Has the ‘Two Party System’ Failed?

Photo Credit: Pixabay

Hilbert Morales

The Middle Class (work force, professional, skilled and unskilled), have essential needs which are not being addressed by either of the two major political parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties spend most of their resources in efforts to attain power and influence. Is it time to have the current “Two political Party governance system’ modified by a Third Political Party having enough constituency support to eliminate the ability of either Democrats or Republicans from ending up with full control of the White House, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives? This Independent Third Political Party might easily become the representative of the 100 million current constituents who are not at any governance conference table today. Would not having full control improve the likelihood that debates, deliberations and negotiated compromises would begin to happen despite the impact of well funded special interest’s lobbyists? Would a Three Political Party system facilitate the crafting of urgent legislation? Especially when one of the three political parties represents the interests of “We, The People”.

Here is what is not being debated: HAS THE TIME COME TO HAVE A THREE PARTY SYSTEM IN AMERICA? This may apply to both federal and local state governments. The Libertarian (Gary Johnson), Green (Jill Stein) and Peace and Freedom (Gloria Estella de la Riva) parties need to confer to establish a way to become the ‘Third Political Party which prevents any one having ‘total’ control. Will that force elected official to debate, deliberate, and negotiate when defining public policy and crafting legislation? That would be better than the gridlocked ‘do nothing’ U.S. congress since 2010.

California’s State Assembly today has a Democratic Party super-majority which may not serve the best interests of its working class constituents. The same holds true nationally where the Republican Party has ended up, as of Friday January 20, 2017 with the White House and both the House and U.S.Senate. In light of this nation’s experience since 2010, the conservative Republican Party with its majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives became the ‘do nothing Congress’. This enabled the Republican leaders to sustain a practice of being against any proposal made by President Obama, despite merits of proposal such as nomination of the 9th Supreme Court Justice as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. President Obama did his job as CEO; the U.S. Senate, dominated by the Republican Party, did not. After Friday. January 20, 2017, the Republicans will be in a position to approve any Supreme Count Justice proposed by President Trump. The projected impact is that the U.S. Supreme Court will be very conservative for the next 30 years.

Since 2010 the U.S. Congress has been gridlocked in that the Republican majority in both the Senate and the House enabled the execution of a practice of VOTING NO to every program proposal made by the first African American elected Chief Executive Officer and Commander in Chief, Barack Obama.

So the Obama Administration had to accomplish what it could using the existing law and regulations already passed by the U.S. Congress.

Think of the next two years as being comparable to the time the Obama Administration’s had the support of a Democratic Party majority in both chambers of the U.S. Congress. It was during that time that the 2010 Affordable Care Act (aka: Obama Care) was enacted. It received only Democratic Party votes.

During 2009-10 an opportunity was missed by Democratic Party strategists: Comprehensive Immigration Reform could have been on their agenda. This may indicate there was insufficient support within the Democratic Party itself at that time. The Obama Administration had the votes to enact the 2010 ACA (aka. Obama Care). So Immigration Reform has languished since 2010 because Republicans have been in control of the U.S. Senate and House since 2011.

Now, California has a Democratic Governor (Jerry Brown) and a Democratic majority in both chambers: The State Senate (which has 5 Latino Senators) and State Assembly (which has 19 Latino Assembly members). Will this ‘one political party majority system’ conduct the due diligence, debates, and necessary negotiations to craft and enact essential high priority legislation? CA may be required to underwrite its own CA version of Obama Care. Additional high priority matters are the education system (pre-K to post-graduate); its infrastructure, especially highways; its potable water allocation system which is antiquated (and past policies and practices would become moot when enough desalinization production powered by renewable energy source ‘came into production’ because CA invested in its future; and dealing with its own Environmental Protection Agency approach to dealing with Global Climate Changes and extensive droughts. CA needs to prepare for the day in 2050 when it will have 50 million residents (today’s population is 34 million and growing in diversity).

When the Trump Administration accomplishes some of its ‘small federal governance proposals’, then CA will have to do much without U.S. Federal dollars, despite the reality that CA contributes more tax revenues to the U.S. Treasury than any other state in this Union.

CA must soon face its own ‘unfunded pensions’ obligations. The CA economy is the fifth largetst global enterprise which keeps employment levels very high. Its agribusiness must be ready to deal with the Trump inept approach to Mexico and its historic provision of skilled labor used by agribusiness and other industries.

CA is probably the one state which may alone sustain its economy, diverse society, and its own ecosystem. Its diverse population can be depended upon to pay sales & income & property taxes; license fees and other sources of revenues. The challenge is to reveal all of its obligation in a transparent manner so that those accountable and responsible may be fully monitored. Today that is not the case and perhaps a Third Political Party may change a bipartisan dialogue to a conversation of three political representatives, one of whom represents ‘We, the People.” The two political party system at the state level is not enough. A third independent participant having full presence and authority is necessary at both the federal and state levels. The Two Party Political System is showing its flaws and ‘We, the People’ must demand full representation. The present two political party system is not delivering fair and equitable services (or opportunities) to the working class. So let’s evaluate having a Third political Party in our governance system. It may correct the current ineffective governance, especially at the federal level.