THE TWO PARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM IS DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC!

The authors of the Constitution, based on Paragraph 3, Section I, Article II assumed that there would be one party standing steadfast for the Constitution, for administering the government in harmony with its purposes and plans (See the Preamble for the Purpose of Government). That would combat effectively such opposition from other parties as might be contrary to the spirit and plan of the Constitution.

On September 25th, 1804 Amendment XII supplanted Paragraph 3, Section I, Article II. A portion of the Amendment is a repetition of Paragraph 3. One important difference between the amendment and the provision in the original Constitution which it supplanted is that this amendment provides that electors:

shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President;whereas, in the original provision, electors voted for two persons without designation, and the person having the greatest number of votes became President; the one receiving the next highest number of votes became Vice-President.

Amendment XII opened the door for the two party systems. It is difficult to formulate the best and most effective method of applying the usefulness of political parties to the best interests of the Republic.

It is a puzzling question to determine whether there should be two permanent political parties or whether the welfare of the Republic requires that a new political party must be born periodically to meet a crisis and advocate a clear, clean-cut issue. This much however is certain. The motto of any political party worthy of continuance should be: A political party can afford to lose if it deserves to win, better than the party can afford to win if it deserves to loose. This attitude was characteristic of Alexander Hamilton in the early days of the Republic, and of Daniel Webster in later years. It was the position taken by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 and by William McKinley in 1892; and they and their party finally triumphed and rendered great service to the republic.

Experience has shown that the tendency of political parties, as they advance in years, has been to try to survive on the weaknesses of other parties, instead of striving to live on their own strength. Managers of political parties have become cowardly opportunists instead of leaders with real convictions and demagogues rather than statesmen.

The leaders of our political party’s today give too much time and thought to the question, How can we win? And too little to the question, How can we serve the Republic? In the selection of candidates the leaders have considered too much the question, Will the candidate take orders? And too little the question, Is the candidate well qualified? The leaders have been guided in their selection of candidates too much by the question; can the candidate be used? And to little by the question, For what does the candidate stand?

Candidates who are strongest on promise are generally the weakest on performance. Candidates with the longest platforms of ism and class appeal are generally the shortest on achievement for the public good.

The purpose of a political party should be to succeed by giving people what they need rather than by trying to give the people what they think they want. A political party should be a molder of public sentiment, not an echo of popular fallacies.

Americans need to develop a civic consciousness that will make them a constructive force for stemming the tide of radicalism and shielding this Republic from the dangers of democracy. The founders of this Republic, after a careful survey of the governments of history, concluded that autocracy resulted in tyranny and democracy merged into mobocracy, and they strove to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy by establishing the golden mean and founding a republic! The term’s “republic” and “democracy” are thoughtlessly and inaccurately used almost synonymously in dictionaries, in encyclopedias and in political literature and discussion. This country is frequently spoken of as a democracy, and yet the men who established our government made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, gave clear definitions of each term, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic. Surely no one has more valid authority to use governmental terms, or to make definitions of those terms, than the men who evolved the best form of government the world has ever known.

There should be at least one political party in this country that believes in the Constitution, and that will be guided by its wise provisions. A political party that believes in the Republic as the best form of government the world has ever known and that will adhere strictly and literally to it. Can some political party now in existence throw off its weaknesses and infections and rise to the occasion, or will a new party spring forth to meet the situation? One thing is for sure, this Republic can not continue to survive with current political parties not being guided completely by the provisions of the Constitution!