MISSOURI WATCH: POWER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO: POLITICAL PARTIES SET THE AGENDA

As America grows more and more fragmented, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep in mind (and even more difficult to observe) the way in which the framers of the Constitution dealt with the electoral process. As late as 1782, there was little support for control of either the executive or legislative branch by one particular political party. It was not until the beginning of the 19th century that groups espousing a particular cause reached any discernible form, and even then the political divisions tended to be over a specific issue (e.g., the creation of a federal bank) rather than a wide range of issues that ran the gamut from tariffs to maintenance of a colonial army.

We've come a long way since government was viewed as a means of resolving conflicts of free and independent colonies, and in the journey to reach today's present confrontational process of political ideologies, we have passed through both passive and aggressive reaction from those most affected, namely those of us who are governed. Somewhere during that journey, we began suspecting that government had become less important than the political parties that had received the commanding share in the last election.

I'm not sure anyone knows, (I know I don't), just when government became the property of either or both of our political -parties. It no doubt occurred during some momentous national crisis, perhaps the Civil War, or during one of the several terrifying financial panics the U.S. sustained during the second half of the last century. Whenever the moment came, however, the keys to Washington were handed over to groups that were never mentioned in the Constitution, never envisioned by the founding fathers and which even today, operate as extra-legal entities without portfolio.

So complete was this governmental takeover by the two major parties that it would be impossible to run most of government without them, even as they contribute little to the essential functions of Washington. Without so much as a mention in the Constitution, the majority political party organizes both the legislative and executive departments, while exerting an even longer lasting influence over the remaining branch of government, the judiciary.

Without so much as a single constitutional grant, the political party achieving the greater number of votes in quadrennial elections assumes control of the executive branch and is automatically granted powers that have been accumulating at a rapid pace for more than a century and a half. Every two years, after biennial elections, the political party with the larger number of elected members of Congress assumes control of the legislative branch. In both cases, the broad powers assumed by the winning political party are far greater than the once-feared powers of monarchies that reigned throughout Western Europe for centuries.

As could be expected in a nation of 250 million souls, there is great diversity in how we view both our government and the political parties that govern us. Although there are signs of growing disillusionment, and in some case even total withdrawal, it is safe to say that many citizens feel as much attachment to their political party as they do to their federal government. Indeed, there is considerable evidence at hand that many of us confuse the two. Confusion is understandable, but pejorative, nonetheless.

Political competition, as long as it serves the interest of informing the public and creating distinctive ideas and ideals for selection, is to be welcomed, even encouraged. There is, after all, no one way of administering rules and regulations for a nation as large, and as diverse, as the United States. It is possible, even probable, that neither political party offers a satisfactory solution to national problems, yet the present system of two-party dominance allows for only one solution, regardless of the commendable opposition offered by the faction not in control.

The real danger of political domination of Washington is only now beginning to be recognized after years of deadlock that has been seen, at least by our political leaders, as detrimental to the democratic process. That threat is greatly overblown, at least in this writer's view, not because it hinders the implementation of a single political agenda -- but precisely because it does. The democratic process of representation for all minority views is more easily realized if the branches of government are dissipated among several political ideologies. It is when one is so superior that it can enact, without opposition, its will on the minority that real problems begin to exist.

Democrats who wring their hands in despair at the recent Republican gains in Congress are confusing their concern over the health of their party with the ideological damage that can possibly be inflicted by GOP manipulations in the legislative branch. During the height of political dominance, occurring in the second Roosevelt administration in the late 1930s, the power of the highly dominant Democratic party was insufficient to enact numerous changes the president wished to make. An independent judicial branch repeatedly struck down New Deal plans and proposals.

America seems to be approaching a moment in which a growing number of thoughtful citizens recognize the difference between, political parties and the federal government, between the pursuit of power as evidenced by candidates of both parties and the judicious use of broad governmental powers to meet the constitutional pursuits of a more perfect union and the promotion of the general welfare. The principal aim of both the Democratic and Republican party is the accumulation of power in order to govern. No wonder the quality of governance suffers.

~Jack Stapleton is a Kennett columnist for the Southeast Missourian.