At the end of the previous post, we commented on the "big tent" nature of America's two major parties, each trying to represent the views and interests of a majority of American voters. Let's explore that idea further.
In countries like Italy and Israel there are many viable parties vying for one's vote. Some parties win one or two seats, some win 55 or 60. Nobody wins a majority and all governments are (often uneasy) coalitions. On the other hand, it is likely most voters will be able to find a party whose platform matches their own biases and beliefs relatively closely.
The U.S. is at the other end of the spectrum. Minor parties here are essentially a "relief valve" giving embittered voters a place to cast a protest vote. In most elections they elect exactly nobody, and are unsurprised at the outcome. Our two major parties - Republicans and Democrats - virtually monopolize actually winning elections. Each tries to represent the interests of a bare majority of our notoriously diverse populace, while claiming to represent virtually everyone.
Democrats represent the interest of Hispanics and of African Americans, which are in conflict. Hispanics want open borders, blacks do not. They also represent environmental Greens and union labor, whose narrow interests conflict. They represent both the mainline Protestant faithful and atheists, both feminists and women-as-sex-objects Hollywood exploiters. Of late, they also represent both Jews and Jew-hating Muslims.
The GOP doesn't get off easy either. They try to make tent room available to isolationist libertarians and militaristic neocons, to evangelical born-agains and gambling tycoons, to populists and corporate interests, to immigrant-loving employers and immigrant amnesty rejecters. And the list goes on.
No one should be put off by contradictions in party platforms or candidate statements. Ofttimes a candidate is trying to "square the circle," trying to have it both ways instead of driving away single issue voters.
