America finds itself coming to grips with a de facto three party system as the Tea Party rises as a force unto itself. With little regard for traditional Republicanism and no regard for conservatism, the Tea Party does not seek to live in its parental, Republican, home, but rather to take it over by coup, or, failing that, burn it to the ground if usurpation should prove unsuccessful.
What Republicans and independent conservatives are learning, perhaps too late, is that peaceful coexistence with its radical, arsonist child is not an option. This brand of extremism has no respect for the house where it was born. It is a third, and separate, power base now independent of those who nurtured it in the false hope of one day controlling it.
Attempts at appeasement have already resulted in the extinction of liberal and moderate Republicanism. Note as we proceed with this thesis that no mention of party moderates will be part of the equation. Short of political cloning of the deceased, they cannot be a factor. The choice is now to cede all control of the party to the firebrands, continue the conservative/radical duality within the party or formally split.
A formal split is still unlikely. The Republican label carries multiple advantages, not the least of which is 50 state ballot acceptance. This leaves only the options of a feuding duality within the party or control by the radicals. The radicals will not roll over to accept control by the conservatives. The most likely result, by default, is then the feuding duality, resulting in a strange three party system where two of the parties are locked in a battle to control what is essentially a dysfunctional coalition party construct.
For this two party coalition, known loosely as Republicans, to function, the conservatives must accept the radicals in order that the conservatives remain relevant. The radicals, conversely, need the conservatives’ established acceptance, which they will gladly acknowledge so long as they can, through subterfuge and threat, force the conservatives to advance the radical agenda.
In the end, we find ourselves with three political parties vying for control of the government. One, the Democrats, are relatively easily identified and largely unified. The other two parties, the Radical Party and the Conservative Party, compete for control of the electoral designation known as Republicans. The result shows signs, recently evidenced by the shutdown and debt default threat, of moving beyond gridlock to ungovernability.
Unlike a parliamentary system, where coalitions can govern, within limits, our presidential system is not designed to accommodate the brand of fractiousness represented by the Tea Party radicals. We rely on constitutional checks and balances, within a context of cooperation. In a parliamentary system, the current crop of bomb throwers in the Tea Party would be marginalized by forming a government of national unity between Democrats and conservative Republicans, excluding the radicals.
In the checks and balances system, the government of national unity is an unexplored and unlikely option. The radicals, to the extent they can coerce a major party within one branch of the government, can bring the whole of government to its knees and enforce ungovernability.
Whether America could function under a three, or more, party system consisting of traditional parties willing to form working coalitions has never been tested. What we are testing now, and finding untenable, is the idea of a three party system with two of the parties fighting for the right to control one established party, and in which one of the two in-fighters is determined to use ungovernability as its wedge to wrest power from the other.
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.