And what paradigm might we be discussing? Why, the paradigm of power in the United States. What change you ask? Well, the abolition of political parties. For far too long we have allowed political parties to dominate the Republic. What we need are representatives who will represent that portion of the public which sends them to the House and Senate. What we have now are two parties striving for control and power to which a candidate must ascribe before they can run for office. That isn’t right.
We should have 535 independent members of the House and 100 independent members of the Senate. We should have administrative procedures in place where seniority doesn’t count. Just because you get elected more often within your area doesn’t mean that the other 534 or 99 areas should have less power to get things done. Seniority in Congress destroys the concept of one person, one vote having equal weight in government. Within the past week one of the oldest members of the house expressly said, “Seniority is everything in Congress, that’s how things get done.” He’s right but he should be wrong. Part of the reason Congress has become the morass it is is because of national political parties and their abilities to bring money and media into an area on behalf of a candidate. Just as our arteries clog over time, so too does any organization. Remember Robert Kharasch’s warning in “The Institutional Imperative” that about eighteen months into its existence, the goal of an organization switches from the mission it was created to effect, to one of self-perpetuation. The Republican party is the younger of the two parties by some twenty-six years and it’s one hundred and sixty-eight years old, give or take a year so imagine what its arteries look like and the Democrats must have a real lack of blood to the brain. Medical references aside, both parties no longer have the best interests of the Republic as their goal, but strive solely for self-perpetuation in power.
Yes, it will require some administrative changes in Congress, like the seniority changes but these, too, are long overdue. The Speaker would be elected by secret ballot of the entire House and the Senate would not have a majority leader since each senator would be independent of party. This would give the Vice President more to do in running the Senate including orchestrating bills, which party leaders do now. Why should a good bill not be brought to the floor and voted on because a “Party” doesn’t agree with it. The object is to have an efficient governing mechanism, free from favor, dedicated to the best for the most concept of democracy.
Lots of ideas how to do this but the first requirement is a purposeful resolution on the part of those governed, most of whom need to involve themselves more in knowing what and how their government works, or in this case doesn’t work. We may need another revolution to sort out the grifters, nay avaricious carpetbaggers, who have taken over the government along with their professional bureaucratic henchpeople.
Abolishing parties doesn’t mean that issued- based coalitions won’t form with the elected members of Congress, but those coalitions will vary with the issue at hand. Thus, members are not beholden, nor required to go against the will of those who sent them to Congress, simply because the party leadership says they must. Now, you say, there have always been political parties, every country has them, we can’t do our job without them. But, how many countries had a permanent constitution before 1789? It was a novel idea, many people didn’t think it was required, others thought it would be too restrictive. The United States became unique in the history of the world, and it can be unique again, with a true democratic republican form of government (yes, political parties have made that phrase an oxymoron.) Don’t do what others do. Do what is necessary. Do the right thing and return the power of the country to the voters of each electoral district.