Better Than The Alternatives

Where American politics are concerned, few things come in for more criticism than our two-party system. Just look at all the third-party movements we've seen over the years. And it's understandable that a lot of conservatives, for example, would want to leave or replace the Republican Party. But is it a good idea? Not really.

For the past few years, there has been on-and-off talk among conservatives about bolting the Republican Party, forming a new Tea Party or Conservative Party, and running against the established two. People like Scott Rasmussen and Michael Barone have discussed this, as have a lot of bloggers and grassroots organizers. Much of the talk has run to replacing both the Democrats and the Republicans with explicit Liberal and Conservative Parties; which makes a lot of sense on the surface. Both parties would be very clear about what they stand for, it might take care of some of the overlap within the two parties, etc.; on our side, conservatives could theoretically have a lot more control over the GOP's successor. Seems logical enough, right?

Well, that's why we shouldn't enact stuff just because it "seems logical."

A basic fact of U.S. politics has to be kept in mind before criticizing how our political parties operate. In a system with strict separation between the executive and the legislature, and with party strength dependent on winning a majority or at least plurality of votes in a given territory, the number of parties naturally reduces itself to two. Not one, because there always has to be an opposition, and not three or more, because that would divide the pie too many ways.

Now, keep in mind I'm talking about mainstream political parties. Of course there are lots of parties today--the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Rent Is Too Darn High Party, etc. But there's a reason only the Dems and GOPers are actively contesting the Presidency and 99 percent of Congressional seats. It's not a law of politics, but it's the next closest thing. Only large, national parties can effectively compete, and collective self-interest dictates that there be as few of them as possible and that they each encompass a broad range of groups. This has been the way throughout American history. Sure, you can point to a few instances where national elections saw a three-way race, but those were isolated and unstable anomalies, which had completely disappeared by the time of the next big contest. What this means is, a Conservative Party, like a Liberal Party, could not coexist with the Republican Party for very long. One would have to absorb the other, and the longer this takes, the longer the non-leftist vote will be split and ineffective.

But let's say this happens, and we get a Conservative Party replacing the GOP and things quickly settle down. Would the ensuing situation be more desirable for us? Well, probably not. Consider who's traditionally supported such an idea.

Creating liberal and conservative parties is not actually a new idea; it goes back to the New Deal era and was proposed by a lot of academics, especially political scientists. In fact, many of the most famous representatives of the liberal intelligentsia, such as Harold Laski and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., supported it, arguing the formation of an actual conservative party as a way to raise the moral content of political debate. BUT, they weren't exactly being genuine about this. These New Deal liberals believed in what you might call "Sherpa conservatism," in which the Right would be just as committed to long-term progress and change as the Left, only offering quiet critiques here and there: a kind of minor "course correction," if you will. Plus, they figured this would be a good way to expel the conservative wing of the Democratic Party and make it a fully leftist organization. Having a balance between liberals and conservatives in politics was never part of the plan.

But forget the academics. How bad could the consequences of such a change be, after all? Well, just know up front that we won't get rid of the McCain-Graham brand of RINOs. For whatever reasons, these people have chosen to camp within the GOP's tent; the complex of political and economic factors involved in sustaining a national political party suggests that a lot of these people would find their way into this hypothetical new party as well. So we'd be left with a party that, in practice, is not that much different from what we left.

Also, keep in mind that this hypothetical Conservative Party, by being so explicitly tied to conservatism, might well end up discrediting the movement. Think about all the scandals and disgraces the GOP suffered through in the past decade or so. If that repeats itself at some point--as seems likely, given the conditions under which it will probably operate--those debacles are happening in conservatism's name, as it were. There's a reason Left and Right hide within parties which aren't explicitly identified with them; if the goal is the maintenance of the political ideology, it's better not to be tied to a particular party.

Fighting within the framework of the existing parties can be very frustrating. Having worked for the GOP in the past, I know that all too well. But short-term costs have to be weighed against long-term benefits, and in this case, it would appear to working to change the Republican Party from the inside continues to be a better option than breaking off to form a third option or a replacement. But you may disagree. Opinions?