The bilateral approach to the parties in the United States characterizes the state power and its peculiarities for the newly born capitalist democratic country. In this respect, the observation of the political formation in the United States at the very beginning was due to the first statesmen. James Madison and George Washington were the most prominent persons. Their main argument is that in the United States there should be no more than two parties. This idea, as might be seen today, became predominant. The division of the Congress into representatives of solely two parties is the result of what James Madison once wrote in The Federalist Paper No. 10. Thus, the firmness of the state power in the United States is the merit of the initial agreement on party division and representation between the great statesmen of the US.
Polarization of the powerful forces in the United States is the fact which should logically be anticipated among two parties. In this respect, a bit philosophical position contemplates that everything in the world is broken up into two states: positive and negative. Thus, such bilateral unity makes balance in everything related to the nature and social processes in the society. To make it clear, a man living in the United States was initially encouraged to participate in the formation of a new community of people free from the imperial pretenses of England. However, it is no surprise that the first glimpses at making two major parties in America were loaned from Great Britain and its “Tory and Wigs” model.
In fact, Americans are deeply inclined to support political parties as they manifests their hopes and worries about the best way of political and social development. Further still, the so-called embodiment of the state power can be weighed between two parties: Democrats and Republicans. Americans, as genuine representatives of the capitalistic model of relationships provided in the society, needed to have their job, land, and some other amenities secured by the state at the beginning. Thus, private property, rights, and obligations of citizens could be regulated through the tools of political regulation. James Madison remarked it through the following statement:
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties (Madison 1).
What is more, the federal government is considered to be better regulated through only two parties. The main argument that can suit this claim is that the amount of weighed contradictions is reduced to two. Thus, less time is spent on negotiations in Congress. On the other hand, Americans through their representatives in the parliament can be on the safe side from the pluralism of opinions. In turn, it leads to a fewer number of conflicts in the higher echelons of power and the American society on the whole.
The “factions,” as Madison called political parties, vary in terms of the volume of the society and its overall performance. It means that the spirit of the political party incorporates the spirits that are predominant within the society. George Washington insisted on the danger which a political party embodies, but he could not fail to agree that Americans had no other way for socialization, as to have parties in the government (Washington 1). Madison followed this opinion. However, his argument as to the number of parties in any kind of society fell into the following rumination: “The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party” (Madison 1). Hence, the qualitative and quantitative attributes of the American society at its initial stage impulse the creation of a two-party system of governance.
In accordance with the future implications of the state formation in the United States, this trend of bilateral political representation is likely to be the same. It is no wonder that this type of state administration and verification found approvals of Americans during the whole history of the country. Americans used to recognize their city living with polarized views on the political and economic development in the country. It is a matter of personal identification as an American. In fact, it is learned at the mother’s knees. Separating an American from his/her political preferences and right to vote for someone representing the Democratic or Republican Party is nonsense.
To infer, the characterization of the American state power when it was in the making is quite rational in terms of the political preferences outlined by George Washington and James Madison. The idea is that Americans got accustomed to realize the predominance of only two major parties, as a pledge for stability and national growth. The longevity of bilateral political predominance is likely to be continued in the United States, as the American society sees no alternative to change it somehow.
Works cited
Madison, James. “The Federalist No. 10: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued).” 1787. American Constitution. Daily Advertiser. Web.
Washington, George. “Washington’s Farewell Address 1796.” 2008. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School. Web.