Conservatives without Conscience, By John W. Dean

A

bout the Author

John W. Dean used to be White House legal counsel to President Nixon and then helped break the Watergate scandal with his testimony before the U.S. Senate. He served as chief minority counsel for White House judiciary of justice. He has penned books such as Blind Ambition (1976), Lost Honor (1982), The Rehnquist Choice (2001), Warren G. Harding (2004), and Worse Than Watergate : The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (2004), and Conservatives Without Conscience. He lives in the state of California and works as a columnist for Findlaw.com.

Dean’s style of writing is efficiently simple; his tone is highly critical, and his courageous, straight forward, right-on-the-spot writing is admirable.

C

onservatives without Conscience

In his latest book Conservatives Without Conscience he boldly asserts that the Republican party is reigned by authoritarians. He seeks for the conservative way of thinking and then he points out the repeating features carved in their heads such as their intolerance to opposing opinions (which is of course rendered as an authoritarian trait). Dean reveals his diagnosis when he blames the same brand of people, leaders, for turning conservative politics upside down.

John W. Dean who has given birth to this book during several encounters with his mentor, Senator Goldwater, introduces himself as a Goldwater Republican/Conservative. What makes this book precious is that it is compiled by a conservative who criticizes conservatives.

Dean in this book has made use of Robert Altemeyer’s findings, which allegedly has taken him quite a long time administering a research called RWA Survey (Right Wing Authoritarianism). In Altemeyer’s pre- composed questionnaire, individuals were being asked to agree or disagree with statements like: “there is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse.”[1]. Those who had scored high according to Altemeyer’s research scale were regarded conservatives.

Dean then mentions Altemeyer’s evidence of right-wing amoral disposition through a theory put forward by him called Global Change Game. In this theory, components rule over different parts of the world. Supposedly, when right wing authoritarians took over the control in this so called “Game”, some 2.1 billion people were killed. “According to a complicating formulae used in the game to take into account the consequences of war, long term unemployment, malnutrition and poor medical infrastructure.”

Altemeyer, as the result of his long term run research, claims: “probably 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you say or do will change their minds. They would march America into a dictatorship and probably feel that things had improved as a result.”

Dean maintains that Altemeyer has provided as enormous data based on a scientific work when he says: “At the outset of Conservatives Without Conscience, I provided a quick and highly incomplete summary of Altemeyer's findings, explaining that his empirical testing revealed "that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian, and amoral." To be clear, these are not assessments that Altemeyer makes himself about these people; rather, this is how those he has tested reveal themselves to be, when being anonymously examined.”

Moreover, John W. Dean makes a clear cut distinction between those “hungry for power” and those, like the followers to Hitler, follow them. Dean lists the traits as : “highly religious, moderate to little education, trust untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (particularly against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions other than their own), mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical toward their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent and contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive, demands loyalty and returns it, little self-awareness, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.”

What Dean categorizes for leaders is as follows: “dominating, opposes equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheats to win, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tells others what they want to hear, takes advantage of "suckers," specializes in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, usually politically and economically conservative/Republican.”

Interestingly John Dean doesn’t stop there; rather, he keeps on by giving names and profiles of numerous old school Republicans, whom he considers authoritarian conservatives, and clearly utters his outlook toward the red-alert situation caused by these (mostly) gentlemen. Among these names are: Newton Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Phyllis Schafly, G. Gordon Liddy, J. Edgar Hoover, and other leaders of religious right wing. He breaks out his standing point when he warns America of the history of power abduction by the above mentioned authoritarians. He believes if this trend continues, America will confront anti-constitutional threat which will also endanger what the U.S. prides itself on: Democracy.

References:

1. Conservatives without conscience (in) The Conservative America. Austine Bramwell, (17 July, 2006) Available at: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jul/17/00029/

2. Dean, J.D. 2004. Conservatives without conscience. NY: Norton Co.

Nation of Islam, How It Came Into Being And What Has Shaped Its Fundamental Pillars

Biography [1]

T

he founder of the Nation of Islam, an African American man named Wallace D. Fard who is believed to be of Arabian ancestry though not documented anywhere, used to be a salesman wondering door to door trying to sell goods during which he occasionally had the chance to lecture about what was to come as his fundamental doctrines to his costumers’ eager ears.

There is an evolutionary journey in his teachings; that is to say he, at first, set out to talking about black history, culture, traditions, and origin then slowly mingling it with political and religious color. It took the disciples a little bit when they finally were introduced to the Holy Quran. The final move was that his teachings became anti-white racist oriented beliefs. A hall was rented and named "The Temple of Islam." This is how the movement which calls itself "The Nation of Islam" and is called by detractors, "Black Muslims," came into being.

Among the initiatives Fard started were founding a university, that was in reality a secondary school which emphasized the teaching of math and astronomy, a Muslim Girls Training Class, that continues to today and still teaches the principles of home economics and how to be proper wives and mothers, a para-military unit called "Fruit of Islam" (FOI) to teach military tactics and the handling of firearms against the predicted day that whites would not tolerate their growth and prosperity, the office of The Minister of Islam which, with the aid of a well trained staff, ultimately ran the whole organization.

With the Fard’s disappearance in June 1934 that directed the leadership to Elijah Muhammad, the Nation of Islam lost some of its extreme hostile aggressiveness toward whites. Its focus became centered upon black social and economic advancement. The Nation of Islam still maintained its black supremacy theology; however, implementing black supremacy as a political reality was not part of their program. That was to be left in the hands of Allah. One commentator writes, "The Black Muslims have come far under Muhammad. He has given them temples and schools, apartment houses and grocery stores, restaurants and farms. Most important of all, he has given them a new sense of dignity, a conviction that they are more than the equals of the white man whose tricknology is a constant threat to their well-being."[1]

As time elapsed, Elijah Muhammad's theology changed and lifted Fard to the level of Allah incarnate, and himself to the level of the Prophet of Allah.

Biography inspired from http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm, Retrieved at 12/17/2009.

One of the Nation of Islam’s most famous individuals was Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little.

New converts to the Nation of Islam were told to stop using their slave master name and apply to have an ethnically appropriate name given to them.Until it was given, they were referred to as "X." The X had a double meaning. It first indicated that their original name was still unknown. There was also the idea of "ex" incorporated in the name as well.

In November of 1963, after Malcolm X made his famous "chickens come home to roost" statement in regard to the assassination of JFK, Elijah Muhammad suspended him from all duties for a period of 90 days. This was the beginning of a rift that ended in the defection of Malcolm X in March of 1964. Malcolm X formed his own organization called The Muslim Mosque, Inc. and a secular counterpart, Afro-American Unity. He was assassinated February 21, 1964.

After the death of Elijah Muhammad his followers mostly divided into two major groups. The first that comprised 90 percent of the black Muslims followed Elijah’s son, Warith Dean Muhammad who in 1985, disbanded the Nation of Islam, and led them into authentic Islam. However, a minority of about ten percent maintained their original doctrines and became known as "Ten-Percenters." The Ten-Percenters still call themselves The Nation of Islam and still hold to the teaching of W. D. Fard and Elijah Muhammad. They are basically a militant black supremacy movement.

Mottos

T

he teachings of Fard and Elijah Muhammad differ substantially from that of traditional Islamic sects that exist in different parts of the world. “According to the Nation of Islam, Allah, (God) created man, and the man he created was black. They believe that Allah himself is the original and supreme black man. He is the supreme being among a mighty and powerful race of black men. In this The Nation of Islam differs strongly with the monotheism of traditional Islam. The black race is thus divine and superior to all other races. Modern day blacks came into existence some 66 trillion years ago when a great explosion ripped the moon from the earth. These people were black and called the tribe of Shabazz. They explored the earth and settled the better places to live, two of which are the Nile Valley and Mecca. W. D. Fard taught that the white man is the result of genetic manipulation by an evil black scientist named "Yakub." Through a special method of birth control, Yakub bred the black out of his experimental creatures until they were white. This took about 600 years to accomplish. According to the theology of Elijah Muhammad, black really is the symbolic color of good and white symbolic color of evil. His reasoning is that all colors are present in black, and all colors are taken out of white. His conclusion is that the whiter Yakub's creatures became, the less good there was in them and the more evil there was in them. The final product was so evil, they became devils. Black Muslims call the white man Blue Eyed Devils and blame all of the suffering in the world upon them. The creation of the white man occurred some 6,600+ years ago.”[1]

1. Ney Rieber, available at: http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-nation-of-islam.htm, Retrieved at 12/17/2009.

With all being said, the Nation of Islam stands for hope to millions of people in America and around the globe who have been deprived of the high standards of a righteous way of life.

Among the founding beliefs upon which the organization called the Nation of Islam was built are “peace, learning the knowledge of the oneness of God, eat and to prepare the best of foods for the longevity of life, respect and protect our women who are the mothers of civilization, respect the laws of the land, never to carry arms, family as the back bone of society, cleanliness inwardly and outwardly with the practice of good manners and respect to one and all, divine unity and the universal brotherhood of Islam.”[1] “The Flag of Islam with the symbols of the Sun, Moon, and the Stars, represent the Universe and is also a Banner of Universal peace and Harmony.”[2]

References:

1. Lomax E., 1963, When the Word Is Given: A Report on Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and the Black Muslim World, World Publication Company.

2. Karim B., 1971, the End of White World Supremacy: Four Speeches by Malcolm X, NY: Monthly Review Press.

3. Natambu K., 2001, Malcolm X: Critical lives, Alpha.

4. Perry B., 1989, the Last Speeches, NY: Pathfinder Press.

Notes:

1. http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm

2. http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-nation-of-islam.htm

1 & 2. Tynetta Muhammad, available at: http://www.noi.org/history_of_noi.htm, Retrieved at 12/17/2009.

Nigerian Man Indicted in Plot to Blow Up Plane

A Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day was indicted Wednesday on charges including attempted murder and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill nearly 300 people.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, was traveling from Amsterdam when he tried to destroy the plane carrying by injecting chemicals into a package of pentrite explosive concealed in his underwear, authorities say. The failed attack caused popping sounds and flames that passengers and crew rushed to extinguish.

The bomb was designed to detonate ''at a time of his choosing,'' the grand jury's indictment said.

There is no specific mention of terrorism in the seven-page indictment, but President Barack Obama considers the incident a failed strike against the United States by an affiliate of al-Qaida.

Abdulmutallab has told U.S. investigators he received training and instructions from al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. His father warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son had drifted into extremism in Yemen, but that threat was never fully digested by the U.S. security apparatus.

Since the failed attack, airlines and the Transportation Security Administration have boosted security in airports in the U.S. and around the world. Obama has said the government had information that could have stopped the attempted attack, but intelligence agencies failed to connect the dots.

Abdulmutallab faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to use a bomb on the plane. He is being held at a federal prison in Milan, Mich., and a message seeking comment was left Wednesday with his lawyer, Miriam Siefer.

He will make his first appearance in federal court on Friday for an arraignment and a hearing to determine if he stays in custody.

The controversy here is that accusation is something and the deed itself is something else.

Since we were not there, it is in hues of vagueness what happened there. But, if his father’s assertions about his son going on extremist are real, then we all should sit down and think about it. However, US officials should not neglect to set out for necessary precautions and they truly did.

About the impact of such incidents on Iran: I think the situation is getting worse each day. Because America has been long feeding thoughts on Iran making compromises against America trying to win allies like Al-Qaeda or other radical organizations. But, I, personally believe that this is in no way true! But again the fact is that America has already made up its mind when officials introduced Iran among the 14 nations that are needed to be checked during flights into the US.

The Patriot

This movie is about a family headed by a white single male whose so called proficiency is carpentry.

The movie is comprised of so many important features existing throughout 18^th century. We have the element of slavery, gun, council, farming, nation, war, integration, and militia and so on.

We have slaves living in this family who claim to be freedmen but as the conversation goes one British general asserts: “there’s no such thing as freed men.” The concept is that wherever they go, they can be easily recognized because of their skin color. So, even if their master renders them as free, the system still will not allow that to happen.

We witness that the sense of insecurity is dominant in this period of time. Guns are being kept and shooting are taught to the little members of family especially male children just in case; and truly as the course of incidents shows this training came absolutely handy and useful. Individuals living on the new world have to be prepared to face anything and I mean anything. Because there is no clear cut rule; there is a sense of insecurity against the slaves, as the history sadly exhibited the fact that there were several riots and murders by the house slaves against the masters.

We have a council in Charlestown in which the property owners and owners of big plantations attend to help decide about the crises they are all in. This concept of congregation is believed to be borrowed from the British idea of parliament in which representatives of elites as well as commons attend and take steps along with the king. Same thing goes on here. America still follows the king of England and takes orders from him, so again in a parliament just like Britain’s it wants to be of right to consult and have representatives which later on became the core to set out for independence from the mother country.

Farming is the most important and lucrative profession of the time. Usually plantation owners are from the class of gentry that have a large number of slaves in their employment. Corn, cotton, and tobacco are the main products of this era which had made a good reason for trading with Europe.

The main message depicted in this movie is the sense of integration shaped among Americans when facing an outside threat toward their lives and specifically toward their families. We see that at first the main character is showing strong reluctance to join the war, but when losing a beloved son he has been left with no other choice save enter the war for vengeance. The same story goes on with a lot of other characters forming the unofficial militia that are interrupting the British carriages, killing them outside the battlefield and keeping their armors.

Moreover, America has shown a great deal of integrity in hard times, especially war times. That is, whenever there is a menace to destroy their lives or their identity, Americans become so much allied and goal oriented to remove that threat as soon as possible. This was the reason for forming the militia in this movie. Again, the same story is true touching upon the experience of cold war against Soviet Union as well as the incident of September 11^th during which Americans gave blank check for the federal government to bring back the security within the borders of America.

This means that though Americans are pro anti-statism in which they would like to keep differences and diversity as well as running away from a tyrant monologue of government, at these times there arises a sense of patriotism that says no matter what is going on within the borders, in harsh times our country is worth dying for, to keep the unity.

Iran Shielding Its Nuclear Efforts in Maze of Tunnels

Last September, when Iran’s uranium enrichment plant buried inside a mountain near the holy city of Qum was revealed, the episode cast light on a wider pattern: Over the past decade, Iran has quietly hidden an increasingly large part of its atomic complex in networks of tunnels and bunkers across the country.

In doing so, American government and private experts say, Iran has achieved a double purpose. Not only has it shielded its infrastructure from military attack in warrens of dense rock, but it has further obscured the scale and nature of its notoriously opaque nuclear effort. The discovery of the Qum plant only heightened fears about other undeclared sites.

A crucial factor behind that push for nonmilitary solutions by Obama administration, some analysts say, is Iran’s tunneling — what Tehran calls its strategy of “passive defense.”

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has repeatedly discounted the possibility of a military strike, saying that it would only slow Iran’s nuclear ambitions by one to three years while driving the program further underground.

Some analysts say that Israel, which has taken the hardest line on Iran, may be especially hampered, given its less formidable military and intelligence abilities.

Even the Israelis concede that solid rock can render bombs useless. Late last month, the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, told Parliament that the Qum plant was “located in bunkers that cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack.”

Heavily mountainous Iran has a long history of tunneling toward civilian as well as military ends, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has played a recurring role — first as a transportation engineer and founder of the Iranian Tunneling Association and now as the nation’s president.

No one in the West knows how much, or exactly what part, of Iran’s nuclear program lies hidden. Still, evidence of the downward atomic push is clear to the inquisitive.

Google Earth, for instance, shows that the original hub of the nuclear complex at Isfahan consists of scores of easily observed — and easy to attack — buildings. But government analysts say that in recent years Iran has honeycombed the nearby mountains with tunnels. Satellite photos show six entrances.

Iranian officials say years of veiled bombing threats prompted their country to exercise its “sovereign right” to protect its nuclear facilities by hiding them underground. That was their argument when they announced plans in November to build 10 uranium enrichment plants. Despite the improbability and bluster of the claim, Iran’s tunneling history gave it a measure of credibility.

“They will be scattered in the mountains,” the chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, told Iran’s Press TV. “We will be using the passive defense so that we don’t need to have active defense, which is very expensive.”

Iran denies that its nuclear efforts are for military purposes and insists that it wants to unlock the atom strictly for peaceful aims, like making electricity. It says it wants to build many enrichment plants to fuel up to 20 nuclear power plants, a plan many economists question because Iran ranks second globally in oil and natural gas reserves.

Despite the questions about whether the West can credibly threaten to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, anlysts insist that the United States, Israel and their allies will never rule out that option. The Pentagon, in fact, is racing to develop a powerful new tunnel-busting bomb.

Mr. Ahmadinejad began professional life as a transportation engineer with close ties to the Revolutionary Guards and an abiding interest in tunnels.

He helped found the Iranian Tunneling Association in 1998, according to the group’s Web site. That year, the Tehran subway began a major expansion, and Iran, in secret, accelerated its nuclear program.

In early 2004, while mayor of Tehran, Mr. Ahmadinejad served as chairman of the Sixth Iranian Tunneling Conference. He praised the leaders of ancient Persia for creating networks of subterranean waterways and called for the creation of new “tunnels” between the government, universities and professional groups.

American war planners see Iran’s tunnels — whatever their exact number and contents — as a serious test of military abilities. Most say there is no easy way to wipe out a nuclear program that has been well hidden, widely dispersed and deeply buried.

Raymond Tanter, an Iran expert at Georgetown University who served in the Reagan White House, agreed. “So far, the tunneling has not succeeded to the point that the American technology couldn’t get to it,” he contended. “But it makes Israel’s options more problematic, because they have less of a military edge.”

Doubts notwithstanding, the Obama administration has been careful to leave the military option on the table, and the Pentagon is racing to develop a deadly tunnel weapon.

The device — 20 feet long and called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator — began as a 2004 recommendation from the Defense Science Board, a high-level advisory group to the Pentagon.

“A deep underground tunnel facility in a rock geology poses a significant challenge,” the board wrote. “Several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast.”

The bomb carries tons of explosives and is considered 10 times more powerful than its predecessor. It underwent preliminary testing in 2007, and its first deployments are expected next summer. Its carrier is to be the B-2 stealth bomber.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters in October that budget problems had delayed the weapon but that it was now back on track. Military officials deny having a specific target in mind. Still, Mr. Whitman added, war planners consider it “an important capability.”

U.S. Intensifies Screening for Travelers from 14 Nations

Following the incident of September 11, United States felt the necessity to bring up with whole new sets of laws and regulations regarding the transportation in general and security in particular. This led United States to cover up the deficiencies within the intelligence agencies and drag them all under an umbrella called Homeland Security. Simultaneously, President Bush introduced his “War on Terror” policy which had drastic consequences for specific countries like Afghanistan followed by Iraq as we all know it.

Ever since, terrorist activities involving in several bombing or attempts to attack on airplanes and son on have taken place that each time has evoked certain overwhelming response on the US government’s side.

This time there was an incident on the 25^th of December on a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. A man of Nigerian descent tried to explode the plane by mixing two chemical fluids. This time, during Obama’s Tenure, again some countermeasures are being introduced by the federal government.

News from Washington is about the fact that Obama administration officials have alleged that citizens of 14 nations, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, who are flying to the United States will be subjected indefinitely to the intense screening at airports worldwide that was imposed after the Christmas Day bombing plot.

Based on what the officials have said, Americans can be at ease as they and most others who are not flying through those 14 nations on their way to the United States, will no longer automatically face the full range of intensified security that was imposed after the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight.

The change represents an easing of the immediate response to the attempted bombing of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit that had been in place the past week. But the restrictions remain tougher than the rules that were in effect before the Dec. 25 incident. And the action on Sunday further establishes a global security system that treats people differently based on what country they are from, evoking protests from civil rights groups.

According to officials, citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, countries that are considered “state sponsors of terrorism,” as well as those of “countries of interest” — including Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen — will face the special scrutiny.

Passengers holding passports from those nations, or taking flights that originated or passed through any of them, will be required to undergo full-body pat downs and will face extra scrutiny of their carry-on bags before they can board planes to the United States.

In some countries that have more advanced screening equipment, travelers will also be required to pass through so-called whole-body scanners that can look beneath clothing for hidden explosives or weapons, or may be checked with a device that can find tiny traces of explosives.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain announced that whole-body scanners would be introduced in that country’s airports

Many, though not all, other passengers coming to the United States will face similar measures, but that screening will be done randomly or if there is some reason to believe that a particular passenger might present a threat, officials said.

The changes should speed up boarding of international flights bound for the United States while still increasing security beyond the standard X-rays of carry-on bags and metal-detector checks of all passengers.

The changes will mean that any citizen of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia will for the first time be patted down automatically before boarding any flight to the United States. Even if that person has lived in a country like Britain for decades, he now will be subject to these extra security checks.

The implications are tough, specially for our country which has been constantly in struggle over the concept of America as an imperial power that has been and is being taken side from every week during Friday Prayers. But this time, bringing Iran among the “state sponsors of terrorism”, tensions are sure going to leap up especially with Iran trying to take America as the main element responsible for the anarchy which is currently ongoing within the streets of Iran after the 2008 Presidential elections of Iran.

This once again, will give enough fuel to both sides to keep the animosity, though there is another side to it. This time, people may get irritated to because they are simply and plainly are being suspected as terrorists just by coming from the country or by flying through it. So far, America has been able to attract a great portion of the young generation with its truly appealing features, but this course of action might provoke a lot of serious offences on Iranians side due to America’s biased perspective toward terror.

Two Party Systems

Immediately right after beginning to talk about the two party systems, American DNP and RNP comes to one’s mind. America by making use of this course has made its policy making process much easier as well as effective. This paper is going to focus on the history of the party formation in United States polity and point out advantages and disadvantages of the two party system in America afterwards.

When the Father Founders of the America documented the United States Constitution in 1787, they did not entrust a position for parties in the U.S. polity. All they were looking after and eventually settled were constitutional arrangements e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances between three branches, and indirect election of the President by an electoral college. Yet, despite the Founders' will, “the U.S. was the first nation to develop parties organized on a national basis and to transfer executive power from one faction to another via an election in 1800.”[1]

When it comes to talk about the first parties formed in America, it should be remarked that the electoral politics in the United States has been reined by two political parties since George Washington’s presidency; but with little discrepancy with what we witness nowadays in the United States in that they have not always been the same two parties. The first opposition was between Federalists and Anti-Federalists- those who supported a strong federal government and those who did not. Leaders of the Federalists were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Both were from the Northeast where Federalist sentiment was strongest. Thomas Jefferson became the acknowledged leader of Anti-Federalist sentiment, and by the time of his election to the presidency in 1800 his party was called Democratic Republican.

Since 1856 every president elected in America has been either a Republican or Democrat. Since the 1860s, the Republicans and Democrats have dominated electoral politics.

These parties actually stand for certain hues of values and ideologies and by providing this they attracted voters who identify themselves with the party that represents their mindsets the most. “With two-party systems, you have to take a look at the political spectrum. You have the far left, moderate left, moderate, moderate right, and the far right. One party tends to be on the left side while the other part tends to be on the right side. In the United States you have the Democrats that support the left while you have the Republicans that support the right. Mainly because the the left is what you would call liberal and the right is what you would call conservative. Before the Great Depression and the events that had followed afterwards, the Democrats were conservative while the Republicans were liberal.”[2]

Today in America nearly two-thirds of Americans regard themselves either Republicans or Democrats, and even those who say that they are independents normally have partisan inclinations and show remarkable degrees of partisan loyalty. For example, “on average 71 percent of Democratic-leaning independents and 79 percent of Republican-leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential nominees in the last four presidential elections. It is estimated that only about nine percent of the Americans are "pure independents."[3]

American two-party politics has brought along with it certain levels of facilities as well as inconvenience which are going to be gone through here.

Pros:

In two party systems we have at least two unified sets of values and approaches toward the everyday issues and hardships. That means parties may differ in viewpoints but they are concentrated within their party and produce directions way easier than a haphazard multi-party or a tyrant one party.

The other advantage of a two party system is that it makes it easier for the voters to choose from the introduced resolutions. Easily put, the two party system simplifies the process of decision making for the voters.

Unlike the one party systems which can easily lead to authoritarianism, two parties constantly check up on the other party and that makes both of them in line and eventually it prevents corruption.

Cons:

The choices the voters get to choose from are limited; it is either black or white, and that is because there are only two political sets of minds introducing solutions. The problem regarding two party systems is that there is not that much of a variety for the voters.

The other disadvantage of such a system is that two parties are innately born competitive that are continuously vying with each other over every single issue and that, most of the times, doesn’t let them come up with effective solutions for, mainly, important problems.

The other con introduced by Rena Silverman touches upon an interesting subject. He asserts: “Throughout the nation’s history, the political parties have been associated with corrupt practices, such as patronage and the awarding of government contracts to party insiders—and those charges are still made today. In addition, the parties regularly face criticism for questionable fund-raising practices that effectively place politicians in debt to big contributors.”[4]

References:

1. http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/two_party.HTM, Retrieved at: 12/25/2009

2. http://www.helium.com/items/339121-the-pros-and-cons-of-two-party-systems, Retrieved at: 12/25/2009

3. http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/two_party.HTM, Retrieved at: 12/25/2009

4. http://renasilvermanoval.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/two-party-syste/, Retrieved at: 12/25/2009