I don't want bipartisanship.
The most popular thing on the campaign trail these days is to talk about reaching across the aisle and working with both parties to get things done. While it is true that traditional antagonistic politics help no one, even cooperation between Democrats and Republicans isn't enough at this point. We don't need the two parties to work together; we need more political parties.
Of course it's great to hear presidential candidates speak about cooperation and mutual compromises, but even the ones who do so most often -- such as Senator Barack Obama -- will not be able to single-handedly heal the country after decades of brutal fighting between the left and the right. Constant political hostility has built up between the two parties over the decades -- see the Swift Boat attack ads and the Clinton impeachment -- and unfortunately no amount of sweet-talking will bring them together.
The White House and Capitol Hill have fought all year long over every issue, with harsh words and veto threats dominating every minor policy battle. With the Democratic and Republican leadership so intent on stopping any progress by the other party, the American people deserve new ideas and leaders who are not beholden to the same conflicts we have endured for the last 15 years.
To end this logjam we need third parties -- even fourth and fifth parties. We need them on the left, on the right and especially in the middle. Legitimate options outside of the two-party monopoly would open up debate on issues like health care, immigration reform and the war in Iraq while avoiding viciously partisan battles.
Democrats and Republicans constantly fight for a majority in Congress but neither of them holds an ideological majority among the public. According to The Washington Post, a healthy 45 percent of the voters in the 2004 election described themselves as moderate, and the number of self-declared independents grew from eight percent of voters in 1987 to 24 percent in 2004.
Despite large numbers of moderate voters, Americans can only realistically choose between two polarized parties.
Festering political hatred between the two "ruling" parties discourages helpful political discourse on the many major issues that can and should be solved. It's much easier, however, for politicians to throw around negative epithets for re-election purposes. For all the mud slinging, a foreigner might believe Bleeding-Heart Socialists and War-Mongering Neo-Cons are actual political movements.
Bona fide third parties would change all of that. Different parties representing people all across the political spectrum would foster reconciliation and compromise in Washington, forcing politicians to form coalitions in order to strike accords. Voting would not always cut straight across party lines and the government would open up to policy discussions free of partisan rancor.
While the people of the United States certainly deserve more choices, actual change is not likely to come anytime soon. Despite historic lows in party popularity, Democrats and Republicans control the money that flows into Washington every year. While the two parties appear to be in favor of anything that hurts the other, they can agree to keep third party candidates out of electoral debates -- or off the ballots altogether.
A few organizations have tried to break into the political equation recently, but their odds of success are long. In January, the reform movement "Unity08" suspended operations seeking a bipartisan alternative to the Democratic and Republican tickets. Longtime third parties such as the Green and Libertarian parties have failed to garner much support. The hopes of many independents rest with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire formerly a Democrat and then a Republican, who is rumored to be considering an independent campaign for the presidency.
Whether it is in 2008 or the near future, America deserves more options than simply picking the party and candidate one dislikes the least. And while the chances of a new party breaking onto the scene are low, precedent should give independents and moderates hope. After all, in 1860, a third party candidate was elected to the presidency. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
