Centrist policies protect the two-party system

The recent election results raise interesting questions about the future of the political party system in the U.S.

The Democratic Party captured strong majorities among African-Americans, Jews, Hispanics, educated voters and the white elite. At first blush, it appears that these groups have such disparate interests that they could hardly occupy the same tent. Or, to put it another way, why do we not have multiple parties of fragmented interests as they do in Israel and some European countries?

The answer to that question lies in the beginnings of our republic. George Washington and others believed we should govern by consensus and that parties were bad. However, we soon discovered that there necessarily must be a divide between the interests of the poor and the rich. Because we hated to "sin" against the Washington ideal, we wanted to sin as little as possible. So, because one party was not possible, we stuck with the most basic two: a Federalist Party of the landed rich and the Jeffersonian Party of the less possessed. Over time, the Federalist Party morphed into the Whig Party and into the Republican Party.

Throughout our history we have had the party of the poor represented by Jefferson, Jackson and Wilson and the party of the rich represented by John Adams, McKinley and Hoover. As we prospered, the great mass of the people became more wealthy and the party of the poor became the party of the middle class.

Of course, the magic of our American democracy has always been that we had a broad consensus and so had centrist governments. We always managed things for the benefit of the broad middle, never tilting too far to the rich or too far to the poor. When the Democrats were perceived to have gone too far to the poor, the result was the Republican resurgence in the 1970s. When Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney tilted too far to the rich, the result was president-elect Obama.

Happily, it appears that Barack Obama is smart enough and enough of a student of history that he sees the virtue of centrist government. His mandate is strong enough, and revulsions of the Cheney/Rove years great enough, that he can govern from the center without losing his left wing. Americans have an almost instinctual sense that we prosper best when we do not tilt too far either way. The true nightmare for, and end of, the Republican Party as a national party is not the recent election, but the very real possibility that President Obama will be successful. He will be successful only if he re-establishes centrist government. It appears that he understands that.

If this happens, it leaves us with a resurgent Democratic Party and a Republican Party that must make a choice. If it chooses the path of its most conservative members and continues to embrace racism and anti-immigrant division, it will soon be a regional party of the Deep South. This would leave the Democratic Party as the only national party. Such a condition in politics does not long endure.

If the Republican Party does not find a way to enter the 21st century as a party of the broad middle ground in America with a reasonable tilt toward the powerful and wealthy interests, the two-party system is in real danger. Because no one party can remain dominant for an extended period without splitting apart, the Democratic Party would face the prospect of splintering if there is no real opposition party.

This could devolve into a multiple-party system of religious voters, white supremacist voters, poor people, gun voters, etc.

For all these reasons, we should hope the Republican Party will turn away from its most strident members who will very assuredly lead it into oblivion and our body politic into fragmentation.

John L. Cook of Cape Girardeau is a lawyer.