A Two Party System

How two political parties in the US make sense in today's world

How can we explain, or justify political parties? 

From the earliest days of the Republic this question has been debated.  Washington argued against them. Faction, division, intrigue, ambition! 

There are many answers to this question.  And while I find some interesting, let me share one that I think makes sense for today. 

We have always made our choices in the face of gain and loss.  That is to say, either personally or working with others, our actions may be rewarded or they may result in failure and cause harm.  We cannot escape such uncertainty. 

In a world where technological advances were gradual, we were usually able to adapt incrementally to change and avoid substantial risks. The times seemed to require caution.  We sought to solidify our past gains before moving on.  Conservatism was the philosophy of such caution, backed by the awareness that we live uncertain lives in an unpredictable world. 

One, and sometimes both, of the nation’s two political parties have been proud to take a conservative stance.  Conservatism as a political ideology, though, was not rigid. Potentials were explored and progress was valued.  The emphasis, however, was on stability. 

Since the 1700s, however, the underlying drivers of change have been accelerating.  New discoveries in science, and new technological applications of these discoveries, change the underlying realities of our world at an ever-faster pace.  Staying constant is to fall back. Those that fail to adapt are left behind, able only to console the victims of natural disaster and human folly, or envy someone else’s success.

Since there are, however, no guarantees and change remains an act of risk, there is still the need to stabilize gains and insure their continuance.

In such a world, one might anticipate and welcome two different political forces, perhaps arranged as organized parties.  One that advocates further progress, at a faster rate, and believes that the gains outweigh the potential risks.  And the other, less accepting of higher levels of risk, that urges caution--not reactionary, not spreading illusions of a glorious and lost past, but seriously alarmed by choices that are not evidence based, that may prove overreaching and problematic. 

I find such a two-party system desirable.