The American One-Party System

Welcome to America, a nation with a two party system that often resembles an inept one party government. In recent years, our government, whether in its legislative and executive branches, has become increasingly unproductive. The many differences on both sides, Republican and Democrat, have come to forge one main overriding similarity: the ability to do nothing for our country. The increasing influence of the media, the pressures of the never-ending campaign, the explosive flow of money from big business and the political structure itself have all contributed to this trend. The structure of the system may be flawed but it is these external currents of media, politics and money that have come together to create the perfect storm over Washington. This storm has delivered us a highly polarized government, unable to complete from the most menial to the most urgent of tasks.

This era of “gridlock” politics has been set in motion and perpetuated by these various factors. It can be seen in the current bailout plan for Wall St. or immigration reform in the past. The wall created by polarization has either slowed or completely prevented legislation. The true problem with polarization is not only that those on the extremities of the political spectrum are in power and at odds with each other but rather that the moderate centrist base has eroded away. The erosion of this base is detrimental to a legislative system that depends on centrist compromise to reach any goal. Whether it is the empowerment of radicals or the erosion of centrists, it is the media, big business and the nature of the modern election cycle that inhibit any progress within our government.

The media’s role in this dilemma has various facets. The arrival of the 24-hour news network has made information on politics and current events widely accessible. While the access has empowered many voters it has also given clout to these new media outlets. The influence wielded by these media outlets is not only rooted in the number of its viewers but also through their ability to consistently repeat their messages and the constant use of multimedia to manipulate viewers’ emotions. Closely related to this concept is the “CNN Effect” which acknowledges this newly found influence but uses it to address CNN’s influence on the public when dealing with foreign relations issues. I believe this same concept can be applied to domestic politics, specifically, elections. The election cycle dominates most of the coverage on most news networks now and this certainly fits in the message repetition I mentioned before. What’s interesting about all of this is that there are two different ways in which these news networks are affecting the general public’s views.

After all these news networks are businesses and they have to operate on business models that guarantee success and profitability. Some networks like CNN try and give voice to both Democrats and Republicans in order to maintain high viewership and to avoid alienation of any group. This seems noble in cause but in effect CNN sees the nation and its public as falling under to two distinct ideologies. And these two ideologies are not pushed forward by CNN, but rather they are showcased by CNN through their many talk shows, which always have one or multiple constituents of the Democratic Party debating constituents from the Republican Party. Since these debates only discuss the ideas of the two parties’ ideologies they limit the market of ideas for the viewer. Limiting these ideas creates the two poles that viewers are left to choose. What’s worse is that these debates many times stray from fact and relevant content and become pure political hacking. The tension, which often surrounds these debates, makes for great television but never serves as a proper forum for discussing ideas. A great example of one of these shows was Crossfire. Crossfire was a daily debate show that was on CNN. The show had a stage and discussion table that was divided down the middle; one side was blue in color the other red. The concept behind the show was that CNN would have political figures from both the Republican and Democratic Party on daily, discussing and arguing over policy. It was known for being one of the more inflammatory of shows on CNN for the constant conflict and fervor between the two sides. At one point the show invited Jon Stewart, a political commentator and humorist, to the show. Stewart came on to the show with a purpose. While on the show he attacked both of the hosts, saying they served as political hacks and messengers for both political parties and that nothing that they debated ever strayed from the main messages both parties were putting out each day.

A video of Jon Stewart on Crossfire.


The show was canceled shortly after the exchange. Unfortunately, the format of having political hacks battling it out on networks like CNN, has not been phased out.

Other networks like Fox News are also seen as being mainstream and appealing to a wide audience, like CNN has. But many have criticized it for leaning to the right with a lot of its coverage. The targeting of a more conservative audience shows a different business model. The growth of the news industry and of the market itself has led many in the industry to target certain groups, like conservative or liberals, to create a market share and loyalty from these political bases. This nature of seeking profitability and market share overtakes the responsibility for proper news coverage and usually seeks to exploit the market. Regrettably, news coverage has become entertainment. And as all successful entertainment requires, news coverage has had to find a form of appeal. This appeal has been found by the creation of conflict and political drama. Whether its networks like Fox News which tend to lean to the right and attack those on the left or if its CNN which has both sides represented but at battle, it is clear that the successful business model in news requires the media to not only create polarization but to also ”fan its flames”

The media has played a great role in polarizing the public but at the end of the day it is the politicians who are then controlled by public opinion. The constant coverage of political figures in our modern times has created a new a phenomenon, the “endless political campaign.” While the media is partially to blame the political parties have wholly embraced the extended race for office. Many say that Barack Obama’s campaign began the night he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 for presidential candidate John Kerry. This is when the media picked up on the politician but also when the Democrats and Obama himself saw his potential for a future candidacy. Certainly this is just a minor example but the idea is that political parties are launching campaigns for elections a lot earlier than in the past. The length of time that a candidate must spend under the microscope may seem beneficial to the public. Instead politicians have still remained vague about their intended policies in order to maintain appeal to a larger voter base but what is worse is that is this desire to cater to public opinion has not only kept their messages vague but has also made them reactionary to public opinion. The ever-elusive message leaves most voters in the dark as to what candidates plan to do with their country or state. The void of knowledge is filled by reactionary policy from the candidates, which often shifts and maneuvers according to the latest polls. These policies are then left for political hacks to reinforce and argue over on CNN or Fox News, constantly drawing on viewers’ emotions rather than reason. The success of evading reason by politicians has created a culture that has permeated many political campaigns. This culture has pushed politicians to formulate policies based on short-term popularity instead of long-term effectiveness. What’s best for the country has now been sacrificed by what’s best for my candidacy. It is not to say that this element has been missing in past elections. The difference now is that the length of candidacies and the amount of news coverage have extended the presence of this element out of the election period and into the legislative process.

Now what’s most disturbing is how the two previous points I made of media influence and the endless campaign work symbiotically with the last, big business. Big business has always been intertwined with politics. Government has a massive influence on the operation of business not only with simple things like tax rates but also specific laws that govern how a business must operate. It has always been an element in American politics. What has changed is that politicians need big business’ money more than ever for their campaigns. Their endless campaigns need funding and large corporations have the most money available for the contributions needed by politicians. Not only are these contributions needed by political campaigns but the companies are more than happy to have teams of politicians owing them favors. Corporations have caught on to the trend and as statistics show these companies are always trying to contribute to the winning candidates. Since the Democrats won midterm elections and the popularity of Barack Obama as candidate has increased, there has been a marked shift in donations to the Democratic Party from the Republican. The Republicans had experienced the reverse prior to the 2006-midterm elections.

Corruption is the main issue that comes to mind when we observe this massive infusion of money into politics. But when discussing political polarization we must realize that this money serves more as fuel for both Republicans and Democrats to continue their campaigns. The corporately fueled campaign makes the endless campaign sustainable.

What we need to observe is how all of these elements truly are interconnected to create the main problem, polarization in government. I made the direct connections obvious but what is hardr to capture is the starting point of the problem. The politicians may be running endless political campaigns but the news media seeks the profits generated from coverage of these extended campaigns. The politicians need the money from corporations in order to compete with each other but the corporations need the help of the government to maximize their profitability. When we stop to look at this it is clear that the true problem is the desire for power rather than progress by the politicians and the abandoning of social responsibility for profitability by corporations. It is hard to find a solution to such a problem not only because its origin is convoluted but because two of the most influential institutions in our society, businesses and government, are both at fault and unwilling to change.