I just read an article in Discourse, the new online magazine from Mercatus Center, in which the author recalls her childhood in Taiwan under the Kuomintang one-party rule. The Kuomintang, also called the Chinese Nationalist Party, exercised one-party rule over the the island of Taiwan for 40 years, from 1949 to 1989, and still holds 38 of the 113 seats in the Taiwanese legislature. (Before 1949, the Kuomintang had controlled mainland China, but were weakened by the World War II Japanese invasion, and were subsequently overthrown by their former allies in the Chinese Communist Party. Millions of Kuomintang supporters fled to the formerly-Japanese island of Taiwan where they set up a government of China in exile.)
From numerous sources I get the impression that life under one-party rule of the anti-communist Kuomintang on the island of Taiwan was not that different from life under the one-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party on mainland China. Both established nominally-democratic governments in which elections were held in such a way that only the ruling party could win. Despite their difference in name, both parties actually governed as socialists, with most businesses under the control of either the government or the ruling party. Both parties propagandized their people, restricting the flow of information from other sources. Both regimes operated the businesses to enrich their leaders at the expense of the public. Both imprisoned or killed citizens who spoke out against the regime. I have read of similar conditions prevailing under other one-party states.
When the United States Constitution was written, the founders attempted to divide power among different political entities, establishing checks and balances so that no one group could control another. Many of our founders hoped there would be no political parties, but a two-party system soon emerged. The U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to operate only a few business: coinage of money, post offices and post roads. It was assumed that other businesses would be operated by members of the general public. Control over business was limited to regulation of commerce between states and with foreign countries, and regulation of navigable waters. Regulation meant to make regular, so that rules would not vary from state to state. This is very different from a one-party state.
Over time, and particularly over the past hundred years, the checks and balances that protected Americans from our government have broken down. More and more power has accrued to civil servants as Congress has slowly abdicated its responsibility to its constituents. It is exceedingly rare to hear of civil servants being held to account for their actions, as illegal activities in numerous agencies have been smoothed over with no one seriously punished. Civil servants are politically active and now largely control one of our two major political parties. Federal powers have expanded far beyond the regulation of interstate commerce and navigable waters into broad control over the activities of most businesses and of state and local governments. Now, with the movement to federalize the conduct of elections, taking control of elections from the states and giving it to the civil servants who already control our businesses, we are faced with the risk of actually becoming a one-party state.
Posted 2021/05/06