-
Step 1
Recall what the distinguishing features of the democracy verse the monarchy are: a monarchy makes decisions based on limited dialogues with others - that it is solely the monarch, the king or queen's yay or nay which rules and governs goes without question and is not overturnable - that a democracy in which together persons chime in to create the best possible solutions to national problems demonstrates that the central authority of a monarchy does not allow for the flexibility of accepting that there are others who could have a greater stake in the interest of the Country than the Monarch; that a country should indeed have a unified voice or identity was not lost on the Founders who envisioned that the Executive Office and the Legislative Chambers (2) should also demonstrate the best interest of the nation as a whole in a more unified fashion - arguably the larger the nation the more important the role of a legislature in determining local costs or tariffs -
-
Step 2
Understand that the distinct two-party system has evolved from a less distinct two-party system and into a more competitive if not factional one! When the Founders determined to document the role of the legislature and the Executive Office while it seemed self-evident the fact remained that persons would construe their rights and the role of government differently - understandably, future generations would not grasp the urgency and related details of the significance of seperating from the monarchy as they would. A model to stand the test of time would have as recourse the Founding Fathers' detailed vision for a failproof system that holds together the uniqueness of sentiment found in a Monarchy at times or its power (recall that the country of England or the U.K. was never more united than when it discussed the situation of the rebelling colonies) - that sort of power of unity assists the nation during times of war and in terms of solving local issues - solvency was always a primary issue - were it not for such strength a nation state would be vulnerable to others.
The onus of the federalist debates, that is the debates between confederationalists and federalists was based on the understanding that strength of a nation in having a strong executive as opposed to a weaker one wherein each state voted and as such was simply a confederation of loosely tied executives meant there was a threat that fiefdoms would emerge and that the nation would really not exist as such - again that U.K. or others would impose on and govern again could not be beyond calculable expectation for Federalists if they did not succeed in emphasizing such a strong need for both an executive office and bicameral legislation. -
Step 3
Recognize that the distinctions of the two-party system are different today than yesterday to understand why bi-partisanship seems that difficult. Therefore, the original "two-party" system stemmed mostly from the perceived angst of supporters of the defeated anti-federalists and need for competitors within the new republic to distinguish themselves albeit artificially from one another when running for the bi-cameral offices from their states when in fact men would propone to be the most suitable man for office - that politics began at that point in time should not detract from the fact that as far as politics goes the fact remained people generally agreed that the best man from each state should represent at the bi cameral legislature. The idea of two named seperate parties stemmed arguably from the need for two people to get nominated or elected who shared ultimately similar national views but who diferred in terms of their ability to compete with other states or relate to the other states in setting national policy - that the term strength or relative strength was not named per se - the terms represent the same monickers - the federalist party candidate or the incumbent and the less strong candidate or the previously defeated anti federalist - never would an anti federalist majority attempt to redraft the bi-cameral and executive structure and to ensure that the judiciary would manage to make sure the context of disagreements was clear - therefore, the constitution, while reminding us of the self evident nature of the clarity of all Americans felt was right when seperating from England and were unified with, was the reminder in rules of the structure of American government.
-
Step 4
A two-party system that has evolved has evolved without recognizing the similarities of the two parties as they existed and were devised by during the times of our Fathers'. That the economic climate from industry to agriculture fostered a need for greater efficiencies and resulted in competitive economies speaks to the broadening political differences that developed between northern and southern colonies as time wore on- that the economic prosperity depended on both was not lost on Mr. Lincoln, but that the increasing competitiveness and rivalrousness blurred the vision of our Fathers' further demonstrates Mr. Lincoln's determination that the original democratic views of the fathers the republic-democratic party urged him to start his party to garner the support in unity that he would figure prove to the nation that despite their haziness on their differences a unified country would always prevail in the hearts of its constituents and as such defeat any enemy from within or without - he was right. His party supported by the majority of persons led to the conclusion of the civil war in favor of one nation and this unity perservered. The ensuing economic and social issues that emerged continue to hearken to the distrust that emerged in the two party system over time if only for the historical blemishes but also for fear that one party would dominate over the other - that there are really that clear and distinct parties was never an intent of our Fathers' nor that the Country should ever sever physically based on party lines - this fear of dissolution emerges during times of war obviously. That one party would ever lose sight of the reasonability of persons from either party to be able to recognize the importance of national identity is a source of consternation insofar as bipartisanship is concerned.
