5/25/2004 03:50:32 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

The debate, er, concerning debates, and who should participate in them, is a recurrent feature of the American political cycle. More than most countries, America is hardwired as a two-party political system. Over our history those two parties have changed somewhat (remember the Federalists? the Whigs? and more confusingly in today's terms, the Democratic Republicans?), but the system has typically operated with two actors, random occurences and insufficiently popular populist movements not withstanding.

It is a fact of American political life that, on the ideological fringes, other parties do exist. Some are mere intellectual clubs, with minimal party structure (the Libertarians), while some are, dare we say, intellectually lacking, with some semblance of a party structure (the Greens).

The question is whether these parties actually add anything to the American political discourse. It pains me to say this, as I tend to have domestic libertarian tendencies, but the answer is a resounding "No." This is why.

Unlike some national political landscapes, America has functioned for her entire history under the big-tent, two party construct. Today the Democrats tend to occupy the center/left, and the Republicans tend to occupy the center/right. Within each party is a myriad of participants, candidates, and opinions. The parties are multi-issue in nature, and allow for limited dissent from the party line on an issue by issue basis. This political structure actually allows for more of a mixture of opinions, and requires candidates to be multi-faceted. In contrast, third party candidates tend to be single-issue driven, or driven by a very narrow agenda on the ideological fringe of the American electorate. The two-party system allows those who have a primary focus or personal issue to join the fold, but requires of its candidates more depth to increase their electoral appeal. Third parties, and specifically, single issue parties, by definition offer up inferior candidates who are over-focused on a limited set of issues. Either that or the party is so far on the fringe that it is, by definition, unelectable on a national or statewide level.

Candidates with unelectable party affiliations should not muddy the waters between two viable candidates. I'll take the Nader-effect, as we had in 2000, because it's just desserts for the Perot effect in 1992. But in general, we'd all be better off if We the People did not have our electoral will thwarted and elections thrown because of fringe candidacies.

Debates are designed to exhibit the candidates, their differences, and their fitness for office. They are not held to provide a soapbox to the ideologically and organizationally challenged.

|||108551927894432604|||Quantity Does Not Equal Quality