its citizens. This is why, over the years, the federal, state, and local governments of the United States have worked to ensure their citizens have the means to live healthy, productive lives. A person who is hungry all day, cannot afford the health care they need to survive, or has no home to go back to at night  is not being afforded their basic rights of life and liberty.

So when Romney decries Americans for feeling "entitled to health care, to food, to housing," he misses the point of our American system. While he may have never had to feel the pinch in regards to getting food, receiving health care, or finding housing, these are issues that everyday Americans deal with all the time, especially the elderly, the disabled, and the very poor.

The argument that Romney should be making is that it is better to be self-sufficient than dependent on the government. That we should keep the safety nets that are needed and do away with those that keep people dependent. That to earn means on our own is better than to receive means from others, but paying attention to the fact that no one gets a start without help from someone.