One of the unique features of the American political system is that we are ruled by only two political parties. Cynics often attribute this to some flaw in the American character or a limit to the electorate's intelligence. Worse, some suggest the system has been rigged by political power-brokers.
But Thomas Jefferson observed over 200 years ago that it was inevitable that the American system would evolve into two parties. This was remarkably prescient, especially since he hated the whole idea of political parties. But he saw, as others have seen since, that the nature of the American Constitution makes having two major parties almost inescapable. This has its flaws, but has arguably served the country well for centuries.
Because both parties are so enormous, they are in reality simply two big collections of coalitions. This forces them both into endless compromises, and also forces them to evolve in response to changes in demographics. Sometimes, this causes amusing and strange transitions. The most amusing these days is the notion that certain diehard Democrats continue to peddle: namely, that the Republicans are the "party of the rich" whereas the Democratic Party is the party of the "little guy." Leaving aside the astounding condescension inherent in referring to anyone as "the little guy," what these folks seem to have missed is that, increasingly, it is they who are the party of the rich...
The poorest regions of the United States by and large trend Republican. That trend's been growing over the last few decades. This reached its most obvious zenith (so far) in the closely-divided election of 2000. Despite all the class-warfare rhetoric used by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, he mostly won his very slim popular margin by winning three types of voter: affluent urbanites, affluent New Englanders, and black people. Bush, on the other hand, built his electoral victory on a much broader and more inclusive campaign that did not seek to divide people by race or class, and won voters in much larger and more diverse regions of the country--the poorer regions especially.
Don't believe it? Have a look at this map, if you haven't already:
County-by-County results of the 2000 Presidential election
(By the way, that map is from Mike Hodges' excellent Grandfather Economic Report page, which is well worth reading in its own right.)
Diehard Democrats tend to be irritated by that map, which arguably shows that Gore's far-left agenda (a radical departure from Clintonian centrism) left most of the country cold. It also tends to validate the electoral college system; do we really want to be ruled by politicians who can win the most votes simply by appealing to aflluent urbanites and the racially paranoiad, in places like Manhattan, Hollywood, Ann Arbor, New England and Seattle?
The map is disquieting for the very wealthy elites who rule today's Democratic Party for other reasons: what it portends for the future. Al Gore won a smidge more popular votes in 2000, but did it in large part by winning an unprecedented 90% of the black vote. And he did that by whipping up racist fear and animosity to a greater extent than any candidate for President since George Wallace in 1968. This, despite the steadily growing affluence of the majority of black voters over the last 20 years.
If you just factor out those black voters (as numerous Democratic and Republican pollsters have done), Bush won a popular landslide; he didn't just win male voters, he won female voters too. Especially notable were married women, the "soccer moms" who so famously carried Bill Clinton to victory, who went for Bush in 2000 and are likely to stay with him in 2004. America's enormous middle class in general went for Bush by a landslide.
Contemplate for a moment, for example, what Gore's method of popular victory means for Democratic efforts to take back the House in 2002; black voters mostly live in overwhelmingly Democratic districts, and thus as a group cannot do much to help take seats from Republicans. Beyond them, a huge swath of Democratic Congressmen and Senators are running in areas that voted for Bush, which has them running uphill without even counting any other factor--and explains why a President like Clinton, Nixon, or Bush can still be effective in dealing with Congress even if he does not win a solid majority of voters.
Furthermore, despite all the popular talk about GOP fundraisers (like this piece from the normally astute Ara Rubyan), the fact of the matter is that for some time now, Democrats have easily raised as much money from wealthy donors as Republicans. In "soft money," money given to political parties, the Democrats and Republicans have been at parity for some time. In "hard money," given directly to candidates, the donation limit has long been $1,000, and Republicans have generally done better with that. This is not, however, because they have more rich supporters. It's because they have more support among modestly affluent suburbanites and rural voters: middle class homeowners, small-time investors, farmers, and other small business owners and self-employed workers, who can afford to contribute a few hundred bucks every now and then.
Worse for Democrats, the recent campaign finance reforms in Washington, aside from the inexcusably and horrendously unconstitutional parts, tend mostly to benefit Republicans. This is because Republicans are arguably less dependent on very wealthy donors than Democrats. A seemingly endless supply of limousine liberals has been keeping Democratic coffers full for some time, but starting in 2003, that so-called "soft" money will be strictly limited. But the hard-money donations cap has been raised to $2,000. While Democrats may have more very wealthy donors than Republicans, they don't have something that forms the real backbone of the Republican party: the growing tide of self-employed workers, small business owners and suburbanites who fear today's Democratic Party and who are quite capable of ponying up $2,000 to stop a destructive class-warfare agenda.
Possibly the worst kick in the teeth is that, of the areas of the country that are losing population, most of those went for Gore, while most of the growing areas went for Bush.
It is entrepreneurs, small-time investors, and small business owners who are the strength of the American economy. It is also they who are the real source of most GOP fundraising dollars and votes. To whatever extent money wins elections, it is the Republicans who will have most of the advantages when the new reforms kick into effect next year.
Of course, the news isn't all that bad for Democrats. Historically, it's wrong to suggest that money wins campaigns anyway; it's been shown repeatedly that in two-way races, the candidate who spends the most money is the one who is somewhat more likely to lose. It's not money that's "corrosive" to the poltical process, it's campaigns that pit race against race, religion against religion, and group against group, which pretty much defines how the Democrats ran their campaign in 2000.
Furthermore, beyond black voters, there is another demographic group that Democrats have been making gains in over the last few years: high-income white males. The elite ranks of the Democratic party are almost exclusively made up of white male multimillionaires (it is a delicious irony that there are more "people of color" and women in positions of power in today's Republican party than there are in the Democratic party, despite their respective public images). Indeed, one of the quickest ways to get rich without running your own business appears to be to get deeply involved in Democratic Party politics. This makes perfect sense; people who don't want to make a living on their own but want to get rich by peddling power become Democrats. That's how Democratic machine-style politics worked throughout most of the 20th Century, and it seems like that's how the party plans to work in the 21st.
What's so funny about it is that these people actually think they represent the poor and the middle class---"the little people," as they like to call us. Ironic, since it's the poor and middle classes who are increasingly alienated from them.
All of this is transitory, of course. As the population changes, the Democratic Party will adapt. Neither political party can keep a lock on political power in America; it's another inescapable reality of our system that if one party wins over a chunk of the other party's constituency, the losing party simply retools and changes. The minority party eventually finds a way either to bring those voters back or to peel off a different group from the opposing party. And the separation of powers at the Federal level, and between the states and D.C., makes radical changes nearly impossible anyway.
Democrats will probably figure out that class warfare hurts both them and the country sooner or later. Eventually they'll figure out that small investors are the wave of the future. Eventually they'll retool their message and start winning back voters (like my wife and me) who they've been alienating over the last decade or so. Or they'll find a way to peel off a different group of voters who currently vote Republican. It's how the system has always worked.
The only question is how long it will take them.
Our infamous ex-president Bill Clinton once said"If you want to live like a Republican vote with the Democrats". Interesting. The richest of the rich are Democrats...so it stands to reason that if you want to live like a Democrat you should vote Republican. Hmmm, sounds good to me.
Dean,
You bring up some more astute arguments. It will take some time to comment on them all, but give me a try. First, I am a big fan of the two-party system. I believe it provides stability seen nowhere else in the democratic western world, where coincidentally people choose parliamentary governments which are inherently less stable. All that is required to bring down a parliamentary government is for one faction of a coalition to withdraw its support, thus calling for new elections.
Look at Italy. She was governed by more than one government per year through the entire cold war and beyond. Spain tried democracy soon after Franco died. Spain had an attempted coup within one-year right there in the well of their own parliament! NO, I prefer our two-party system to this. However, I will fault our two-party system on two points.
In order to maintain a strong twoóparty system it is necessary to have majoritarian voting. Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota with plurality voting garnering only 36% of the vote. Following the1992 Republican upset victory of Paul Coverdell the state of Georgia changed its law currently requiring only 45% of the vote to win its statewide constitutional offices. I cannot influence what each and every state chooses to do. What each state chooses to do is up to up to each state.
I believe this trends toward, but not necessarily to, parliamentary government. This is clearly not what our founding fathers intended. Our founding fathers had every opportunity to adopt the parliamentary system used by their mother country, Great Britain. Much to their credit they instead chose our representative republic form of government instead. I firmly believe our founding fathers wanted our elected officials to be elected by a majority of votes in every election. I believe majoritarian voting pure and simple.
Secondly, I will fault the major parties for the way they treat third parties in every election I have witnessed since I first voted in 1978. I believe in open ballot access for all third parties in every election everywhere. There are many ample, good reasons for having this.
If you read anything about American political history you will quickly learn that third parties have contributed greatly to the history of the America as well as to the history of the two major parties, too! This is most easily illustrated by the FDR years 1933-1945. The idea of social security, the forty-hour workweek, unemployment insurance, and even the controversial alphabet agencies had their genesis with William Jennings Bryan and the Free-Soil party in the 19th century. Although Bryan never won the presidency in his three campaigns, his ideas endured. The Democratic Party later adopted them in the mid 20th century.
Many ideas adopted by the two major parties originated in third parties. I firmly believe limiting third party candidates from public debates with the two major party candidateís smacks of arrogance of a Roman order. It makes new ideas more difficult to disseminate. I further believe limiting their participation through restrictive ballot access laws such as Georgiaís also limits the expression and dissemination of ideas for improving government services. This serves to unnecessarily further polarize the debate between two major parties or two major party candidates.
This polarization is the post-cold war legacy of American politics. I believe if third party candidates freely participated in debates and enjoyed freer ballot access much of this bitterness we see in Washington and in some states, such as Georgia will dissipate.
Imagine if you will a Presidential debate between Howard Phillips of the American Taxpayer Union Party, Professor John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party, Libertarian Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Al Gore and George W. Bush, and the Socialist Party candidate. You might not know it but Phillips, Hagelin, and Bush are pro-life. Phillips, Hagelin, Brown, and Bush are for reducing the capital gains tax. Harry Browne wants to eliminate it along with the income tax. Gore and the Socialist Party candidate are for preserving social security, Medicare, Medicaid with tax increases.
I cannot imagine Al Gore credibly calling everybody else right-wingers for wanting tax cuts while the only person he would agree with is the Socialist Party candidate on almost every issue. I doubt many voters would miss which end of the political spectrum the two major party candidates represent in such a debate.
Shutting out third party candidates is a disservice to the major parties as well as to the voters. This myopic treatment of anybody not identifying with a major party is nothing short of stupid. I do not foresee any instability with allowing third party participation as long as we maintain majoritarian voting.
This problem has trickled right down the third major party in America: the media elite. I remember when WSB in Atlanta locked Alan Keyes right out from the WSB building in Atlanta Presidential debates in 1996. I also attended the Lieutenant governorsí debate in Atlanta two years later where GPTV in downtown Atlanta prepared a disclaimer aired before the debate justifying preventing Michael Novacel, candidate for Lieutenant Governor on the Reform Party ticket, from participating. Their reason was that they, GPTV, determined that Novacel had no chance of winning the election; therefore no reason existed to include him in the debate! Excuse me, but I believe our founding fathers intended the voters to determine this, not broadcast media.
Does this then mean the media now determine for us who has a chance of winning statewide, and likewise, national elections? I guess so. If third party candidates were freer to participate we will see a diminution of influence of the media in our elections.
Another pet peeve topic of mine is fund raising. I believe the influence of fund raising is overblown. I participated in my share of winning races and my share of losing races. I have worked on over a dozen in all. You would never have guessed it but every losing campaign on which I have worked we outspent our opponent. Every winning campaign on which I have worked we were outspent by our opponent. This goes against conventional wisdom for the inexperienced; but if you actually worked on both winning and losing ones you can see why.
I personally believe that outspending oneís opponent leads to a false sense of security and laziness. Why should campaign volunteers go out and knock on doors for a candidate when he is buying all the face time he needs on television and radio? Heck, why bother getting out the vote (GOTV) at all? This is a fatal mistake I have seen campaigns make time and again.
The underdog with less money knows he has to beat the bushes to get all the votes he needs. He has the sense of urgency needed to win. The big spender often does not. Door knocking and phone banking does more to GOTV than anything else. Iíve been there I know.
I worked on Melvin Eversonís campaign for (GA) Snellville City Council in 2000. His opponent, Herbert Fowler, funded his campaign with a fortune inherited from his aunt. Mr. Fowler spent $84,000 campaigning for city council in a city with 18,000 citizens. Thatís $4.50 per citizen and $25 per vote! Melvin spent barely $8,000. Melvin won by 54 votes.
The best role I can see campaign money performing is as an indicator of the breadth of support a candidate or party enjoys. I prefer seeing many small contributors on a disclosure statement to a few large contributors. I learned that if you allow money to be your master you will lose you butt.
I believe Democratsí relying more on monied elites is an indication of the narrowness of their message. I doubt if Alec Baldwin, Steven Spielberg or Dan Rather have much in common with the average American. They travel first class on every commercial flight. They travel around in chauffeured limousines. I seriously doubt if they ever use the subways in NYC or the cable cars in San Francisco. They live an existence I do not want.
They all have so much money they can easily afford to pay 50-70% of their earned income on income taxes, although I doubt it. They probably have their own foundations where they control all their taxable money tax-free thanks to the 16th amendment.
Perhaps these reasons help explain why Democrats have become more elitist relying more on big money from rich people. Although money is the motherís milk of politics spending it wisely is the actual sine qua non for a winning campaign. Spending all the money in the world doesnít amount to a hill of beans if you do not get your voters out to vote. For Republicans to win in 2002 they must concentrate on GOTV. That means first registering as many Republicans as you can. Next, it means door knocking for your local or statewide candidate.
KevinB
Thanks Kevin.
I agree that efforts to make ballot access harder for third-party candidates are shameful. But when it comes to debates, I'm not sure what I think. As you know, debates are in no way an official election function. Unless the government is going to run some official debates, then it's a private affair, and who gets invited should be an equally private affair.
I have my doubts about the validity of debates anyway. On the Presidential level, televised debates haven't been around that long, and they usually strike me as pointless. I'm kind of hoping that George W. refuses to participate in the next election. The whole thing is silly if you ask me and I'd like to see the practice ended.
I am not rich, and I vote GOP. Liberals don't have any arguements of their own, so they make low-blows like "Party for the rich" to trick everyone.
DEAR SIR,
REQUEST FOR URGENT ASSISTANCE.
I AM THE SON OF ALHAJI ISMAILA GWARZO, THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVICER TO GENERAL SANI ABACHA, WHO WAS THE
FORMER MILITARY HEAD OF STATE OF NIGERIA, WHO DIED
WHILE IN OFFICE ON MONDAY 8TH JUNE 1998. AS A RESULT
OF THE SUDDEN AND TRAGIC NATURE OF HIS DEATH, THE NEW
CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATION STARTED AN INTENSIVE CRACKDOWN
ON THE FORMER OFFICIALS OF LATE GENERAL ABACHA`S
REGIME ESPECIALLY MY FATHER WHO WAS HIS NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVICER SINCE THEY WERE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN
THAT A PERCENTAGE OF OIL PROCEEDS TOTALLING
US$980m(NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION UNITED STATES
DOLLARS ONLY)WERE DIVERTED INTO PRIVATE BANK ACCOUNT,
AND MY FATHER BEEN ONE OF THE SUSPECTS.THIS LED TO UNDUE HARASSMENT TORTURE AND
DEHUMANISATION OF MY FATHER WHO HAS SINCE BEEN THROWN
INTO DETENTION WHITH ALL OUR FAMILY TREASURES AND
VALUES LOOTED INCLUDING THE ONES HE INHERITED FROM MY
GRAND FATHER. ALL HIS ACCOUNTS FOREIGN AND LOCAL WERE
FROZEN AND ALL ASSETS FORFEITED TO THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SIMPLY FOR NOT DOING ANY THING
EXCEPT SERVING HIS FATHER LAND AS THE NATIONALSECURITYADVISER.
AS EXPECTED ALL HIS FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES INCLUDING
THOSE HE HELPED HAVE ABONDONED US TO DIE IN SUFFERING
AND FRUSTRATION SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN DETENTION,EVEN
SOME OF THEN HAVE DECIDED TO SIT ON THE BUSSINESSES HE
WENT INTO PARTNARSHIP WITH THEM WHILE HE WAS IN
GOVERNMENT JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE IS NOTHING HECAN DO ABOUT IT.
RECENTLY HE CONFIDED IN ME ABOUT A SECRET DEPOSIT OF
US$47m(FOURTY SEVEN MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS
ONLY)WHICH HE MADE IN THE NAME OF GWARZO`S FAMILY TO A
SECURITY COMPANY BASED IN EUROPE IN CASE OF ANY
EVENTUALITIES. HE WAS ABLE TO DO THIS THROUGH
DIPLOMATIC BAGGAGE(IN OTHER TO AVOID THE INTERNATIONALLAW ON MONEY LAUNDARY).
DUE TO LACK OF TRUST ON FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES MY
FATHAR HAS MANDATED ME TO LOOK FOR A VERY TRUST WORTHY
PERSON LIKE YOU WHO CAN ASSIST US RECEIVE, ACCOMODIATE
AND SAFE GUARDS THIS FUND. TO SAVE US THE CALAMITIES
OF THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE AS THIS IS THE ONLY FUND
AVAILABLE FOR THE UP KEEP AND RESETTLEMENT OF THE
FAMILY. MY FATHER HAS ALSO MANDATED ME TO OFFER 25% OF
THE FUND TO YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE AT HIS HOUR OFNEED.
MY ENTIRE FAMILY IS IN SERIOUS FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND
THIS IS THE ONLY HOPE FOR US AS ALL OUR PASSPORTS AND
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.HAVE IT IN MIND THAT THERE ARE NO RISK INVOLED
IN THIS BUSINESS AS ONLY YOU ,MY FATHAR AND I KNOWABOUT THIS.
I WILL SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONDS THROUGH MY
ADDRESSES INDICATED ABOVE. THIS IS HIGHLY CONFIDENCIAL
AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.INCLUDE YOUR
PERSONAL TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS.I WAIT YOUR PROMPTRESPONSE. BEST REGARDS,
MALLAM ABU .
Hi,my name is Jim/This messege is for Mallam Abu/I am interested in your offer/Please send me information/My mailing address is 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd.=1-145 Los Angeles,California 90034/And please give other Nigerians my mailing address,and tell them to flood my mailbox with their offers/This messege posted on December15,2003
Tremendously worded, keep up the tremendou work