by Chris Alarie
Over the past several months, the
American public and, perhaps more importantly, media have been deeply
fascinated by the 2016 presidential election, despite the fact that
we are a year away from election day and a few months out from even
the earliest nominating contests. Some of that is a result of the
necessities of the 24 hour news cycle, the horse-race-style
1
coverage of elections that the media favors,
2
and the
particularly
odd
characters
who populate the nominating contests. But another source of interest
is the way that the battles for each party's nomination have put a
spotlight on intra-party issues, particularly with regards to
America's income and wealthy disparities.
3
Both the
Republican
and
Democratic
parties are in the midst of battles as to how each party should best
address the questions surrounding inequality. These intra-party
debates illustrate one of the more pressing but under-discussed
political problems in America: the way our two-party system is
hurting the democratic process and preventing the government from
properly addressing the economic concerns of the general public (in
this case, the increasing divide between the super-wealthy and the
rest of the country—a function of worsening income and wealth
inequality as well as a lessening of economic mobility).
America is, for all intents and
purposes, the only major democracy that has only two effective
political parties. And the two parties are entrenched in such a
manner that their respective areas of expected electoral control are,
if not predestined, then highly predictable, at least. The Democrats
have a
distinct
advantage in the electoral college, giving them
an easier path to control over the electoral branch of the federal
government. The Republicans have a stranglehold over much of the
governments
at
the state level which, in turn, gives them a
similarly overwhelming control of the House of Representatives. The
only segment of the federal government that is currently a remotely
open contest between the two parties is the Senate, depending on
which seats are contested in each particular election. The manner in
which these two parties are entrenched is a key facet of the
worsening problems of inequality.
In a
recently
published Vox
article,
Lee Drutman explains how America seems to be stuck in a reinforcement
feedback loop of income and wealth inequality that is both a product
of and engine behind Republican control of the government. It is a
well-supported, interesting article and is well worth reading in
full, but for my purposes, can be summarized as explaining that the
last few decades of largely Republican controlled economic policies
have created an extreme level of income inequality that has created a
less informed and less politically engaged electorate, which in turn
favors Republican electoral goals. Essentially, the Republicans have
used their control over the federal government to make the federal
government ineffective in addressing inequality, which in turn allows
them to campaign against the federal government as a solution for
inequality in front of an electorate that, thanks to the
aforementioned inequality, is less prepared to evaluate these
problems and less likely to engage with the political process, both
of which favor the perpetuation of this strategy on the part of the
Republicans. While the reasons for this feedback loop are manifold
and complex, it is, in part, a function of the limitations of our
two-party system.
The
Democratic and Republican parties have effective monopolies over,
respectively, the liberal and conservative factions of the
government, with the middle ground becoming more
and more empty.
And with these monopolies comes an increased focus on ideological
consistency, particularly in the GOP, and a greater need to establish
differences between the parties on most issues. The problem is that
each party's ideology is unlikely to represent the beliefs of most
voters on every single issue. Anything outside of either party's
orthodoxy, even an idea that finds bipartisan support among the
general electorate, necessarily becomes either a partisan cause—if
it fits within one party's ideology—or an unsupported cause—if it
doesn't fit within either party's ideology. Income and wealth
inequality are problems that follow this first model in that they are
a primary concern of a majority of Americans but are only
identifiable as problems within the ideology of the Democratic party,
essentially rendering a cause that should have broad support as a
partisan cause that is subject to all of the problems and
ineffectiveness of our polarized system of government.
For
statistical evidence that a sizable portion of the populace is
concerned about inequality, one could look at polls from the New
York Times/CBS
and Gallup.
But for more anecdotal evidence that the issue is important to voters
from both parties, one need look no further than the very different,
insurgent populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Indeed, inequality is the primary issue on which Sanders has centered
his campaign
and a significant source of his unexpected success and momentum—to
the point that likely eventual nominee Hillary Clinton has had to
(perhaps unconvincingly) focus
on the issue,
as well. On the other hand, Trump's success is a bit harder to tie to
any one issue. But it is still worth noting that Trump has addressed
the issue of inequality more directly than any other Republican
candidate, stating that he would like to raise taxes on hedge fund
managers4
and has no intention of reducing medicaid or social security—which
amounts to as much of defection from GOP orthodoxy on the subject of
inequality as could be imagined by a leading presidential candidate.
The strangeness of Trump's behavior and his attendant popularity has
led to a veritable cottage industry of articles in which a journalist
speaks to Trump supporters in order to discover the reasons behind
their support. While the supporters' responses run the gamut from
relating to his racist, nationalistic rhetoric on immigration to his
supposedly self-financed campaign's freedom from the influence of
special interests to his general blustery demeanor, many Trump
supporters point to his comparatively stronger focus on the issue of
inequality relative to other Republicans. Indeed, the enthusiasm for
Sanders and, to a lesser extent, Trump illustrates the extent to
which inequality is an issue of importance to the public across the
political spectrum. However, the fact that neither candidate seems
likely to eventually win the presidency or even capture his party's
nomination demonstrates how the two-party system prevents the
government from truly addressing the problem of inequality.
Once
the primaries are finished, the general election will pit
establishment candidates against each other, with Hillary Clinton
almost certainly facing off against either Jeb Bush or, more likely,
Marco Rubio. While they have made some brief overtures toward the
plight of the middle class, Rubio and Bush are extremely unlikely to
be concerned with income and wealth inequality than Trump.5
And while Clinton is much more likely to campaign against inequality
than her Republican opponents, her history and connections to wealthy
Wall Street donors renders her a much less convincing crusader
against inequality than Sanders. In a system that had more than two
parties, Trump and Sanders6
would be able to participate as candidates outside of the Democratic
and Republican parties and perhaps stand a chance to campaign to a
general electorate with their comparatively great focuses on
inequality.7
But in a two-party system, we will instead be presented with a choice
between a Republican candidate who has no interest in the issue and a
Democratic candidate who does not have as much interest as a large
portion of the progressive segment of the electorate and perhaps even
less than some voters who generally lean more conservative.
Inequality becomes a comparatively weakened partisan issue instead of
the generally popular cause that polls indicate it to be.
Ultimately,
a political system that features more than two viable parties would
be more likely to represent the vast and varied concerns of the
public as a whole. And perhaps an issue that is concerning to a
majority of Americans across the political spectrum such as income
inequality would be more likely to be addressed by the government.
But the entrenched power of the two parties—fueled in part by the
campaign contributions of the wealthy elites who benefit from
inequality—makes this an impossibility.8
While there are a number of potential means by which outside parties
could gain traction, such as ranked choice voting or proportional
representation, the likelihood of any being implemented is extremely
low. Instead, we are stuck with a two-party system that encourages
reinforcing feedback loops and ignores broadly supported issues like
inequality.
Chris Alarie is Senior Editor-in-Chief of Uncanny Valley Magazine.
1 Beware the Vast Equine Conspiracy.↩
2 And that the public devours.↩
3 This focus on the economy is a reflection of how many, perhaps even most, political issues in this country are folded into domestic economic debates.↩
4 Of course, the tax plan that he ultimately released does not follow through on that promise, illustrating just how significant the influence of orthodox conservative economic policy is.↩
5 Or any Democrat.↩
6 It is worth noting that lifelong political independent Sanders only recently joined the Democratic party in order to try to secure its presidential nomination.↩
7 I should note that Hillary Clinton, like nearly any progressive, is likely more concerned about inequality than Donald Trump.↩
8 Indeed, campaign finance reform is the elephant in the room on this issue, as it is in regards to much of American politics.↩
