John McCain gets all the press as a "maverick," but how has he set his own course in the presidential primaries? His views are in lockstep with the prevailing Republican ethos. But the true mavericks in the GOP seem to be Rudy Giuliani and Chuck Hagel.
Giuliani bucked the prevailing political wisdom and decided to actually tell voters what he believes rather than equivocate. It will be interesting to see how voters react to such straight talk. This writer has always held that voters will respect a politician who tells the truth and doesn't try to be all things to all voters. The Giuliani campaign will be an interesting test of this theory.
Nebraskan Senator Chuck Hagel took his independence a bit further, claiming that the Republican Party has been "hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." Hagel is pondering a run as an independent candidate with none other than Giuliani's successor, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a possible running mate.
The American system was never intended to be a strict two-party system and the introduction of a viable third party ticket, as well as some real "straight talk" from the candidates, would be a welcome political development.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Are you sure the American system was never intended to be a two-party system? Regardless of intentions, it has been that way for the most part. If it wasn't intended to be that way, then why has it been? Sure, third parties have succeded in modifying the parties in power, but never has any third party really competed. Look at this info from Britannica online:
"The United States has always had a two-party system, first in the opposition between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, then in the competition between the Republicans and the Democrats. There have been frequent third-party movements in the history of the country, but they have always failed. Presidential elections seem to have played an important role in the formation of this type of two-party system. The mechanism of a national election in so large a country has necessitated very large political organizations and, at the same time, relatively simplified choices for the voter."
Don't we know from our political science literature that the neccesity of party identification for voter shortcuts makes it hard to have more than two parties in the American system? But why doesn't that apply to parlimentary systems? This Britannica explanation is an institutional one. As it has been said, institutions matter.
Post a Comment