I just made that word up -- what do you think? I don't mean to suggest that manic-depressives rule America, but if you take it to mean that the two-party system is crazy, then good for you.
Like many bloggers, I'll go off on tangents on topics like religion, but every so often I need to remind myself and my few readers that my main purpose here is to make a case against the American two-party system. With that in mind, I introduce James Madison (1751-1836), the "Father of the Constitution." Here's something he said at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. My source is Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Consitutional Convention Debates (New York: Mentor, 1986), p.52. You can also find his entire speech here.
What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of amongst ourselves? Had it not been the real or supposed interest of the major number? Debtors have defaulted their creditors. The landed interest has borne hard on the mercantile interest. The Holders of one species of property have thrown a disproportion of taxes on the holders of another species. The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the Majority if united have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties, that in the first place a majority will not be likely at that moment to have an common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the second place, that in case they should have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us then to try this remedy, and with that view to frame a republican system on such a scale and in such a form as will control all the evils that have been experienced.
Madison took the existence of "special" interests for granted, but expected Congress to have so many that they would either cancel each other out or compromise their interests in order to pass any legislation. He neither expected nor wanted one interest group to be able to rule the country. It should be obvious how the development of a two-party system, for which Madison himself is partly responsible, skews his plan. You may argue that each party depends on the compromise of numerous interests, but to the extent that all the interests involved in one party conflict with those in the other party, a two-party contest inevitably gives one coalition of interests abusive majority power over the minority party. Worse, in modern times the two parties have come to embody ideologies rather than collections of interests. Ideology and institutional self-interest make the two parties "interests" in their own right, turning elections more than ever into winner-take-all, loser-be-damned competitions. Unfortunately, Madison and his fellow Framers failed to program the Constitution with safeguards to prevent the rise of party government. Soon enough, he found himself at the head of a party in opposition to the President, a circumstance he seems not to have anticipated in 1787. In his defense, his idea of party and its purposes differs drastically from the perepetual electioneering machines that rule us today. In future installments of this series, I intend to make the difference more clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment