Inept in passing legislation, Democrats get almost nothing done in Congress. Likewise, Republicans, for the most part, hogtie themselves by declaring fealty to the grandees of greed, and in the process get almost nothing done in Congress. Simple math, add nothing to nothing and the bottom line is nothing. Like enemies facing off to settle a point of honor, each firing a simultaneous fatal shot, the two political parties have decided to dispense with compromise on vital issues in favor of vanquishing their opponents, which means nothing gets done. Deadlock.
Complex issues become binary calculations for our dueling parties. If you are a Democrat, you likely believe wholesale what you witness on MSNBC, the left-leaning network; if you are a Republican, you probably agree with what you hear on Fox News, the right-leaning network. Makes things simple, doesn’t it? No nuances. Why sort through complications when a trusted talking-head who’s paid to understand the issues can do that for you? Go with the flow. After a while, you do not have to think through knotty issues. You merely listen to the crowd, your like-minded cohort. In many ways, pledging alliance to one party or the other is a concession that allows others to decide for you. Thinking is hard, so why do it, eh
It is difficult for a staunch Republican to support a woman’s right to choose, as it is for a Democrat to align with anti-abortion causes. That is, of course, unreasonable because a left leaning person may have ethical views that deem abortion unacceptable. Likewise, the right leaning citizen may find sympathy for a woman to choose an abortion without government interference, a conclusion one may draw from the recent referendum that saw voters in Kansas reject an amendment in the state constitution that would forbid abortions. Most issues cannot be cut in-half the way our two-party system typically concludes. Think of the wisdom of King Solomon when he was asked to decide a dispute between two women each claiming to be the mother of a baby: “Divide the baby with a sword,” he said, “and let the matter be settled.” As is, elected officials on Capitol Hill have decided to kill the baby rather than compromise.
Likely, our political system is too well established to change, but it would be propitious to consider at least one additional party choice. Perhaps even two or three more. Libertarians and socialists have been at the bottom of the list in many political races. They, however, are thought of as not relevant, more like hecklers at the back of the room. Can a viable third party break the stalemate in American politics?
Multi-party parliamentary systems, such those as established in the U.K. and India, allow for varied views and issues to come forward, unlike our two-party system. Think of it this way: rather than having two choices from the menu for dinner, you may choose one of twelve entrées. In the United States our typical choice is this or that. In multi-party parliamentary systems, one chooses from far-left to far-right with dozens of shades of political ideologies between the extremes. You may match your taste to one among an array of choices.
The Green Party in America, for instance, obviously is a strong advocate for environmental protections, but as a third-party has little chance of winning elections. If you prefer fascist leadership, you may vote for Trump. If you want a socialist, you may vote for Bernie. If you want an old school conservative, you may vote for Liz Cheney. And so on. Politics should be like an ice cream shop—lots of flavors. To change our bicameral legislation system may be close to impossible, but wouldn’t you rather have a whole baby instead of half of a dead one?