Our two-party political system heightens division. It’s a winner-take-all high-stakes game of chicken. By requiring all-or-nothing allegiance, it asks us to veer further and further to extremes. It pictures compromise as unfaithfulness. It rewards intransigence and calls it integrity.
If those in power cared more about democracy than staying in power, they would work collectively to dismantle the stranglehold their political parties had over government and public discourse. In a partisan environment so equally divided, campaigns become a matter of manipulating the minutiae to peel off voters from the other side. Ever-increasingly extreme rhetoric and brinksmanship become the norm. Major funders spend billions to give the slightest of edges to benefit themselves.
In such a set-up, the social contract becomes untenable. If those in control of political parties cared more about the future of our country than short term gains, they would work together to loosen their stranglehold on politics. But to do so would require people on both sides being consistently willing to risk losing.
Our leaders could change the electoral system in multiple ways that would break the impasse. We could require the building of coalition governments; we could institute ranked-choice voting; we could require special elections for votes of no confidence; we could fund the creation of new political parties; we could legislatively lessen the role of money in elections and legislation.
But all of these would require leaders who were willing to blink first in the game of chicken. It would require people who were willing to get run over for the sake of people on the other side. It would require refusing to demonize others. In short, it would mean laying ourselves down for one another.
Currently, it seems that the forces of money, power, pride, hate, and certitude are too attractive.
Andrew T. Draper 