Political parties and their role in democracy

¶ … dominant American political parties [...] question: Do the two dominant American political parties serve the public's interest, or just their own upper class interests? How would you change the party system so that all are truly represented?

AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES

The founding fathers did not create the two dominant American political parties, Republican and Democrat, to serve their own interests; they were created as instruments of the people's political and personal beliefs. Just as the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, as noted here,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shad ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (Vile 248).

It also guarantees freedom to choose a political party, just as it guarantees "life, liberty, and property." "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (Vile 251).

However, today, political parties serve a far different purpose. They create party platforms which are supposed to represent the will and wishes of their constituents, but often these platforms are blatant showcases for special interest groups and political lobbyists. For example, many pro-life groups have staunchly supported the Republican Party both vocally and monetarily, and so the Republican Party platform includes an anti-abortion platform that even encourages a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. These "pro-life" party politics come not from a majority of the public, but from a very vocal percentage of the public who support a full ban on abortion. Therefore, this platform is not beneficial to the majority of the people who do not oppose abortion, but is in the interests of those who do. This is just one example of party politics which does not necessarily mesh with public opinion, but serves special interests, and this is the side of party politics which no longer represents anything but the few. These groups tend to monopolize political thinking and the political process, and so, the parties no longer represent their members, they tend to represent those companies and/or groups who contribute the most to the party. Another glaring example of this is the recent disclosure of the awarding of numerous government contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq to Halliburton, the company vice-president Dick Cheney headed until his return to politics. Halliburton donated to the Republican Party during the 2000 election bid, and seem now to be reaping the financial rewards for that monetary support. Clearly, this does not represent the public's interests, because the system seemed to shunt other contractors out of the bidding process, according to some who completed similar work in the Middle East during the 1991 Gulf War. This is a classic example of the political party benefiting those who support it most heavily, and ignoring the "little guy." Political parties do seem to further their own upper class attitudes, rather than supporting and furthering the majority of the people in America, and so seem to have outlived their usefulness. As the formation of the Green Party shows, many people are disillusioned with the two party system and are looking for something more balanced and less open to corruption and influence. A party system, which does not take money from any special interest sources, seems to be more equitable, and more balanced. The political party system seems to have grown into a two-headed monster which has outgrown its usefulness. Perhaps parties and party membership should be abolished, and elected officials should not answer to a party, but to the people directly. This might be a solution to the party system, which has grown so corrupt and convoluted that little difference really remains between Republican and Democrat.