On the Ideology of the Two-Party State: Tautology, Limitation and Contradiction

The two-party system is sustained and reproduced in part by a discrete set of beliefs and practices, the sum of which amount to what I often refer to as duopoly ideology, the logic of the ideas that bind us to the reigning two-party political status quo. While it is often quite obvious that the ideology of the two-party state functions to limit what we do and how we act – resulting, for instance, in lesser-of-two-evils voting, incentivizing certain forms of lobbying and campaigning over others and hence privileging certain segments of the electorate and sectors of the economy at the expense of others etc. – it is not always equally apparent that duopoly ideology functions to limit what and how we think. In other words, the ideology of the two-party state conditions what is politically conceivable, even when the inconceivable is well within the realm of actual political possibility.

But the limits of duopoly ideology become readily apparent when one attempts to think third party and independent politics within the frames established by duopolist narratives and categories. The logic literally begins to break down, miring the thinker in both contradictions and tautologies. Such conceptual failures are not symptomatic of an inherent defect in any third party and independent strategy, but rather mark the limitations imposed upon our thought by the ideology of the two-party state.

An article by cchrisr at Zeal for Truth entitled "Third Party's Future Failure" provides perfect examples of ideological tautology, contradiction and limitation, and this just in its introduction. We read:

There is growing support for a third political party in the US. However, because of ideological reasons, it will never survive. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t say the particular party will not survive but that the concept of three parties will never survive in the US. Because of the emphasis of the two-party right/left divide, there can be only two parties. A third party may replace an existing party, but the only possibility there is of three political parties in the US political landscape would be if they divided along similar ideological lines (i.e. a ‘left’, ‘centre’, and ‘right’). In the remainder of this article, I will use this spectrum to hash out two generic examples of why a third party will always (ultimately) fail. I will use current popular third parties as exemplars of their position in the spectrum.

Tautology. Commonly, the phrase "begs the question" is now often used as if it meant that some statement "raises a question," however, in the strict sense, question begging is a logical fallacy, a rhetorical artifice, which assumes the very proposition that is meant to be proved. In the present instance, it takes the form of a tautology. The author writes: "Because of the emphasis of the two-party right/left divide, there can be only two parties." Of course, the emphasis on the two-party left/right divide is the most basic mystification of duopoly ideology. Its assumption does not prove anything but the speaker's inability to think outside of the categories most conducive to the reproduction of the two-party state.

Limitation. One favored tactic of the duopolist rhetorician is the unreasonable limitation of the realm of political possibility. In the present case, this limitation is made explicit: "the only possibility there is of three political parties in the US political landscape would be if they divided along similar ideological lines (i.e. a ‘left’, ‘centre’, and ‘right’)." This example furthermore illustrates how the two-party ideologue often draws conclusions on the basis of relational or relative concepts as if they were absolutes. Of course, 'left,' 'right' and 'center' are not absolutes, indeed, none of these categories is stable precisely because they are relational. Political antagonism is always de-centered. In Massachusetts, the political center is on the left, and is determined by the squabbling of Democrats, while in Utah it is on the right, its placement on the political spectrum being the result of bickering among Republicans.

Contradiction. In the above passage, we read: "I will use this spectrum to hash out two generic examples of why a third party will always (ultimately) fail. I will use current popular third parties as exemplars of their position in the spectrum." Do not the very existence of "popular third parties" falsify the proposition that is meant to be proved, namely, that third parties "will never survive"?

As I've stated before, perhaps the greatest mystification of two-party ideology is the production of the illusion that we have a two-party system. This illusion is produced not by argument, persuasion or deduction, but rather by assumption, insinuation and manipulation. The constitution does not mandate any party system whatsoever; in polities across the country, the so-called two-party system is little more than a facade for a one-party state; and, finally, there are a plethora of third parties and independent organizations that are politically active across the country, the fact that they are ignored by the political class does not mean they do not exist. In fact, the latter may be employed to our advantage. We can retain the element of surprise.