Democratic and the Republican 驴象之争

美国大选：民主党与共和党“驴象之争”，相互制衡却能长期执政美利坚合众国是地球最强大的国家，也是全人类科技水平最优质的国家；美国在政治、军事、科技、经济、民生等方面的成就，让世界所有国家为之仰望，也是号称唯一能够在全球同时打赢两场战争的国家，是世界上唯一的超级强国。

然而，美国虽然拥有最好的资源、最优秀的人才、最强大的军队，但是他们国内的政治却存在一个怪象：美国的两党执政制度形成了一种恶性竞争，为了获得执政权，两大政党都会想尽办法压制对方，特别是在美国总统大选上，两党互相中伤攻击对方，使国家元首的竞选成为了一种势力博弈和个人表演的舞台。

而当时的美国一个漫画家托马斯·纳斯特（德裔美国人），把美国民主党和共和党的政治博弈绘成了一本政治讽刺漫画；而漫画的主角就是一只驴和一只象。

共和党党徽上所显示的动物是“大象”，民主党党徽上所显示的动物是“驴”，托马斯就用驴和象的形象，在漫画中对两党大选丑态进行讽刺，这就是美国的“驴象之争”的由来。

那么“驴”和“象”之争究竟映射出美国政坛的哪些千姿百态呢？我们先来了解一下两党的起源：美国的民主党与共和党美国民主党最开始叫民主共和党；该政党执政思想是由杰斐逊总统时期正式奠定的，杰斐逊是民主党的创始人，杰斐逊在就任总统时，他认为美国所倡导的“民主、自由、经济、繁荣”，不应该是一句空话，需要政府真正落到实处。

杰斐逊总统认为，各州的自治权和企业的独立发展权是不可侵犯，联邦政府是无权干涉各州的内部发展和企业的独立发展，于是，在他的倡导下，美国开始大规模地实行各州自主化以及企业私有化。

美国三权分立制度，造成南北经济发展结构分化美国三权分立的政治制度，也是杰斐逊时代确立下的基本权利制度；但是杰斐逊的大力推行自主权和自由发展，也使得美国出现了一种南北分化的经济发展结构，北方的白人着重发展工业经济，而南方白人却继续维持奴隶制农场经济。

一个国家两种经济制度，很显然会出现矛盾和碰撞，而碰撞的矛头就是美国政府所给予的资源倾斜投入，南北白人群体都认为，自己地域的经济发展是最先进、最优秀的经济模式，但是政府只有那么多开支预算，不可能南北地域都给予足够的投资。

美国两党的“驴象之争”——选自《美国政治风向标》驴是驴，象是象政党是寻求博得选举、掌管政府和决定公共决策的集团，拥有自己的宗旨、纲领和组织。

美国政党制度的成立美国政党制度的成立，不是建国者们设计的产物，而是顺从现实政治需要的结果。

它的形成进展都与美国社会的曲折前进紧密联系，带有鲜明的美国色彩。

美国民主党创建于1791年，由部份种植园主和与南方奴隶主有联系的企业家组成，那时叫共和党，1794年改成民主共和党，1840年正式称民主党。

1861年南北战争终止后民主党一蹶不振。

1933年富兰克林.罗斯福利用经济危机、人民不满情绪竞选总统获胜并连任四届总统，民主党因此持续执政20年。

民主党的群众基础主若是劳工、公事员、少数民族和黑人。

美国共和党成立于1854年，由反对奴隶制的东北部工商业主及中西部开发各州的农业企业家代表组成。

1860年林肯被选总统，共和党开始执政，并在南北战争中击败南方奴隶主势力平息了内战。

1860—1933年的70连年中，除16年外，美国均由共和党执政。

该党群众基础主若是郊区和南方的白领工人及年轻人，二战后中产阶级为其新的支持力量。

什么缘故老是两党连番坐庄美国的政党制度是两党制，也确实是两个要紧政党通过按期选举交替执政的体制。

相关于三权分立、联邦制和总统制，两党制所取得的认同相对低，这是因为它全然不是宪法所规定的内容，没有明确的历史标示。

立国之初，美国人专门是美国上层精英们关于政党抱有疑心和敌意，以为政党是因野心和利益结成的派系，会危害国家。

美国国父华盛顿确实是持这种论断的人，他在离任总统的《辞别词》中强烈谴责政党并警告人们不要结党。

人的愿望老是良好的，可是客观需要的推动仍然造就了政党的形成。

成心思的是，在华盛顿的内阁中就形成了以汉密尔顿为代表的“联邦党人”和以杰斐逊为首的“反联邦党人”两个派系。

“联邦党人”代表东北部商业集团的利益，主张增强联邦权利；“反联邦党人”代表南部种植园主和小农，主张州权，希望与法国成立外交关系，并于1794年正式成立民主共和党。

No one now living in the United States can remember when the contest began between the Democratic and the Republican parties. It has been going on for more than a century, making it one of the oldest political system in the world. The American political system is a classical example of the two-party system. When we say that we have a two-party system in the United States we do not mean that we have only two parties. Usually about a dozen parties do exist. We call it a two-party system because we have two large parties and a number of small parties, and the large parties are so large that we often forget about the rest. Usually the small parties collectively poll less than 5 per cent of the vote cast in national elections.The democratic and Republican parties are the largest and most competitive organizations in the American community. They organize the electorate very simply by maintaining the two-party system. Americans almost inevitably become Democrats or Republicans because there is usually no other place for them go to. Moreover, because the rivalry of these parties is very old, most Americans know where they belong in the system. As a consequence of the dominance of the major parties, most elected officials are either Republicans or Democrats. Attempts to break up this old system have been made in every presidential election in the past one hundred years, but the system has survived all assaults.How does it happen that the two-party system is so strongly rooted in American politics? The explanation is probably to be found in the wayelections are conducted. In the United States, unlike countries with a parliamentary system of government, we elect not only the President, but a large number of other officials, about 800,000 of them. We also elect congressmen from single-member districts. For example, we elect 435 members of the House of Representatives from 435 districts (there are a few exceptions), one member for each district. Statistically, this kind of election favors the major parties. The system of elections makes it easy for the major parties to maintain their dominant position, because they are likely to win more than their share of the offices.One of the great consequences of the system is that it produces majorities automatically. Because there are only two competitors in the running, it is almost inevitable that one will receive a majority. Moreover, the system tends slightly to exaggerate the victory of the winning party. This is not always true, but the strong tendency to produce majorities is built into the system.In over 200 years of constitutional history, Americans have learned much about the way in which the system can be managed so as to make possible the peaceful transfer of power from one party to the other. At the level of presidential elections, the party in power has been overturned by the party out of power nineteen times, almost once a decade. In the election of 1860, the political system broke down, and the Civil War, the worst disaster in American history, resulted. Our history justifies our confidence in the system but also shows that it is not foolproof.The second major party is able to survive a defeat because the statistical tendency that exaggerates the victory of the winning party operates even more strongly in favor of the second party against the third, fourth, and fifth parties. As a result, the defeated major party is able to maintain a monopoly of the opposition. The advantage of the second party over the third is so great that it is the only party that is likely to be able to overturn the party in power. It is able, therefore, to attract the support of everyone seriously opposed to the party in power. The second party is important as long as it can monopolize the movement to overthrow the party in power, because it is certain to come into power sooner or later.Another consequence of the two-party system is that whereas minor parties are likely to identify themselves with special interests or special programs and thus take extreme positions, the major parties are so large that they tend to be moderate. Evidence of the moderation of the major parties is that much business is conducted across party lines. What happens when the Democrats control one house of Congress and the Republicans control the other? About the same volume of legislation is passed as when one party controls both houses, although some important legislation is likely to be blocked temporarily. It is possible to carry on the work of the government even when party control is divided because party differences are not fundamental.。