Image Courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Television.
Amid the US election campaign, tensions between the two dominant parties are intensifying, and once again, people voice their discontent with the electoral system. The fact that options are essentially limited to just two parties – the Democratic Party and the Republican Party – reveals a systemic issue deeply rooted in the foundations of the United States. It is a complex topic, both politically and socially, yet the debate often boils down to a seemingly simple question: How is it possible that a global superpower like the US can produce only two candidates for the presidency?
‘You’re a child!’ These words, unusual in political discourse, encapsulate the first and final election debate that took place between Joe Biden and Donald Trump before Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Broadcast live on television, it was a largely unsubstantial and grotesque political performance between two ageing candidates, either one of which would have been as the oldest president in US history had they been elected. From a European perspective, current events appear as though they were scripted for a Netflix series: Republicans wearing ear bandages in solidarity after Trump was wounded in an attempted assassination; Biden’s reluctant withdrawal from the race; and Kamala Harris stylised as a ‘brat’.
Image Courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Television.
A Delicate Balance
The Democratic Party on the one side and the Republican Party on the other are meant to maintain a delicate balance, capturing the needs and concerns of the population. However, this balance seems to have been lost. Both sides are drifting further apart, fuelling – or perhaps reflecting – a growing polarisation within society.
The two-party system, which has been set up over the past 160 years, is a majoritarian electoral system; simply put, ‘the winner takes it all.’ There is no proportional representation of the electorate’s choices in the election outcome – a relic of British colonial rule, which ended in the 18th century but continues to influence US politics to this day. The intention behind this complex process was to prevent fragmented coalition governments and produce a clear, stable majority in the government. In practice, however, much of the popular vote is lost as it is filtered through the electoral college, which ultimately determines the victory of a party and its presidential candidate.
The party landscape has not always been dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties. In the years following the founding of the United States, voters chose between the Federalists and the then-Democratic-Republican Party; later, in the mid-19th century, it was the United States Whig Party versus the Democratic Party. Today, the spectrum between blue and red includes a colourful array of so-called ‘third parties’ – smaller parties that, while active on a local level with dedicated politicians, have little influence on national decisions. For instance, the Socialist Party or the Green Party are represented locally by politicians, yet they have little impact on national decisions; the two major parties occupy 98 percent of all seats in Congress.
Daniel Schlozman, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Hopkins University, describes the US party system as ‘hollow parties’ in his book The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics, co-authored with Sam Rosenfeld. Schlozman refers to a construct that outwardly appears strong but is internally hollow and weak. In our interview, he explains this concept by comparing it to other countries, where societal unrest and growing populism have given rise to new parties. Yet, despite tensions within the population, the two major parties in the US remain resilient and strong. ‘No other party has managed to challenge the Democrat-Republican duopoly. However, neither party is adequately equipped to address societal issues, which is why they are weakening from within,’ Schlozman explains.
Image Courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Television.
The Great Depression
Voting for the Democratic or Republican Party today no longer holds the same meaning it did 20 years ago. Cultural issues have driven the parties to adapt to the present, leading to structural changes – albeit poorly executed, according to Schlozman. He compares this to the New Deal, a programme initiated by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression and social unrest in the Thirties; it was one of the first to prioritise the needs of the working class. Of course, both parties have changed significantly since then. Schlozman wryly remarks that Republicans of that era would hardly recognise the party that recently rallied in Milwaukee following the attack on Trump. Although internal party policy, views, and positions are constantly overhauled, Schlozman emphasises, ‘Fundamental social challenges cannot be overcome in this way. The Republican Party has failed to erect barriers against rising extremism, while the Democratic Party harbours so many different tendencies within itself that it cannot unify.’
So, what could help the wavering ship of US politics regain its balance? ‘Success in American politics cannot just be defined by winning the majority of votes. Since each state provides its own electors, there is a strong focus on regional issues in the programmes, which should really be addressed elsewhere. However, no party has managed to create this space since the 1850s,’ is Schlozman’s critical assessment.
Image Courtesy of Gracie Films and 20th Television.
Similar Challenges in Europe
It is easy to look at the US from Europe with a raised eyebrow and criticise the system there. However, we must not forget that, despite different political structures, there are also significant socio-economic crises in Europe that pose similar challenges to the political sphere to those we can observe in the US. The two-party system may be the most striking symbol for societal polarisation, but a division into two camps is equally evident elsewhere. Schlozman remains sceptical of the current US system. He refers to an essay by political scientist John W. N. Watkins, in which Watkins argues that democracy functions less efficiently under presidential systems than under parliamentary ones. Even the Founding Fathers of the US did not envision such contrasting party formations in the Constitution of 1787; their goal was to create a resilient republic. Today, it is nearly impossible to remove a president or Congress. Change must come, yet Schlozman argues that, rather than a complete overhaul of current structures, more effort must be made to understand how they can be improved to function more efficiently.
This is especially true now, amid the tense US election campaign. Kamala Harris has entered the race as a strong candidate, making an impressive start that has drawn attention. However, a surreal feeling remains ever-present: the campaign resembles a show where celebrity appearances and fierce verbal battles dominate the stage. It is increasingly clear that the existing system is not equipped to provide a solution to today’s challenges. With each election round, it becomes more evident that the system must evolve or risk collapsing under the weight of tradition. As the world watches, the question arises: How can the US party system regain its balance?
As featured in SLEEK 82 – BALANCE. Available in print and digital here.