Calls for a Parlimentary System

Yesterday, we observed the 231st birthday of our great nation. In the midst of barbeque, the minimum allowed fireworks (due to the severe drought that has plagued this area of the country), and the pomp and circumstance--I had a revelation.

Maybe the founding fathers were wrong in one crucial instance. After all, they were products of the Enlightenment, itself an idealistic movement that believed that this current reality could be molded and shaped into the best of all possible worlds: a rosy-hued perspective skewered by Voltaire in his novel Candide through the character of Dr. Pangloss. In attempting to throw off the shackles of an oppressive British empire, they formed a brand new form of government in which parties were eschewed altogether. Indeed, it was the ill-founded, highly unrealistic belief that political factions would not exist in America. Rather, we would all come together under the banner of liberty to settle our differences in a manner of brotherly civility.

The reality of course, is that factionalism is a characteristic inherent to the human condition that even noble intentions and righteous rhetoric cannot take away. The roots of a two-party system that currently rules these United States of America came in the form of the Federalists, who supported a Constitution, who sparred against the Anti-Federalists who felt that a National Constitution was too restrictive and sacrificed the inherent power of the States for the sake of a strong national government. Though these parties may have been more or less undeclared, within a matter of mere decades, Washington and Adams' Federalist Party found itself directly opposed by Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, itself the precursor to today's Democratic party.

Even in this ultra-cynical times I find it hard to believe that our Founding Fathers believed that we should all adhere to one political party and saw great evil in factionalism. Factionalism/tribalism seems to be endemic to the human condition no matter what good intentions may be proposed.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which all revolutions and other such seismic shifts are guilty of to some extent or another, we should have respected and retained the British Parliamentary system. This would allow a much fairer representation. The far-right could have its own party, the center-right its own, the center-left its own, the far-left its own, and so on an so forth. Indeed, a Parliamentary system encourages coalitions rather than stalemates. The current Congress of the United States has largely hit gridlock because of an unwilling to comprise lame-duck President and a Congress that sticks to its principles.

I think we would see far less disgruntled voters if the electorate truly felt like they had a say in government. The complaint I see from many people is that they feel like no party adequately represents them. These complains have merit. I consider myself a Democrat, but not everything the Democrats propose do I find myself in favor. My Republican friends mention the same thing about their party.

The problem, thus far, with third parties is that they hardly ever survive long enough to make an impact. They are normally built on a few key issues that resonate with voters, but find themselves rendered redundant when one or both parties steals that idea and incorporates it into its platform.

The criticism of Parliamentary system is that they are easily dissolved and it's tough to maintain any sort of continuity in government. If America retained a Parliamentary system, George W. Bush would have been forced to resign long ago. Call me a neo-con, but I think that the nature of politics is such that if a person remains around it long enough, he or she will surely be corrupted. There is too much money, too much payola, too much temptation for any person. Eventually, all cave.

It's a sordid business, and as Bismark said, "The less the people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they sleep in the night".