American Democracy: The Two-Party System and the Role of Money
By Mohamad Hammoud
Lebanon – Despite America's self-proclaimed status as a beacon of democracy, its political system faces significant challenges. The two-party system and the pervasive influence of money limit the range of political choices available to voters, undermining the democratic ideal of equal representation. While the United States often criticizes other nations for their lack of democratic principles, its own system raises questions about whether it truly embodies the values it espouses. To assess the effectiveness of American democracy, it is helpful to compare it with the democratic systems of European nations.
Historical Perspective and the Evolution of Democracy
The concept of democracy, rooted in ancient Greece, has evolved significantly over time. Modern representative democracy, as practiced in the United States and Europe, developed primarily during the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions.
The American system, founded on 18th-century ideals of individual liberty and limited government, traditionally emphasized freedom, including freedom in campaign finance. Over time, however, this emphasis on freedom has led to an increasingly unequal political playing field, where financial resources can heavily influence electoral outcomes.
In Europe, the evolution of democracy has often been shaped by the aftermath of wars and social upheavals, leading to a stronger emphasis on equality and fairness in the political process. This has resulted in more regulated campaign finance systems designed to limit the influence of money and ensure broader political representation.
The Two-Party System
One of the most glaring issues in American democracy is the dominance of the two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. While third-party candidates can technically run for office, they face almost insurmountable obstacles. The political infrastructure, from ballot access laws to debate participation rules, is heavily skewed in favor of the two major parties. This has led to a situation where, practically speaking, no candidate can realistically hope to win the presidency, or even a significant number of seats in Congress, without being connected to one of these two parties.
In his book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop, Lee Drutman, a political scientist at the New America Foundation, argues that the current system is largely a historical accident – an unintended consequence of the simple-majority election method. Given only two viable choices, voters must align themselves with one vision, making it difficult to express any ambivalence or nuanced political views. And there is plenty of ambivalence to go around. Pew Research Center surveys have identified at least nine distinct political typologies in the United States, while Gallup surveys show that fewer than 4 in 10 people believe the two major parties "do an adequate job of representing the American people."
In contrast, many European democracies feature multi-party systems that allow for a broader range of political voices and ideologies. Countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands have multiple parties representing a spectrum of views, from the far left to the far right, and everything in between. This diversity enables more nuanced representation of the electorate's interests and can lead to coalition governments that reflect a broader consensus.
The Role of Money in US Elections
“Money is the worst currency that ever grew among mankind. This sacks cities, this drives men from their homes, this teaches and corrupts the worthiest minds to turn base deeds.” – George Orwell
In American elections, money plays a pivotal role, with campaign costs often reaching billions of dollars. Since there are no restrictions on when an election campaign can begin, campaigns, especially presidential ones, often start years before the actual election date. This extended campaign period leads to what many consider "permanent campaigning," where candidates are constantly fundraising and positioning themselves for the next election.
Those running for federal office, especially the presidency, must seek wealthy donors and special interest groups to fund their campaigns. However, these contributions often come with strings attached. Companies and lobbying groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC], expect favors in return for their financial support.
The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC dramatically changed the landscape of campaign finance. This ruling allowed corporations, unions, and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs – political action committees. These Super PACs, often financed by large corporations, can spend vast sums independently to support or oppose candidates, tilting the political process in favor of those with the most financial resources rather than those with the broadest popular support.
The influence of money in US elections often results in policies that favor the interests of the wealthy, rather than the broader population. This contributes to growing inequality and disenfranchisement among those who feel their voices are not being heard. For example:
- AIPAC often conditions its support on candidates' unwavering backing of “Israel”, leading these candidates to vote in favor of Israeli policies even when they might conflict with American interests.
- The National Rifle Association [NRA] wields significant influence over legislators who have benefited from its financial support. Despite numerous mass shootings and public outcry for stricter gun control, these legislators often vote to uphold gun rights.
- The Pharmaceutical Industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates who favor their policies, influencing legislation in ways that may not align with the broader public interest.
In contrast, many European democracies have strict regulations on campaign financing that level the playing field, ensuring that political power is not solely in the hands of the wealthy. For example:
- In the United Kingdom, there are limits on how much parties and candidates can spend, and political advertisements on television are tightly controlled.
- In France, public funding is provided to parties based on their electoral performance, and spending limits are strictly enforced.
These regulations help ensure that elections are not won simply by those with the deepest pockets but are more reflective of the popular will.
Conclusion
America often portrays itself to the globe as the best-functioning democracy, its two-party system and the pervasive influence of money in elections significant undermine its democratic ideals. Compared to European democracies, where multi-party systems and strict campaign finance regulations promote broader political representation and limit the influence of money, the US system appears increasingly skewed in favor of those with financial power. To truly live up to its democratic principles, America may need to consider reforms that address these imbalances and create a more equitable political landscape.
