The Parties of ‘Whatever’ are Failing America

The political system is failing is because the two parties are succeeding

Sometime soon, the conversation about Joe Biden’s candidacy will be over. Either he will drop out of the race or, more likely, the clock will strike midnight and it will be too late for a replacement to have a credible chance of defeating Donald Trump.

What will be left behind regardless of Biden’s fate is a two-party system that increasingly is serving the country poorly. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz unwittingly offered up a damning indictment when he told the media in a day-after-the-debate interview, “I think (Democrats) could learn something from Republicans," Walz said. "Republicans will not abandon President Trump through indictments, through whatever it may be."

Bill Clinton once described the difference in how the two major parties select their presidential candidates by saying, “Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans just fall in line.” Today, not even love for a candidate separates the parties. Many Americans don’t even like the presidential candidates, much less love them. Instead, Republicans and Democrats are reduced to sticking with Trump and Biden “through whatever,” as Walz said.

A two-party system that gives at least equal weight to the country’s best interests as it does to winning would have long ago moved away from the candidacies of Trump and Biden. The political parties have foisted on the country two candidates, neither of whom has the trust of the citizenry to lead the country through challenging times at home and abroad.

Following the dismal 2016 election, Katherine Gehl, a businesswoman and founder of the Institute for Political Innovation, and Michael Porter, a Harvard economist, joined to produce a thoughtful analysis of the two-party system. The report, “Why Competition in the Political Industry is Failing America,” spares little in taking the two major parties to task for their failures:

“The starting point for understanding the problem is to realize our political system isn’t broken. Washington is delivering exactly what it is currently designed to deliver. The real problem is that our political system is no longer designed to serve the public interest, and has been slowly reconfigured to benefit the private interests of gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies,” according to their research.

Today’s political system is born of the two-party duopoly and it is undermining the country’s success. “Our dysfunctional political outcomes are a competition problem,” said Harvard’s Porter in a media interview. “Politics is an industry that sets its own rules. Over time, it has shaped the nature of competition to advance the interests of political parties and their industry allies rather than serve the public interest.”

For all that divides them, Republicans and Democrats find common ground on protecting their exclusive franchise. Minnesota legislators in the past session, for example, raised the bar for third parties, making it more difficult for them to gain “major party status” which carries automatic ballot access and eligibility for public campaign funds.

Ironically, Gov. Walz’s own party, the DFL, has its roots in third parties. Nearly 70 years before Jesse Ventura “shocked the world” with his Reform Party gubernatorial victory, Minnesotans elected third-party candidate Floyd B. Olson, a member of the Farmer-Labor Party, to three terms as the state’s chief executive. Democrats were forced to merge with the Farmer-Labor Party to create the DFL in 1944.

Today, the two major parties offer America a choice between a convicted felon who promises that if elected he will set aside the Constitution and the rule of law and a candidate most Americans see as too old and not mentally or physically up to the task of leading the country.

Meanwhile, third parties are so eviscerated by rules and regulations that don’t apply to Democrats and Republicans that the most visible of this year’s group of alternative candidates, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has yet to confirm his place on enough state ballots to even have a mathematical chance of winning. It’s no wonder that far more credible and intriguing potential third-party candidates turned down the opportunity to run in 2024.

The parties of Trump and Biden offer agendas that look to the past and offer few new ideas for the future. Third parties often are the font of new ideas and innovation. Minnesota’s Gov. Olson was elected in the Great Depression. His vision and leadership overcame conservative majorities in the legislature to pass a broad agenda of tax reform, women’s rights, environmental protection, income assistance for the elderly, minimum wage and unemployment insurance.

To be sure, Biden’s presidency has included some important successes at home and abroad. His legislative accomplishments are leading to long overdue investments in infrastructure, technology manufacturing, environmental protection, mitigating climate change and other areas. In foreign affairs, Biden has restored the trust of our allies in America as a dependable partner and has held together the critical coalition of countries supporting Ukraine in fending off the brutal and illegal assault of Russia.

In the presidential election of 2024, Biden is the clear choice.

But more is needed from we the people than just our vote for president in November. “Whatever” cannot be the criterion for candidates at every level, from school board to the White House. Candidates must be evaluated for their willingness to not just embrace reform of the political system, but to actively advocate and work for change. It’s not about promoting third parties. It’s about protecting democracy.

What might change look like? Examples abound.

Alaska is a good example of reforms that diminish the power of extremist groups in primaries. The top four finishers in the primary, regardless of partisan affiliation, advance to the general election. In the general, ranked choice voting - sometimes called instant run-off voting - allows people to vote for their favored candidates in ranked order. This process helped Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski to win re-election even after she incurred the wrath of Trump Republicans by voting to convict the president for his role in the Jan. 6 riot. It also made it possible for Mary Peltola to overcome the extremism of Sarah Palin to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

There also are examples from around the country in which campaign finance reform is promoting better campaigns and better candidates. Public financing that places a priority on local, small dollar contributors can assure that candidates with new ideas have a voice in the din of often misleading information created by special interests.

Redistricting should be done by nonpartisan, non-political expert panels, eliminating the legislative stranglehold that gives the majority party the ability to draw the boundaries of political districts in ways that suit their partisan goals.

These and other reforms mainly are the jurisdiction of state officials. Certainly the winner of the presidential and congressional races are enormously consequential. But taking the time to learn about legislative candidates (in Minnesota, the entire state House of Representatives is up for election) and to probe their commitment to political system reform is a critical first step in moving us past “whatever” candidates to a more competitive and effective democracy.

More information on political reforms:

The Gehl-Porter Report on the two-party duopoly: https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf

Alaska’s Election Model: https://www.uniteamericainstitute.org/research/alaskas-election-model-how-the-top-four-nonpartisan-primary-system-improves-participation-competition-and-representation

Small dollar public campaign financing: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public-financing-explained

Redistricting reform: https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/independent-redistricting-commissions