Not A Team Player In A Two-Party System

We are often told that the problem with government is the level of political discourse between the left and the right. We are similarly told that if only conservatives would compromise with liberals (or vice versa), the nation's problems could be solved. It seems however, that the problem with the debate is that it's not so much between the left and right as it is between the Democrats and Republicans. Even as politicians attempt to define themselves by issues in order to appeal to certain parts of the political base, what they're doing in actuality is establishing their credentials as members of their political parties. 


Politicians have in fact become little more than players on political 'teams', competing on a national electoral playing field. My friend Roland Hansen has written about the fact that Independent politicians are a joke that can achieve little if anything once elected, due to a lack of party affiliation. While I agree with him about what can be accomplished, but my anger is not directed at these potentially viable candidates, but at the rules of the game that have put them on a dead branch of political evolution. 


It's not that Independent Candidates could not be good elected officials, do not come up with good ideas, or that their thinking is incorrect; instead it's that since they do not wear the uniform of either team, their efforts are doomed; since there's little hope that they will be allowed to score. As use of the sports analogy points to, keeping score is in fact what politics has become all about. Neither of the major teams plays for the benefit of the fans or the good of the game any longer (if they ever did). Instead their efforts are expended on behalf of their team owners, investors, and fellow players; often at the expense of the rules of the game and the expectation of the fans. Good legislation will go down to defeat and bad legislation will be passed all so one team or another can put another win on the scoreboard. When those in the stands cry 'foul', they are told by contestants and analysts that they simply don't understand the situation (or more accurately, the rules of the game). 


Few view the success of elections in terms of ideology any longer (which quite often is much the same in these parties), as much as they do in terms of the number of players they can put on the field. Few politicians will even attempt to reach an accord on a legitimate issue that needs to be a addressed, or reach across 'party lines' for support when there's a chance to use the issue in the next election cycle. Cowardly competitors from both sides refuse to stand alone for fear of angering the team that they play on or losing their team's support to keep a job that their timid actions show them not to be doing. 


Instead, we are treated to elected officials carefully polling the fan base and season ticket holders (special interest groups) to determine how to increase the sound of the cheering for their side while actually doing nothing. Even if they disagree with their team management over which plays should be called, they swallow any remnants of independent thought to maintain loyalty to 'the franchise' rather than those who sent them to Washington in the first place. We can in fact blame this madness on our Founding Fathers. 


It was begun by Alexander Hamilton's creation of the Federalist Party in the late 1700's to support his desire for a stronger central government than many saw in the Constitution, and a fiscal policy which included a powerful national bank. James Madison, and later Thomas Jefferson, responded to this move with the formation of the Democratic-Republican Party (a name which has nothing to do with either of its namesakes); and the game was on. Oh, there have been name changes over the years, as the effects of Political Plate Tectonics continue both the erosion of ideology and the formation of new teams who would like to play in the big leagues; but for the most part in the history of this nation, we have seen only two players. Lately however, these two gladiatorial squads seem intent on making this a 'Thunderdome' event, where two enter and only one leaves. 


The pronouncements about the 'will of the people', 'the good of the nation', and 'serving the electorate' ring especially hollow among the cheers of 'we are the champions', 'go team go', and 'take no prisoners'. What's even worse is that through tradition, we've now institutionalized the entire hierarchy of the contest. This team concept has become such an ingrained part of the political culture that we think nothing of paying for their internal candidate selection processes (primaries); as if there is some intrinsic value in paying public dollars so that these private clubs can pick their representatives. And should some libertarian, independent, or other '3rd party' candidate attempt to enter the ring of this exclusive contest; they will quickly find themselves without access the trough of taxpayer funding granted by tainted tradition to the elephant and the jackass. I'm afraid however, that they've lost at least one fan. I can find nothing of value in what has become a savage and pointless game where no matter what the score is, the ultimate loser is the voters.