Let’s talk about something different once in a while. Since the U.S. presidential election is coming, I will ramble on about how to change our lives through thinking of a two-party system in politics.
How can we get ideas to solve our problems?
Sometimes, we want ideas to solve our problems. We might have various troubles that stress us in our everyday lives.
Knowing the logic behind the difference could be one way to solve it. Difference often causes another result. If things don’t go as expected, there should be a reason. In many cases, differences based on individual circumstances affect our results.
Those reasons, including logic, often tell us another way to solve our problems. We can apply logic to many things. For example, mass human activity often describes our mental work.
In other words, there are similarities in this world. We can learn the mechanism of small individual problems from big systems. That sometimes provides us with a solution or opportunities.
Why is there a two-party system?
The logic of a political system is one of them. We can apply it to improve our mental work. That is why I like to know the logic behind human activities.
Recently, I wondered something when I saw the news about the U.S. presidential election: “Why is there a two-party system in politics, not only a multi-party system?” People are arguing while being divided into only two sides: red and blue. They somehow keep a good balance and play close games. Why are there only two sides? Why do they not create one powerful faction that always dominates?
It is the same as our decision-making. Perhaps we tend to consider ourselves to have one dominant personality. We sometimes believe we have a fixed mind and are dominated by one set of values.
However, that sometimes causes us to suffer because we often have contradictory wants. We want to be energetic but sometimes take a break. We want to change our lives while maintaining a peaceful life. That confuses us.
Today, I will talk about applying the logic of the two-party system to our decision-making. If we are empathic and creative, we can argue inside us based on empathy and creativity instead of determining everything by one dominant self. This knowledge might give us another way of thinking.
The efficiency of a two-party system
In my opinion, a two-party system in politics gives us the efficiency to change while sacrificing stability. On the other hand, a multi-party system with a single dominant faction (or coalition governance) is suitable for stability while sacrificing flexible change.
(By the way, this is my own logic created by my guess. I am not good at politics, so the logic below could be wrong. However, this perspective might help us to change our way of thinking.)
A two-party system is prone to change in politics because both sides compromise with each other in order of their political priority.
For example, if the red side forcibly passes one priority policy, it has to compromise one of the blue side’s demands because there is not much power difference. The red side can realize the policy in order of priority: 1st, 3rd, 5th… On the other hand, the blue side can pass their demands in order of priority: 2nd, 4th, 6th…
That fills both sides in a balanced manner.
A decision-making style for change
In this determination method, the minor policies tend to flip easily because the priorities after the second often vary based on the environmental situation. Sometimes, people worry about losing their jobs, and they are sometimes angry at unfair policies. Although it creates confusion easily, it allows the law to change in various areas.
A two-party system is stable because people can easily change the party. There are always influential people or organizations that fail to become the major party. In such a case, they often prefer inferior parties. They can realize their political demands more effectively by changing the political party they support and raising their priorities.
It is the same as a big war. The bigger the war is, the easier it is to become the two major powers. When the two forces are evenly matched, the weaker one will give favorable treatment to the new additional force.
That is why a two-party system is balanced and gives us the efficiency to change.
The style of a multi-party system
On the other hand, a multi-party system is suitable for stability while sacrificing flexible change. It often creates a single dominant faction, including coalition governance.
In this case, the ratio of party members determines how much their policy can pass. They decide from their highest priority policies: 1st, 2nd, 3rd…
This system tends to continue to satisfy the majority and disregard the minorities. That may be why the monoracial countries prefer a multi-party system.
In other words, the reason the U.S. prefers a two-party system might be because it has various races.
Applying the logic to our decision-making
We can apply this logic to our decision-making. If we are empathic and creative, we can consider things based on two large values: empathy and creativity.
In other words, we allow us to have mental duality and fluctuation of our moods. As long as the want is based on them and we can balance, it doesn’t matter which one we choose.
That allows us to change our lives while balancing our contradictory inner wants. Of course, we have to sacrifice consistent behavior. That could make others confused. However, we can be free from mental exhaustion.
This means we treat ourselves as if we don’t have a dominant self. We need to let go of the idea of having one solid set of values. In other words, we have to accept self-contradiction.
Accepting contradictory wants
Perhaps the more individuality we have, the more comfortable we are with this style. Empathy and creativity are minor. The majority find us hard to understand. From the majority perspective, it doesn’t make much difference if we allow ourselves to contradict ourselves. We are unique, even if we try to be consistent.
Although we will lose our consistent behavior by accepting our contradictory duality, it will give us direction in life. That will create our way of life in the long term.
In other words, we don’t have to show short-term consistency. We can show others our way of life through our whole life.
Conclusion
That is the logic behind the two-party system. We can apply it to our decision-making.
If we are empathic and creative, we can argue based on empathy and creativity instead of a dominant self. That could make it easier to change our lives.
This knowledge might give us another way of thinking.
Thank you for reading this article. I hope to see you in the next one.
