With the US election just a week away this article is adapted from the geopolity booklet – the Geopolitics of America, which is part of a series of 6 booklets looking at the geopolitics of the world’s powers
Just two political parties dominate the political landscape in America’s political system, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This two-party system has evolved over time and has been reinforced by a number of factors, including historical precedent, political and economic interests and the electoral system.
The drafters of the US Constitution did not envision political parties. But as voting rights broadened and the nation expanded westward, political parties emerged. Two major parties, Democrats and Whigs, became firmly established and powerful by the 1830s. Today, the Republican and Democratic parties dominate the political process, both heirs to predecessor parties from the 18th and 19th centuries. With rare exceptions, members of the two major parties control the presidency, the congress, the governorships and the state legislatures. Every president since 1852 has been either a Republican or a Democrat. Rarely do any of the 50 states elect a governor who is not a Democrat or a Republican. And the number of independent or third-party members of Congress or of state legislatures is extremely low.
One reason for the dominance of the two-party system in the US is a winner-takes-all electoral system. This system means that the candidate who wins the most votes in a given electoral race wins the entire state, rather than just the votes cast for them. This makes it difficult for third-party candidates to gain a foothold in national elections, as they are often perceived as spoilers who can potentially help the candidate they least prefer to win. The two-party system is reinforced by political and economic interests. The major political parties are backed by powerful interest groups, such as labour unions, corporations, and advocacy groups, who provide them with financial and political support. This makes it difficult for third parties to gain the resources and support they need to compete effectively.
The Republican party’s support base is from conservative voters, who prioritise traditional values and limited government. This includes social conservatives who support pro-life and pro-family policies, as well as fiscal conservatives who prioritise limited government spending and low taxes. This has led to the large oil corporations to support the party with many of their executives taking on positions within the government when the party is in power. The party also tends to draw support from rural and suburban voters, particularly in the South and Midwest regions of the country. These voters often support the Republican Party’s pro-gun rights and pro-business policies. The party has been successful in attracting support from white evangelical Christians, who are an important voting bloc in the US.
The Democratic party’s support base is composed of progressive voters, who prioritise social justice and government intervention in economic and social issues. This includes supporters of policies such as universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, and climate action. The party has traditionally been supported by the tech companies in the country but it also draws support from minority voters, particularly African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. Additionally, the party has been successful in attracting support from urban and suburban voters, particularly in coastal states such as California and New York. These voters often support the party’s positions on issues such as gun control, environmental protection, and LGBTQ rights.
It is hard to differentiate between both parties when it comes to America’s key strategic policies, especially on foreign policy. Their differences are in the details rather than at a strategic level. Both parties maintain America’s global empire, pass increasing defence budgets and maintain America’s dominance in Eurasia and maintain regional balance of powers as a means to American hegemony. Domestically both parties support big business, the billionaires, pro-Israel lobby and the military industrial complex. Where they differ is on how to achieve these policies, how much funding should be dedicated to them and what how to prioritise them.
It is hard to differentiate between both parties when it comes to America’s key strategic policies, especially on foreign policy. Their differences are in the details rather than at a strategic level
The Spectacle of Choice
Despite the US being a democracy that has regular elections, this hasn’t led to the emergence of choice when it comes to the ballet box. In the US and around the world generally when it comes to elections one is not choosing an institution or in the case of the US determining should the US cease to be a republic. One is actually only voting to decide who should administer the existing machinery and institutions. What is at stake in elections is rather limited to who should manage the machinery of the state, which already exists.
Institutions, constitutions and strategic direction outlive the election cycle which makes governments transitional who are not in position for very long. As a result, elected governments inherit lots of problems and challenges from the previous government and those challenges will be passed onto the next government at the next election.
The US may be the preeminent democracy in the world, but it is also one of the most corrupt. US politics is riddled with special interests, a revolving door between politics and big business, political favours and backhanders
Regular elections in the US mean the rulers are unable to alter the underlying strategic direction. Presidents and Prime ministers in such systems are able to influence matters such as budgets and priorities and tactical issues, but as they need to get re-elected and have little time to focus on long-term strategy. This is usually left to elites (or establishments) in nations or the deep state in the case of the US who do not change based on the election cycle.
The US may be the preeminent democracy in the world, but it is also one of the most corrupt. US politics is riddled with special interests, a revolving door between politics and big business, political favours and backhanders. Though on the surface elections occur every two years, the reality is that incumbents rarely lose. In 2020, 94% of incumbents won in the House of Representatives and 93% in the Senate. This isn’t by accident, due to the significant money advantage enjoyed by incumbents and the gerrymandering of redistricting. The 2020 election cycle was the most expensive in history, reaching a staggering $20 billion.
Two Sides of the Same Coin: Harris vs Trump
Whilst the upcoming elections in the US on the 5th of November 2024 may appear to be the most polarised, the two parties have never been more unified on ideas. No doubt Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have vastly different worldviews, but they disagree more on style than substance. With the Polls showing both candidates neck-and-neck both have abandoned past positions and moderated on some of the campaign’s biggest issues.
Harris and Trump have massive disagreements on the power of the executive, use of the Justice Department, abortion access, environmental regulations, taxes — plus America’s place in the world, including support for Ukraine. But they basically agree on stronger borders and tougher immigration laws. Both agree on a tougher stance against China, the House Select Committee on China is the most bipartisan body on Capitol Hill. Both Trump and Biden policies treat Beijing as the greatest national security threat of the 21st century — even as wars in the Middle East and Ukraine dominate the news.
Similarly we find when it comes to domestic energy production, including fracking, Trump constantly talks about wanting to “drill, baby, drill” on Day One of his presidency. But as Harris pointed out in their debate, US oil and gas production has actually hit record highs under President Biden.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have vastly different worldviews, but they disagree more on style than substance
When it comes to Israel, the rhetoric from both on Gaza is different, though the policies are largely the same. Both support continuing military aid to Israel as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prosecutes a genocide.
Whilst the Democrats have always supported abortion, Trump now says he would veto a federal abortion ban if it ever passed by Congress, trying to neutralise one of his biggest vulnerabilities after appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped end Roe v. Wade.
Regarding the national debt, both Harris and Trump would add trillions to already-enormous US fiscal deficits over the next decade, although Trump’s plans are more expensive.
Trump has been targeting the working class, and he’s making inroads with union members and non-white voters. He’s more open than ever to spending lots of government money on big government programs. Harris has been targeting rich white Americans and she’s making a concerted play for Never-Trump Republicans to win key swing states. So she’s moderated her most liberal positions. Both Harris and Trump and the Republicans and democrats surprisingly agree on much more than they disagree.
In conclusion, the reason why the US only has two political parties is because they both, in slightly different ways maintain the status quo and have institutionalised this via the election cycle which acts as a barrier for alternative political parties to make a mark nationally. The immense donations needed to even run for elections acts as a major barrier to entry for new entrants.