Under the Same Sun

By: Kasey Henricks

Posted: 7/23/08

In many aspects, democrats and republicans act more as allies than political competitors. After all, when power is centralized it’s in each party’s best interest to defend against outside intruders who could potentially shift the balance of power. A two-party system guarantees the self-preservation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

These methods of self-preservation and maintaining monopolized power are not exclusive to politics. One example is the oil industry. The number of American oil companies can practically be counted on one hand: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, etc. Another example is the American media. A handful of corporations, like Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp, and General Electric to name a few, have essentially monopolized the channels in which Americans receive their information. These two examples demonstrate when ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few competition does not exist; control does.

When competition is scarce, it’s in the best interest of those who hold power to collaborate. In terms of American politics, “democrans” and “republicats” have carved themselves such a niche it’s likely some form of revolution will have to occur for real social change to occur. This niche is like an air-tight, foolproof security system, ensuring American political power to remain in the hands of one or the other.

Why is a two-party political system so successful? Partly, because anytime a third party enters the picture the democrats and republicans squash it like a bug. Democratic and Republican Party platforms have changed and adapted with time to ensure their longevity. These changing platforms have historically expanded and contracted to swallow up third party issues. As a result, the Democratic and Republican Party also absorb third party voters. This is no new idea.

In the 1896 election, Democratic presidential candidate William J. Bryan promoted the free-silver platform to sway support from the Populist Movement. Also, in 1916, the Republican Party selected moderate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans as its presidential candidate to sway support from republican-turned-progressive Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. In modern times, these trends remain the same.

In 2000, Ralph Nadar ran for president on the platform to break big business’ control over government. Recently, Democratic candidate Barack Obama attempted to appeal to Nadar voters by taking a similar stance. In early June, Obama announced neither he nor the Democratic National Committee would accept lobbyist money. But it should be noted Obama denied public campaign financing shortly after. Furthermore, Obama has persistently stressed a direct, grassroots approach to government. This stance reflects the long-standing views of the Green Party platform and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.

The Republican Party also uses such tactics. In 2000, George W. Bush promoted a platform of limited government and vowed to downsize once he became president. This was also the stance of the Libertarian platform and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. However, it was the Bush Administration’s broad-sweeping, federally mandated No Child Left Behind Act that increased government size and power. In addition, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security continued the same line of expansion.

Current Republican candidate John McCain also promotes reduced government. Specifically, he promotes a laissez-faire, or hands-off, approach to economic issues. While McCain, like most other republicans, promotes this stance, his actions indicate inconsistencies. For example, McCain voted against ending corporate welfare for companies outsourcing American jobs in March, 2005. The hands-off approach McCain verbally supports is also the long-standing platform of the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.

The ability for political parties to change their platforms is part of the beauty of American politics. As new problems arise new solutions are needed. The adaptive nature of the Democratic and Republican Parties places them in a position where they remain relevant and in touch with contemporary and arising concerns. However, a two-party system ensures political power remains concentrated between two entities.

A government cannot reflect its people’s values when only two choices are provided. This is an illusion of choice – the equivalent to asking: “What values should be reflected in government?” Choose “A” or “B.”

However, it’s important to remember many sets of eyes are better than only two.