Not in the Constitution

In a guest article at the Cincinnati Beacon, Mark Lause defends socialism against its corporatist detractors within the duopoly.
Confusion over what socialism actually means is part of the larger muddle of political ideas with poorly considered policies and practices. A political party, calling itself Republican introduced a level of authoritarianism and secrecy incompatible with representing an informed and engaged electorate. Its rival, the so-called Democratic party vies with it in embracing undeclared wars and the metaphysics of trickle-down economics. If the basic politics of the Democratic and Republican parties are neither republican nor democratic, who can be surprised if the meaning of “socialism” is confused?
This 'muddle of political ideas' is perhaps most clear in explicit defenses of the two party system, but it is not absent among the latter's critics either. Defenders of the duopoly often confuse the two party system with the constitutional separation of powers, for instance, referring to the duopoly as if it were a state of equilibrium, a set of "checks and balances." (How many then complain about gridlock in Washington?) This belief is confined neither to Republicans nor Democrats, and can be found among both liberals and conservatives. As a critic and advocate recently stated in an article on bipartisanship in South Carolina: "somebody needs to remind these people that the two-party system is not built into our laws." Of course, as the article itself testifies, the two-party system is in fact built into our laws (ex. bureaucratic hurdles for third party candidates, ballot access issues, five percent minumum etc.). It is not, however, enshrined in the constitution.

No comments: