Given all the sorrow at Alito's confirmation, I bet a lot of people want to leave the party. The reality is you can't get too far. Even if you renounce your party that doesn't mean that you are done with it. The two-party system forces you to choose sides and I doubt anyone is going to be crossing over.
Anyway...
In Marjorie R. Hershey's chapter on America's two-party system, she asks and addresses several issues confronting the two-party system presently as well as in the past. Right off the bat, she points out the chronic illusion embraced by a large number of Americans that a two-party political system is an inherent trait of democracy worldwide (Hershey, p. 25). One can only imagine their bewilderment at the so-called democratization of the Middle East with disparate parties fighting for the electorates vote in recent high profile elections including Lebanon, Egypt, more recently in Iraq and Palestine, and on the horizon in Israel. Perhaps this is a good thing. It certainty seems to `get out the vote' as participation in these elections almost double ours. In another related way it improves democracy by stimulating debate among rival factions as well as within the electorate. This, less the violent outburst, is a good thing for democracy. As John Stuart Mill wrote in his essay "On Liberty", at virtually the same time as the Democratic and Republican parties we are now limited to, emerged in the mid-1800s:
"...[T]hough the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied." (Molloy, p. 81)
This brings us to the topic of this paper: What makes the two-party system in America tick, and what, if any, progress has the third party made in modern American politics at the national level?
In Hershey's chapter on the two-party system in America, she presents three explanations that help to explain the persistent two-party system in America. These theories include institutional forces, the dualist theories, and the social consensus theories. Each of these theories will be looked at separately below.
Institutional Forces
This, the institutional force, is the most frequent explanation for the two-party system, and to the voter satisfied with the way American politics operates, perhaps the only. Also known as Duverger's law, it argues that the winner take all mentality of democracy causes the two-party system (Hershey, p. 29-31). Either - or, win or lose. There isn't much room for a third or fourth opinion, thus these opinions usually work their way into the closet party to their particular ideology. We've seen this in the current Republican Party. In my lifetime, it has been the party for the religious voter, but not until recently did religion play such a large part in Republican politics. As a result the separation between church and state has become dimmer and dimmer. This is an example of a capable third party, the religious right, for the most part avoiding becoming a third party but injecting themselves within the their natural ally, the Republican Party. Similarly, someone like me who rejects organized religion in their life will naturally gravitate toward the, from my point of view, the lesser of two evils. In this case that would be the Democratic Party. It is not so much that I endorse the party platform completely, but I find comfort there that I could not feel in the Republican Party. There would be little point in starting a new party for myself and others like me, but it makes sense to bring my point of view to the only viable alternative; and so the structure remains. This, however, does not seem to be the ultimate reason for the absence of a viable, long-term third party. The remaining two theories provide a better rational as to why third parties perform so poorly when compared to the Democrats and Republicans on a nationwide level.
The Social Consensus Theory
Another explanation brought up by Hershey is the social consensus theory. This points at the ability of our society to agree on many issues, such as the Constitution or a free economy, as settled thus limiting debate. In other multiparty states these issues may still provoke debate among the electorate and provide the catalyst for alternative parties to emerge. As noted by Hershey,
"[o]nce a two-party system has developed, the two dominant parties have a strong motivation to protect it. (...) The major parties have no interest in leveling the playing field so that their minor-party competitors can take a shot at replacing them." (Hershey, p. 33)
Should this be the dominant theory then this observation would explain the reluctance of Washington to enable the aspiring third party; they just don't want them. Evidence of this is found in laws inhibiting the third party that were, in most cases, passed by their "two-party" rivals.
The Dualist Theory
Last but not least, Hershey introduces the dualist theories. This theory focuses on differences within American society as the tension that produces "dual" parties; the `pro-' or the `anti-'; the `yes' or the `no'. First we had the East-West divide illustrating this divide, followed by the North-South confrontation. However, the split is not limited to geographic terms (Hershey, p. 32). The split may surface with any issue of any day. Whether it be a few pro-life Congressmen who feel it's their duty to meddle in family matters or a pro-war Congressman who comes to the conclusion publicly that the war may have been incorrect, a mistake, or unwinnable; these issues fuel the public debate and form party platforms for sympathizers and opponents to stand on.
::
It seems that the social consensus theory and the dualist theory complement one another. The social consensus theory limits the debate in the American theater while the dualist theory surfaces as the "hot button issues" that help set the tone and topic of discourse for the short- to midterm. This debate occurs in Washington, in the media, and between the public. The parties pick their sides, or to use an old analogy, the electorate gets under the `umbrellas' or `tent' of the Democratic or Republican Parties.
With this we arrive at the final issue: Is their any hope for the third party in a national election? The conclusion reached below is the same as that of Hershey, but I see things even clearer. The sheer enormity of the two main parties will, for the foreseeable future, dominate national politics. It would take a large consensus, a revolution, perhaps a bipartisan one, to spawn a viable third party in national American politics. However, the two main party's proximity in strength or their established name recognition isn't the only reasons for their continued dominance (Hershey, p. 40). The party's flexibility and awareness will be argued below as major attributes in the game of American politics.
Mentioned above, the party as an `umbrella group' will serve as an example to explain what the party's flexibility means. Ideological issues tend to unite people with one another; e.g. someone who is anti-gun is likely to be, or sympathize with, someone who is anti-tobacco because they both are perceived as dangers to society. Other, strange, alliances occur that group people together who seemingly wouldn't see eye-to-eye. Such as someone who is anti-abortion sitting on the same platform as someone who is pro-war. The reason these groups become political allies are that they have found room inside the political umbrella of either main political party, but it isn't apparent that they share the sanctity of life in the same sense. In recent decades the center between the two parties has shifted to the right. This is apparent in the Democratic Party as the powerful Senator form New York, Hillary Clinton, decided to sponsor an anti-flag burning amendment, an unusual move for a Democrat and a sure sign of a shift in the political scales. The recent moves to ban abortions or gay marriage have surfaced as an example of the Republican Party's acknowledgement and capitalization of this shift.
Again the party, as an umbrella, is aware of changing or emerging issues in the public realm. Issues that resonate with the public quickly get incorporated into party platforms. After losing in 1992, the Republican Party incorporated many of Ross Perot's talking points into theirs. John Edwards framed his 2004 run for president into two issue: the divide that splits America into two separate classes and the special interests groups influence in Washington. These were later adopted by the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Since Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast and the scandals involving Republican Representatives Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff the Democratic Party has included these issues in their platform as key subjects for the upcoming elections.
The likelihood of a third party at the national level is slim because, in a sense, the third party exists within the two-party or `two-umbrella' system. Whatever issue arises the parties will sense and flex to accommodate these new ideas. This, for most purposes, makes the third party obsolete, or weak and short-lived. Only a far-reaching revolution can support a third party. As the Teddy Roosevelt Progressive's did a decade ago, so might an anti-corruption party in the future. An example of this phenomenon is in emerging in Israel currently. Ever since her birth in the mid-1900s Israeli politics has been dominated by the political parties of two pre-state militias; the Hagana (now Labor) and Likud factions. Recently, united by the prospects of peace in Palestine, a third party, Kadima has developed and is positioned to win in the upcoming elections this March. Of course issues like the health of that party's leader, Ariel Sharon, and the watershed victory of Hamas in Palestine (and their vow to eliminate Israel) have yet to show if this is still the case.
In closing, above we have looked at the mechanisms supporting the two-party system in American politics and narrowed it down to the social consensus and dualist theories that provide the main catalyst for maintaining the present two-party system. In addition, an argument is presented claiming mutual cooperation between these two theories act as the underlying force involved, not simply an institutional force as many would like to claim. Next we arrive at the prospects for a third party emerging at the national level. It is decided that the scenarios that would permit a viable third party to emerge on a national level would be a revolution or an event that would rally support from both sides of the political spectrum and from beneath either umbrella. As history presents, this is an unlikely event given the relative stability experienced in current national American politics.