Natalie Breen’s submission on third-party politics
(“Restrictive electoral system demands alternatives,”
Oct. 27) is right regarding the moderating influences of our
two-party system. However, she opposes that system for all the
reasons she should appreciate it.
Breen says, “to get as many votes as possible, the
Democrats and Republicans must appeal to the same set of moderate
voters in the center.” This is true.
She then goes on to argue that this tendency gets in the way of
real change, as more innovative ideas get left out of the
discourse.
However, if we look at the actual history of the two parties, we
find the two-party system is not only capable of true progress, it
also promotes pragmatism and tolerance instead of narrow-minded
extremism.
Since the two major parties are such broad coalitions, third
parties are traditionally single-issue parties with necessarily
limited electoral appeal. Sometimes, if a single-issue party is
able to develop views and connect with reasonable voters on many
issues, it can grow into a major party (as the abolitionist
Republicans in the 19th century did).
More often, though, their concerns are simply absorbed into one
of the major parties and incorporated into the national discourse
that way (such as the Progressive Party in the 1890s). Therefore,
while the party may not survive, its ideas will.
In contrast, the parliamentary systems of Europe have always
been far more friendly to these narrow single-issue parties,
allowing extremists with relatively little popular appeal like
Hitler and, more recently, Joerg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie
LePen in France, to gain real political power in legitimate
elections.
In Ireland, terrorist organizations have been politically
represented in the national assemblies. In contrast, the two-party
system generally remains deaf to shrill and narrow-minded
extremists, promoting tolerance and dialogue as the two parties
keep each other in check.
I myself used to think like Breen, sneering the two major
parties as carbon copies of one another, spouting “similar
unilateral rhetoric” in pursuit of the unenlightened majority
of an unenlightened country.
Then I left the comfortable halls of UCLA and got the chance to
experience the real world, volunteering and living in many
different places. I discovered, to my surprise, that the extreme
left is every bit as authoritarian and tyrannical as the extreme
right, and that justice and freedom always lie somewhere in
moderation, in the center.
Extremism in its various guises, while perhaps ideologically
consistent, has never appealed to mainstream Americans, who are
more moderate and practical. Fascism, Nazism and authoritarian
communism are all products of European thought, while the United
States has a long tradition of pragmatism. After experiencing the
results of fashionable ideologies in other places, I say thank
goodness for the stable and moderate two-party system.
A final point: Contrary to what Breen says, the two-party system
can still offer a legitimate choice. Anyone who cannot recognize
the very real and stark differences between the two candidates in
this election is either blinded by their own selfrighteous sense of
superiority or hasn’t been paying attention.
Rodriguez is a UCLA alumnus.