The American Party

There are two invariable ends to any organization or association, it reinvents itself or it dies. The two parties now in existence, the Republicans and the Democrats, are at that presipas. These parties both attempt to speak to every issue in existence and in doing so speak to nothing. 

Don't agree? Think about a few of these mind benders objectively (if you are a partisan person, really try to be objective and you won't believe the conclusion you will come to):

1. Believes in the right to bear arms, but believes that the Country should observe or reflect Christian principles.

2. Believes in the unencumbering of personal freedoms, but believes in strict regulation of people's rights to use land, employ people and gun ownership.

3. Believes in strict land use restrictions for environmental protection and open spaces requirements (which drives up the cost of living and availability of affordable housing), but believes in making housing more affordable for all americans.

4. Believes in the death penalty, but is prolife

5. Against the death penalty, but is prochoice

6. Against a strong military, but for the combating of genocide around the globe

7. Against the first amendment when it comes to prayer in school, but for the first amendment when it comes to anti-American demonstrations in school

8. Against spending on foreign aid, but for spending on a military presence in countries of civil unrest.

9. For open borders and foreign owned ports , but believes in securing America against terrorism

10. Against open borders and foreign owned ports, but believes in providing health care to all regardless of national origin.

To be fair to both parties, they both are diabolical in their belief systems. Why? The best answer I can come up with is that they have tried to reach as many people as possible without directly contradicting themselves in ideological stances. Over the years, the desire to be in power has outweighed the desire to be "just, fair and correct." As a result, the parties now represent no cross section of our population.

Perhaps the issue is far deeper than stated above.  The issue may turn on the inherent fallibility of political parties in general. Our founding fathers didn't believe in political parties, rather they aligned themselves according to a stance on a particular issue or ideology as a faction. The enormous distinction between the two is that a faction supports a single frame of thought, as opposed to a stance on every issue. Modern day parties serve as the department store of ideologies. These parties offer such stances regardless of whether the ideologies offered on the subjects are in conflict. Our political parties literally decide for its partisans everything from prayer in school, to welfare, to social security, to defense spending.

In the formative years of our country, an issue such as Federalism divided the founding fathers. The important factor for our purposes is that the argument between Federalists and Antifederalists was a single issue. Arguments surrounded the need, or the imposition (depending on what side one took), of having a federal government as opposed to rule by the states as entities. The push and pull that occurred for decades to follow always followed the logical progression of deciding under what structure legislation and policy should be promulgated. What founders refused to do was meander into making decisions for every possible issue of their society.  That would have been ridiculous.

It was deemed by the founding fathers of the United States that factions were to liberty, what air was to fire. The sad reality is that under the current system, people cannot form an effective faction as the parties rule from the standpoint of power and not logical extension of an ideal or belief system. By brute force of office and manipulation of the election process elected officials are forced to pledge allegiance to a particular party. This transgression creates cynicism in the citizens as no party truly identifies with them. The end result is a feeling of government in spite of the people instead of for the people, by the people as it was intended.

With boyish hope, I believe that the tide may have finally shifted with the election of Barack Obama. January 19, 2009 Barack Obama held a dinner honoring Americans who exemplify bipartisanship in hopes of making the behavior more prevalent. One of the Americans honored, John McCain, the Republican who ran against him for the presidency.

Further, President Barack Obama proclaims that it is time to "renew the promise of America and create an America where we all support the common good." This concept, while hardly new, is quite novel in modern times. It reflects the emergence of a faction that deems Americans as its constituents. Obama states, "Native American, Mexican, Black, Asian, and Caucasian, gay and straight, disabled and not," are called upon to work together to fulfill the common good of all and "restore America's promise that every American can make it with hard work." He calls for an America where our children are able to reach higher than their parents in life.  Finally, Obama demands elected officials deny the bias of their party and put country first.

This message is fundamentally different from the gimmik rhetoric of "reaching across the aisle," this type of revolutionary talk marks an intent to eliminate the aisle altogether. Officials, dignitaries and government is to be judged by the merit of their ideas and their ability to perform, not the name of their party. The United States is asked to focus for the first time in a very, very long time on building a better nation through service and sacrifice. With this focus, factions about how to accomplish a more perfect union shall emerge, and the liberty once created by our founding fathers restored.