One Country, One Party

Where has the political opposition gone? Ever since its early division between Federalists and anti-Federalists, the United States has prided itself on possessing a two-party system. Lately, however, this model has begun to seem outdated—while the Democrats enjoy their new place in office, a serious challenge from the GOP is nowhere to be found. A piece in The Economist captured the current vacuum best, reporting that the Republican party is “about as popular as celibacy among 18-30-year-olds.”

Perhaps we should take a minute to pull out our magnifying glasses and try to find the party that governed not so long ago. To foreign observers, the present state of U.S. politics may seem merely amusing, but the problem is a serious one—no country can function well under an essentially uni-partisan system. Democracy can only work in an environment of plurality and of checks and balances.

As it stands, the Republican party appears philosophically impotent, hoping that a sufficient number of voters is trained to cheer for the same old issues like opposition to taxes and gay rights. Clinging to them so stubbornly has led the GOP to shoot itself in the foot Cheney-style on a number of occasions, doing a major disservice not only to its own voters, but to the country as a whole. But rather than bolster its image with fresh policy proposals, the party’s current strategy seems to be to take a time-out and keep its fingers crossed for an epic presidential mistake.

Republicans could instead boost their popularity by tolerating different ideas within the party, abandoning the practice of labeling and excluding all those who do not embrace every item of their platform. Immigration, taxes and abortion cannot all be easily resolved with a firm “no.” How about taxing things we want less of (pollution) and decreasing payroll taxes accordingly, making adoption easier, and promoting a realistic sex education?

It is not an unreasonable request—the Republican party has shown such open-mindedness before. Often distortedly portrayed as an ideologue and willing captive of his age by both his admirers and nemeses, Ronald Reagan was extraordinarily skilled at finding middle grounds and weighing trade-offs. He could both condemn the Soviet Union and work constructively on disarmament with its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

He sought to protect “our constitutional right to own a piece of this earth” but also advocated government ownership of parks so that open space and natural beauty can be enjoyed “by generations not yet born.” Unlike many Republicans today, he not only opposed well-intentioned yet harmful laws and regulations but was also able to clearly explain why market laws are preferable to some government pursuits (without instinctively accusing it of being socialistic).

While Republicans today could learn an enormous deal from Reagan’s style of thinking and communicating, they would err tragically by emulating all his positions. Much has happened in the 20 years since he vacated the White House. The GOP urgently needs to recruit experts who understand how and why global economic and political trends have shifted. With most politicians spouting prepackaged boilerplate, such thoughtful analysis by Republicans is hard to find these days.

But at least two of last year’s Republican presidential candidates had a reputation for competence. Given the quality of Mitt Romney’s and Rudy Giuliani’s platforms, it is slightly puzzling that their journeys through the primaries were so short. Former Governor Romney, for example, supported the creation of a national catastrophic fund, as well as a ban of guns that threaten the police and had a vision for universal health care. He eventually migrated from the center, however, drawing accusations of populism, while a number of myths sank the candidacy of the former mayor of New York.

Giuliani was repeatedly depicted as only qualified to fight terrorism, while other strong features of his program were downplayed or overlooked. Though he had an excellent track record of reducing crime, it was his economic ideas that made him seem like a seasoned accountant. He advocated a change of the tax code that would both simplify it and ensure that businesses would not be penalized for operating in the U.S. rather than abroad.

Perhaps “pandering” to those who like effective government, he also intended to measure the effectiveness of U.S. ambassadors and embassies abroad. Bill Clinton would undoubtedly endorse this approach, since he said at Harvard in 2001 that “almost nobody in the Middle East knows” what the U.S. has done for the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, that he would tell young people in Kandahar how many Muslims died in the World Trade Center, and that “we have done a lousy job of getting our story out.” Giuliani promised to promote U.S.-Muslim exchange programs as president, hoping that the two cultures would find mutual ground and understanding through dialogue.

Figures like this are conspicuously lacking in the political arena now. The current Obama administration has successfully avoided big missteps thus far, but no political party is infallible. A watchful opposition that would suggest policy improvements is a crucial factor in making sure that the government works in the people’s best interests. Still mired in the failures of the Bush administration, however, the Republican party has been unable to offer anything like an appealing alternative to the Democratic vision. Hopefully, knowledgeable politicians of the Romney and Giuliani variety will fill this void soon. Republicans, we may not always understand you, but—for the sake of our democracy—we wish you a speedy recovery.


Jan Zilinsky ’09, a Crimson editorial writer, is an economics concentrator in Mather House.