Anderson: Two-party politics lean toward fascism
The form of democracy in the United States has become a parody of democracy; a farce, where all the actions, regulations and hand-raising signs of real democracy are present, but the beauty of the freedom to choose our own leaders is cheapened by falsely limiting our options to two political parties.
By Joshua Anderson (Contact)
Friday, February 22nd, 2008
History is full of government control mechanisms, when limitations are placed on individuals or societies for different reasons and justifications.
America was built on a democratic idea meant to minimize these mechanisms and their effects on the lives of its citizens, and, in doing so, increase freedom for the individual and — theoretically — the entire population.
Ironically, the two-party system that is popular in the United States that has grown out of this idea is proving to be a highly evolved example of a control mechanism.
The danger inherent in the two-party system lies not only in placing an enormous amount of power in fewer hands, but it also drastically reduces our options and limits our freedom.
Compare freedom to the rapid sophistication video games have undergone.
When I was a child, I was satisfied with moving my 64-bit Mario from left to right in a two-dimensional world, bonking his head on bricks for mushrooms and fire-flowers.
As technology and I have improved, my experience has evolved to include acquiring undreamt of amounts of freedom, in digital worlds where I can exist in lifelike situations, performing deeds of renown or unspeakable evil.
When I play the newer generation of games, I now have options: I can move Mario in any direction and make a broader range of choices. I can even wear different clothing.
But we’re still playing Mario, people.
The freedom of choice arises from our ability to choose among a number of options available.
The difference between having many options and only one is the difference between being free or not.
The assertion that a two-party democracy is a sham isn’t that radical an idea. It is simply a call for real democracy.
The form of democracy in the United States has become a parody of democracy; a farce, where all the actions, regulations and hand-raising signs of real democracy are present, but the beauty of the freedom to choose our own leaders is cheapened by falsely limiting our options to two political parties.
We are so enslaved to our comfort zone that any talk of a third party draws condemnation from citizens who mindlessly follow the status quo.
A two-party democracy is only one party away from fascism, especially when the actions of one party can’t be distinguished from the other.
On college campuses, where ideas like freedom and justice still bloom, the call for real democracy should sound the loudest.
Instead, the constituents furiously engage in the struggle to maintain the status quo in this age group.
I mourn the misplaced ideology of young idealists who believe change is imminent in the current system.
In four years, they’ll be jaded realists, and that’s the real tragedy.
I refuse to believe the American people are not diverse enough, multi-faceted enough or creative enough to have as the reflection of our will and fortitude a measly two organizations of questionable vitality and democratic merit.
That we allow ourselves to be so limited is astounding, if not downright shameful.
Anderson is a Perry senior in creative writing.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
if a two party system leans toward fascism, then this country has been fascist for hundreds of years. How about a little history of the two party system to show how ingrained it is in American politics.
Linguo - You don't need history to know it's ingrained, all you've got to do is look around and notice the lack of critical analysis to see how "inside the box" we think: any other Democracy simply "does not compute". And maybe we have been fascist for hundreds of years..?
Gary Cox, at UCSD, found a pattern on a global scale for democracies. The number of effective candidates (as in, candidates that actually have a chance of being elected) will always equal 'm + 1,' where 'm' equals district magnitude. Guess what? The US has a district magnitude of 1. 'M' is 1, and 1 + 1 = 2. Thus, there will always only be 2 effective candidates in any given election, which gives you our two-party system. It's not fascism, it's formula. Pretty neat, huh?
I don't know if you have any experience studying multi-party systems, but it's very hard for one party to be efficient if the mandate is spread among too many different parties. Look at Germany. You may have two or more parties whose ideologies may be significantly different, joining up in a coalition for the sake of efficiency, and because a government can't be formed without a majority. If no one has a majority (majority, NOT plurality), you get problems. It's hard for any one party to gain a majority when there are too many competing interests. I don't think having dozens and dozens of parties, like Russia did after the collapse of communism, really does much for democracy. In fact, Cox says that if a country's 'm + 1' equation DOESN'T equal 2, then it's not really an effective democracy.
Now, if you were to argue more about the overall poor quality and lack of innovation of our two parties, and less about the fact that it's bad to have only two parties, then you might be on to something.
herme- thanks for your input. My response would be to question the study's definition of "effectiveness" and also the sort of value we put on it: sure an "effective" candidate has a better chance of winning if there are fewer competitors. In terms of effective government, I would say that my focus in pointing these things out is on adequate representation. This doesn't lead to a cleaner, more efficient machine, but it does look more like democracy to me.
Besides that, the pigeonholing of people into easily explainable and proven "formulas" doesn't convince me of anything.
I will agree with you that dozens and dozens of parties would prove ineffective, but you're presupposing what I meant: I'm only bashing the two-party system (which I will continue to do). I'm not telling anybody how many parties they should have beyond saying that it should be more than two. Two parties is only one choice.
And the irony behind it all is exactly what you called "the poor quality and lack of innovation of our two parties", whose "vitality" and "democratic merit" I call into question in my column. If the two parties in question weren't such lame ducks, the probability of me having written this article would have been lower.
Thanks again -JS
America has been fascist for hundreds of years? Get off it dude. Learn what fascism is before you start throwing the term around so loosely.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.