Political parties weren’t designed by the founders, and don’t have structures like the Constitution
In those days, political “parties” were considered evil. Just as the term democracy had the same valence that the term demagogue has today, the term party had the valence of partisan.[2, p. 87.]
Both political parties started as coalitions – Democrats defending slavery, Republicans opposing slavery
Above all, the new Democratic Party was founded on the idea of states’ rights in defense of slavery.[2, p. 89.]
After the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed Congress over bitter opposition, “popular sovereignty” led to gruesome violence that engulfed the Kansas Territory, as warring factions vied to control the content of its new constitution.
…the Whig party collapsed. In its place rose a new party committed to a different conception of the Constitution than that of the Democrats.
Though the Republican platform conceded the constitutional power of states to preserve slavery (“slavery local”), it advocated a national antislavery program in which slavery would be abolished in the District of Columbia, in the territories, and in federal enclaves (“freedom national”). So threatening was this program to the Slave Power that the southern states seceded even before the Republicans could take power to implement it.[2, p. 98.]
Both political parties have long failed to follow the Constitution
…the rise of progressivism in both political parties led to… the concepts of “judicial restraint” and “deference” to the majoritarian branches, along with the concept of “a living constitution.”[2, p. 81.]
“In state after state, progressives… urged adoption of the secret ballot, direct primaries, the initiative, the referendum, and direct election of senators.“[2, p. 124.]
All of these tropes were devised to evade the constraints on their progressive legislative agenda imposed by our Republican Constitution.[2, p. 81.]
…the more important the issue, the more likely it will engender a political war of all against all to avoid having another’s social policy imposed on you. So, the more important the issue, the less it is fit to be decided at the national level.[2, pp. 183-184.]
“In state after state, progressives… urged… regulating railroads and utilities, restricting lobbying, limiting monopoly, and raising corporate taxes. …workers’ compensation, child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hours legislation (especially for women workers), and widows’ pensions.“[2, p. 124.]
The Constitution can’t limit the national government until a major party has a structure like the Constitution, and follows the Constitution
… a system of voting does not allow the sovereign people to “rule,” and it is a pernicious myth to claim that they do. For a variety of reasons, ours is generally a two-party system. The best voters can do is discipline the “in“ duopoly party by shifting their electoral support to the “out” duopoly party and hope for some marginal improvement.[2, p. 177.]
Our Republican Constitution will not be restored in our two-party system until one of the two major political parties embraces it as a central plank of its political platform.[2, p. 252.]
Then the electorate will be faced with a true choice, rather than an echo of the Democratic Party.[2, p. 253.]
- “Representative Paul D. Ryan.” ConservativeReview.com, 10 Dec. 2016, www.conservativereview.com/members/paul-ryan/liberty-card/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016.
“Senator Mitch McConnell.” ConservativeReview.com, 10 Dec. 2016, www.conservativereview.com/members/mitch-mcconnell/liberty-card/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2016.
- Barnett, Randy E. Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People. HarperCollins, 2016.