COMMENTARY | The political system in America is often defended by the establishment organizations of the parties, the corporations, the media, and the political action organizations such as unions and special interest groups and lobbies. Much of the defense is centered on the idea that there are two America's and two completely different ideas about how we are to be governed.
Moreover, many high-minded educational institutions proclaim this is good for the parties, good for America and good for Americans. As the Brookings Institute writes: "Because both parties are more cohesive, they are also more disciplined. If you are a member of Congress and you basically agree with your party's position on most salient issues, why defect to the other side on key votes?"
We saw that discipline Monday night on stage. Even when prodded by John King of CNN, Tim Pawlenty would not succumb to the temptation to disparage fellow contender, Mitt Romney, on his state health care plan. However, it is a false discipline. The assertion of the defense of partisanship is that the philosophy of the people within the leadership of each party is cohesive and that it is only in application that we they have differences. However, the candidates in this field are greatly divided not only in application, but most definitely in philosophy.
In this field, the Republicans have a candidate seeking complete laissez faire philosophy, calling for an end to the Federal Reserve and a fundamental transformation of our foreign policy. They also have, at the other end of the spectrum, a candidate who is a social, military and economic statist who believes the president and the executive branch can solve every problem this country currently faces while defining, prescribing, and enforcing the social behavior of every citizen. The other candidates' philosophies reside somewhere in between. Yet, these philosophies were barely revealed and were hardly debated.
Accepted is the assertion that partisanship and branding are here to stay. What is not accepted is that there should only be two distinct party brands or even philosophies. Also, not accepted is that the American people only wish to choose between those two brands. If it is true, then it is the only product in any free marketplace in which people only want a choice between two. That would be a truly unique case. There are at least three and possibly four.
Furthermore, it is not healthy for a political system to be driven to a false dual partisanship that does not reveal the true governing philosophies of the people seeking office. The GOP debate in New Hampshire increased the likelihood of a meaningful future third political party in America -- likely taking shape in the 2014 midterm congressional and state races. The people of America are center-right. Provided the remaining debates and primary elections go according to this script, the Republicans will likely put a liberal Republican on the ticket.
This will ensure President Barack Obama winds a second term and will solidify the desire of the American people to form a third party. The three parties' philosophies are likely to be defined as economic statists (Democrats), social statists (Republicans), and constitutional libertarians (Constitution/Libertarians). A fourth party could form which are the social and economic statists, though it is likely to have the least representation.
Perhaps it is soon time that the American people will demand philosophy of governance be on the ballot in plain view for a transparent choice fully accountable to the consequences of the governance. Without the system of false dichotomies, every election season, the people of this republic will have truly disciplined parties holding to their brands which can then debate amongst themselves the practical application of the philosophy. Perhaps this decade will see the American people begin to live up to the expectations of our founding fathers.
