Authors: Theodore J. Lowi and Joseph Romance
Introduction by Gerald M. Pomper
Publisher: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
1998

Republic of Parties?: Debating the Two-Party System is a small book (106 pages) containing a concentrated debate about the history of parties, whether or not the two-party system is working, and whether or not there should be a three-party system. In the introduction Gerald Pomper points out that, "...Despite their service to democracy, the two major American parties are not highly regarded today by voters..."

The book contains a portion of GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS, which includes a spirited attack on the very idea of parties. It's a MUST READ.

Pomper goes on to say that, "The emergence of Perot and the Reform Party is emblematic of voters' general disdain for the present system and their considerable support for a new or third party. These sentiments raise questions, debated in this book by Professors Romance and Lowi, about the viability and desirability of the existing two-party system."

Lowi, Romance and Pomper are all professors of political science at major universities -- Cornell, Drew and Rutgers respectively.

From the back cover:

Americans have debated the efficacy of our two-party system since the founding of the nation. Generations of political scientists have asked: Is the two-party system an antiquated arrangement, so entrenched in our political structure that any third party is destined to be peripheral, or is it an essential component of the political and constitutional order articulated by our founders?

With documents that highlight the debate from the colonial era to the present, this book encourages readers to decide for themselves which system of government works best.

From George Washington's farewell address:

"...I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in a State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you against in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but, in those of popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns his disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true, and in Governments of a Monarchial cast Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is the spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume..."