Tweet
I've been thinking a lot about the United States' two-party system, versus other parliamentary systems.
And one thing I've realized (which is slowly becoming less true) is that the US Two-Party system is far less ideological than many parliamentary systems. In the US, becoming a member of a party is a simple matter of going to your local office and saying "I am a Republican." "I am a Democrat." "I am a Libertarian." ETC. Unless I'm mistaken, its not possible for you to un-become a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc. The parties themselves are relatively weak, while in most parliamentary systems, the parties are strong.
Now, this is rapidly changing in the US, much to my dismay, but until recently, all Democrats/Republicans were not (nor were they expected) to be cut from the same mold.
Hence, we can have Republicans who are pushing for gay marriage, like Schwarzeneggar, who is in the same party as the people who say there ought to be an amendment against it. Even the Democratic party have their dissents. Kucinich says make gay marriage legal, for example, while Obama would prefer stronger civil unions. There are even some against gay relationships altogether. David Blankenhorn, registered as a Democrat, said
"We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution,"" to explain why he was against Gay Marriage.
Even in the last Presidential election, with so many 'types' of Republican on the table, there were many attacks about whether or not candidate X had all the right 'conservative' credentials, but (and I wasn't watching the Republican primaries as much as I should have, due to certain personal issues) but very few were saying "This man is not a Republican."
There are cons, though. Once the primaries are finished, you generally get two people for every option, and you have to chose from basically only those two options. In the recent Massachusetts Senate election, you had to choose between Coakley or Brown (or possibly Kennedy, the third party candidate, and unrelated to the Kennedy clan). You had fewer options than in a larger system.
The worst part of a two party system, though, to me at least, seems to be crucially tied to its best part. The worst part is that there are few choices once the primary is decided. The best part, though, is that the parties are much more 'large tent', and you usually get much more choice during primaries.
Of course, the way politics are going at the moment, the parties are becoming far more ideologically one way or another, and less willing to compromise. This is highly unfortunate, and, in the end, will probably lead to the US becoming far more partisan. But there will probably be more parties in it as well.
Anyway, I was mostly rambling, and I'll probablychange my mind on some of the things I've said eventually, but that's what I was thinking when I wrote it.
And one thing I've realized (which is slowly becoming less true) is that the US Two-Party system is far less ideological than many parliamentary systems. In the US, becoming a member of a party is a simple matter of going to your local office and saying "I am a Republican." "I am a Democrat." "I am a Libertarian." ETC. Unless I'm mistaken, its not possible for you to un-become a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/etc. The parties themselves are relatively weak, while in most parliamentary systems, the parties are strong.
Now, this is rapidly changing in the US, much to my dismay, but until recently, all Democrats/Republicans were not (nor were they expected) to be cut from the same mold.
Hence, we can have Republicans who are pushing for gay marriage, like Schwarzeneggar, who is in the same party as the people who say there ought to be an amendment against it. Even the Democratic party have their dissents. Kucinich says make gay marriage legal, for example, while Obama would prefer stronger civil unions. There are even some against gay relationships altogether. David Blankenhorn, registered as a Democrat, said
"We're either going to go in the direction of viewing marriage as a purely private relationship between two people that's defined by those people, or we're going to try to strengthen and maintain marriage as our society's most pro-child institution,"" to explain why he was against Gay Marriage.
Even in the last Presidential election, with so many 'types' of Republican on the table, there were many attacks about whether or not candidate X had all the right 'conservative' credentials, but (and I wasn't watching the Republican primaries as much as I should have, due to certain personal issues) but very few were saying "This man is not a Republican."
There are cons, though. Once the primaries are finished, you generally get two people for every option, and you have to chose from basically only those two options. In the recent Massachusetts Senate election, you had to choose between Coakley or Brown (or possibly Kennedy, the third party candidate, and unrelated to the Kennedy clan). You had fewer options than in a larger system.
The worst part of a two party system, though, to me at least, seems to be crucially tied to its best part. The worst part is that there are few choices once the primary is decided. The best part, though, is that the parties are much more 'large tent', and you usually get much more choice during primaries.
Of course, the way politics are going at the moment, the parties are becoming far more ideologically one way or another, and less willing to compromise. This is highly unfortunate, and, in the end, will probably lead to the US becoming far more partisan. But there will probably be more parties in it as well.
Anyway, I was mostly rambling, and I'll probablychange my mind on some of the things I've said eventually, but that's what I was thinking when I wrote it.
Comment