“The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.  The one that’s out always looks the best.”
                                                       - Will Rogers

From 17 September 1787, when the United States Constitution was submitted for signing by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, until its ratification by the various states, two parties struggled for supremacy in the fledgling Republic.  The Federalists supported ratification of the Constitution and the powers it ensconced in a central government, while the Anti-Federalists opposed ratification, advocating instead a confederation in which power resided in the states.  When the ratification of the Constitution by the states ended this contest, the Anti-Federalists announced their intention to support the Constitution, and for several years the country had, for all intents and purposes, a single political party.  When George Washington was elected as the first President in 1789, the electoral vote in his favor was unanimous.

Opposition to the Federalist Party began in 1790, when Alexander Hamilton broached a project for the assumption of State debts by the central government.  It grew stronger in 1791, when he proposed to establish a national bank and Thomas Jefferson, who had been the first Secretary of State, soon found himself at the head of a party in open opposition to the administration.  This party, which adopted the name Democratic Republicans, advocated the principles of the Anti-Federalists and claimed Hamilton’s scheme was an attempt to subvert the state governments and establish a strong central government.  The result was the introduction of a full-fledged two-party system in the United States.

In the 1792 election, the Federalists continued in the majority and Washington and Adams were re-elected President and Vice-President.  But during Washington’s second term, the power of the Democratic Republican party rapidly increased and the acts of the administration were fiercely attacked.  When, as the 1796 election approached, Washington announced his intention to retire, a hot political contest arose; a contest which very nearly resulted in a Republican victory.  Of the 139 electoral votes cast, John Adams received seventy-one and Thomas Jefferson received sixty-eight.

When Jefferson, running as a Democratic Republican, defeated Adams, the Federalist candidate, in the 1800 election, the two-party system became well established on the U.S. political landscape.  Over the past 200 years, the parties have evolved, including morphing through a number of name changes, into the Democrat and Republican parties we know today.  And although occasional “third parties” have appeared and grabbed portions of the popular vote (e.g., Russ Perot’s 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election), we remain primarily a nation of two political parties.

There are several arguments against a two-party political system, including:

• If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant-party system may develop.
• Even if both parties remain equal, they may gradually become very similar to compete for votes, resulting in a gradual trend toward a one-party system.
• A two-party system can lead to one faction winning a majority of legislative seats and governing without compromise, effectively disenfranchising a sizeable portion of the electorate.
• Special interests can establish a lock on political discourse, media, etc. and establish a narrow dominant ideology which both parties serve so that in effect it is a one-party system tending to corporatism.  This effect has been particularly noticeable in the United States since the second half of the twentieth century.

The results of the 2006 and 2008 elections have greatly diminished the governmental effectiveness of the Republican Party and have left it with no effective leader since the 2008 Presidential election.  The Republicans have yet to find anyone in their ranks who might be deemed leader-worthy - a person who can not only command the broad respect of party regulars, and who can quell the intraparty food fights, but who can also connect with a mainstream electorate that has been left reeling by the results of the last two elections.

The current pretenders to the Republican throne can be considered almost laughable –

• Rush Limbaugh, who has insisted, among his many more asinine remarks, that he “hopes Obama fails” as President.  Not a particularly intelligent position for anyone who professes to have the country’s interest at heart.  Limbaugh currently enjoys roughly a 25 percent approval rating, which is about the same level as that of Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned the presidency and that of George W. Bush at the end of his disastrous reign.
• Newt Gingrich enjoyed broad popularity during the Reagan administration, but his right wing radicalism that led him to recently profess that President Obama is potentially creating “the equivalent of a dictatorship,” has not endeared him to other than the most right wing members of the Republican Party.
• Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican Party, is still being criticized by his attacks on Rush Limbaugh.  He is currently trying to mend fences with the GOP base by playing the God card, declaring to CNN this week that he might run for president some day if that’s “where God wants me to be.  God has a way of revealing stuff to you…And if that’s part of the plan, it’ll be the plan.”  It’s questionable whether independent swing voters can be charmed by yet another Republican who claims to be touched by the divinity.

As for others…

• John McCain has retreated to his role as Senator, foregoing any attempt to don the GOP leadership mantle.
• Sarah Palin is generally seen as too divisive and was recently all but disavowed by John McCain.  Her integration of her religion with her politics (“I’m like, ‘OK God, if there’s an open door for me somewhere,’ this is what I always pray, I’m like, ‘don’t let me miss the open door.’”) seems to appeal to a very small slice of the Republican faithful.
• Bobby Jindal, the charismatic governor of Louisiana, shot himself in the foot with his less than lame delivery of the Republican response to Obama’s address to the Nation on 24 February.  He then followed that with his criticism of Obama’s stimulus package, ridiculing “$140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.”  Sure enough, just last week Mount Redoubt erupted for the first time in 20 years.  Nobody was hurt this time, but government geologists are using that stimulus money to shore up their monitoring of other active volcanoes, including Mount St. Helens, which killed 57 people in 1980.

Instead of trying to establish leadership, the GOP has, apparently, adopted “The Party of No” as the strategy they plan to employ for the next four years in their attempt to bring Obama down and win back the House and Senate –

• Republicans began the current Congressional session by attempting to block the confirmation of several of Barack Obama’s cabinet nominees, all to no avail.
• Congress passed the president’s $787-billion economic stimulus bill with just three GOP moderates breaking ranks to vote for it.
• Congress passed Obama’s budget without a single Republican vote.

While we may be tempted, after the eight demonic years of the Bush/Cheney administration, to revel in the virtual emasculation of the Republican Party, the country’s best interests will only be served so long as there is a viable, effective opposition party that, while it challenges the majority party, is willing to work out compromise to serve the best interests of all citizens.

For the good of the country, we need to hope the Republicans can get their act together.