Political systems across the world are split thanks to the idea of partisanship; that is candidates wearing labels for votes. A candidate will run based on their party’s policies, which sometimes will dictate what they decide politically. Here in the United States partisanship has become quite extreme, moderate candidates have a big problem attracting support for themselves from either party. Due to this the people running for the position tend to have to be more extreme than they would have wanted to.
DURING THE 2008 Presidential campaign, Senators Obama and McCain promised that if elected they would govern in a bipartisan fashion. Both avowed that they were not reflexive partisans, and both offered a track record of bucking their own party as a qualification for leadership. They seemed to identify strong partisanship with uncompromising dogmatism, divisiveness, and the eclipse of reason.
At the same time, they cast partisanship as synonymous with pettiness. After “extremist” the most common adjectives they attached to the word were diminutives: “bickering” and “smallness.” We heard it from [President] Obama, who often repeated the sentiment. “Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” – Dissent Magazine
Everyone knows that party politics have been in place for quite a while, starting with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists – showing the polarizing nature of party politics. So is this still a good and relevant system over 200 years later?