UTW Summer Brewsurbatulsaclassifiedsbutton
  TULSA METRO'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWSWEEKLY
UTW Reader Comments  |  Has Something Made You Mad? Tell Us!    
Home » Columns » Rant 'N' Rall
  RSS XML


The Evil of Two Lessers

A two-party system is not democracy


BY TED RALL

We get the government we deserve.

Don't get mad at the politicians! It's your/our fault. You/we elected them.

Most Americans accept these aphorisms. Yet they are lies -- lies that distract us from the fact that our political system is a farce. Really, we should get rid of this phony two-party "democracy." And we will. In the meantime, we ought to ignore it.

The two-party system made simple:

Two worthless scoundrels are on the ballot.

If you vote for one of them, a worthless scoundrel will win.

If you don't vote, a worthless scoundrel will win.

It's a pretty unappealing sales pitch. How did it last 200 years?

The two-party system, a political mutation unanticipated by the Constitution and dreaded by the Founding Fathers, mainly relies on the "lesser of two evils" argument.

Next year, for example, many liberals will hold their noses and vote for Obama even though he has not delivered for them. They will do this to try to avoid winding up with someone "even worse": Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, etc.

Conservatives will do the same thing. They will vote for Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney or whomever -- even though they know full well they won't come through with smaller government or a balanced budget -- because Obama is "even worse."



The two-party system is a sick game. Many citizens, realizing this, opt out by not voting. Others resort to negative voting.

In 2008 one out of three Republican voters told pollsters they were voting against Obama, not for McCain. One in five Democrats voted against McCain, not for Obama.

A quarter of all votes cast in 2008 were "negative votes." Thirty-eight percent of voters in the 2010 midterm elections crossed party lines from D to R "to send a message."

To "get the government they deserve," as master curmudgeon H.L. Mencken asserted, we would have to have a wide choice of options on the ballot. Two is pathetic.

Two parties isn't even a facsimile of democracy.

Would you shop at a store that only offered two books? Two kinds of cereal? Two models of computers? Two brands of computer?

What about third parties? The Dems and Reps conspire to block the Greens, Libertarians, etc. with insurmountable obstacles. Minor parties can't get campaign financing, ballot access, media coverage, or seats at presidential debates. So they rarely win.

"With a single elected president if you're going to have a chance to win the states, which are all awarded on a winner-take-all basis, again you don't have a chance," John Bibby, University of Wisconsin professor and co-author of the book, "Two Parties -- Or More? The American Party System" told PBS in 2004. "The incentive is to form broad-based parties that have a chance to win in the Electoral College."

The argument that we, the people, are somehow to blame for the failings of "our politicians" is absurd. Even partisans of the two major parties are substantially dissatisfied with the nominees who emerge from the primary system.

Politics is not what happens on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Real politics is the process of arguing about how we want to live. In America that happens over dinner with our families, over drinks with our friends, over the water cooler at work (if you still have a job).

What happens on Election Day is a circus, a farcical distraction meant to siphon away the vitality of real politics.

Real politics is dangerous. Real politics, as we saw in Cairo's Tahrir Square, can actually change things.

The two-party system is a twisted con based on fear. If you don't vote for Party A then Party B, which is slightly more evil, will win. If "your" Party A wins, all you get is the dubious, incremental pseudo-victory of somewhat less suckiness. But Party A gets something infinitely more valuable: political legitimacy and the right to claim a mandate for policies that you mostly dislike.

"Hey, you elected them."

"You got the government you deserve."

Not at all.

It's a terrible, lopsided bargain. You get little to nothing. They use your vote to justify their policies:

No jobs.

One war after another.

Wasting your tax dollars.

Corruption.

More pollution.

(Notice: I didn't specify which party. Compared to the vast spectrum of possible politics from left to right, which encompasses such ideologies as communism, socialism, left libertarianism, right libertarianism, fascism, etc., the Dems and Reps are more similar than different.)

Until there's a revolution we're stuck with these jokers. But that doesn't mean we have to pay attention.

-(Ted Rall is the author of "The Anti-American Manifesto." His website is tedrall.com.)



Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

COMMENTS
1 comment posted for this article
ProfMike
 6/ 1/2011 - 4:10pm
   The first time I can remember ever agreeing with Ted. Who would think that a constitutional libertarian could find common ground with Ted, a prototypical Marxist?
   
   Two parties has been a problem. I think, though, that the Obama administration might be redefining the system. We've had horrible presidents of each party in the past. But we have never before had a president committed to actually and openly ending the fundamental principles upon which both parties had previously based their policy perspectives.The result may well be a party realignment such as what happened following the Democrats failure to stop the Civil Rights Movement. Those traditional Democrats who still believe in individual freedom, economic liberty and the wisdom of an identifiable national border seem likely to end up in league with the establishment Republicans and Moderates. Meanwhile the internationalist Marxist types following the Obama model, will create a very different wing. The Tea Party types -- who are essentially traditional economic conservatives and Reagan Democrats -- find themselves in yet another segment. Whether somehow this structure empowers a two-party system remains to be seen. A charismatic leader seems capable of establishing a third party, barring interference from the media (which would very likely savage any realignment that didn't benefit the Marxist wing), and change could come.
   
   Coalition governments and elections scheduled on performance would be an improvement. Imagine a vote of no-confidence in Bush when there were no WMDs in Iraq? Imagine a similar vote on Obama after packaging a "stimulus" package that just coincidentally gave almost a trillion dollars to his special interest groups and campaign donors.
   
   Seems to me a multi-party system would be a definite improvement.
   
   Or, as a member of the Israeli government told me years ago: "Democracy? The one thing we have too much of!"
Report this comment

Post a comment




MORE BY TED RALL
Investigating the Investigations
IRS targeting: scandal. CIA targeting: business as usual [May 22, 2013]
War and Wordplay
Not-so-secret "secret bombings" [May 15, 2013]
Why Closing Guantánamo is Easy
Obama doesn't need Congress, he needs Travelocity [May 8, 2013]

My Profile | My Settings

Subscriptions Available at $124/yr.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.

We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.

If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150

Name:
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:

 

Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions

Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2013, Urban Tulsa Weekly   RSS