EDITORIAL: Potential government shutdown shows how twisted party system has become
The looming federal government shutdown has pundits on both sides of the political spectrum shouting blame with their typical vigor, and it's truly a miscarriage of democracy.
The question that is most pressing, however, is not one related to any typical hot-button issues. It is a much simpler one: How did the U.S. get to a point where its highest elected representatives would rather gnash their teeth for inches of ideological ground than serve the public interest?
One pundit saw the problem coming before Democratic and Republican were anything other than forms of government.
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."
George Washington delivered those words in his farewell address in 1796, when he stepped down and established the tradition of a two-term limit to the presidency — a stipulation that should perhaps be extended to other elected officials in Washington. While those who followed for the most part honored the limit, they disastrously disregarded his words on the establishment of a party system.
Financial ventures certainly contribute to the modern hyperpartisan political culture characterized by filibusters and government shutdowns, but a less obvious culprit is the election system itself.
Republican and Democrat candidates for most state and federal offices must first win in primary elections before they can go head-to-head against the other party’s opponent in the general election. Studies show that only the most politically active party members bother to vote in the primary election. These voters tend to have the most extreme views when it comes to the party’s political ideology and want to nominate a candidate who shares the same views.
Therefore, if a Republican candidate wants to beat other GOP contenders in the primary election, they must cater their message to the most conservative interests of their fellow party members. Democrat candidates, likewise, mold their platform to be as liberal as possible to win the most votes.
The strategy candidates must use to make it to the general election has instigated an ever more politically-charged environment in Washington D.C., in which compromise is seen as weakness and the filibuster has trumped negotiating.
But the election system is not an excuse for Republicans and Democrats to demonize each other.
The people need a system capable of solving problems with society's best interests in mind, where monetary benefits do not dictate legislation to the detriment of constituents and the two-party system optimizes differing points of view instead of fostering hostility. And the latest threat of a government shutdown ought to be the last straw for constituents nationwide.
As our government moves closer to partisan meltdown, it is clear that system is not what our major-league political parties want to deliver.
