Two dominant parties hold power and restrict the emergence of alternative voices, which aligns with the concerns expressed by John Adams who feared the emergence of "a division of the republic into two great parties ... is to be dreaded as the great political evil."
As we approach the 2024 presidential elections, it becomes increasingly apparent that there is only one candidate outside the established red and blue electoral parties. Let's take a moment to reflect on the founding principles of our country: to provide equal opportunities for all citizens to shape their beloved nation for the better. Is that ideal being realized? Unfortunately, the current reality paints a different picture. Two dominant parties hold power and restrict the emergence of alternative voices, which aligns with the concerns expressed by John Adams who feared the emergence of "a division of the republic into two great parties ... is to be dreaded as the great political evil."
“(...)If our nation's foundational idea was to be independent from singular ruling figures, in exchange for freedom of the people in how the country flows, how can we continue to allow only two ruling parties to determine the future of our country? How can we overcome the unjust means by which these parties maintain their dominance? And how can we stand by as they squash the hopes and dreams other political parties have for their nation?”
In an opinion piece by Jamelle Bouie, an esteemed columnist for The New York Times, the significance of political parties is underscored: "Parties aren't just a natural outgrowth of democracy—they are essential to democratic governance itself. Parties are how voters coordinate their interests and choose representatives. They help organize the messiness of democracy, clarifying issues and articulating stakes." However, how can voters effectively coordinate their interests when they are limited to choosing between only two options? Our country's future seems confined to the narrow spectrum of blue and red. Expressing an alternative vision to the voters becomes nearly impossible.
Let’s begin by examining the issues within each individual party. Tulsi Gabbard, a former Hawaii State Representative and member of the Democratic party, candidly discussed her experience in Congress, likening it to a high school environment. While it initially appears familiar and enjoyable, stepping out of line with the party's prescribed rules quickly leads to exclusion. Intentions and aspirations for the country are disregarded, and those in power within the party ensure that they are quashed. It is important to note that Gabbard's dissent did not stem from conflicting beliefs with the Democrats but rather from her refusal to be a mere pawn in their political machinations. Undoubtedly, similar dynamics persist within the Republican party. Regrettably, this means that we don’t find only two parties, the only ones determining our supposedly diverse country, but very specific types of people within these parties, too.
Broadening our lens, we can inspect why campaign events and debates predominantly showcase the colors red and blue. There are multiple reasons, but the most prominent one is that the parties have set impossibly high standards that emerging parties must meet. Admittedly, standards are necessary to prevent the rise of questionable parties, yet it is vital to address how high these standards are. Moreover, these standards are arbitrarily changed whenever an "outsider" manages to meet the expectations. Consider the obvious case of Ron Paul in the 2012 presidential elections, where Gregory Krieg summarizes in CNN that "The GOP's 'Rule 40(b)' requires candidates to win the 'support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states' in order to have their names placed on the nominating ballot. The raised threshold – it had previously been a plurality from five states – helped to prevent Paul’s supporters from upstaging or distracting from the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, on national television." And why is this allowed? Well, because guess who is responsible for creating the laws: the Democrats and Republicans, the very parties holding the reins of power.
One might argue that the founding fathers established our country in the 18th century, and politics naturally evolve over time. However, if our nation's foundational idea was to be independent from singular ruling figures, in exchange for freedom of the people in how the country flows, how can we continue to allow only two ruling parties to determine the future of our country? How can we overcome the unjust means by which these parties maintain their dominance? And how can we stand by as they squash the hopes and dreams other political parties have for their nation?
Let me clarify that this article does not suggest that Democrats or Republicans should lose their power, nor does it intend to sway your political opinions. Rather, it aims to encourage an examination of other political parties and critique the need for the two dominant parties to share the political landscape. For those who wholeheartedly support the beliefs of the Republican or Democratic stances, by all means, continue your support. This article merely proposes that power should be shared, not only for the sake of a more diverse U.S. political landscape but also to provide citizens with a broader range of options for the future of our country—not just two.
Comments