The hidden virtues of a two-party primary system dominated by the passionate faithful

I used to think it was a shame that our political system is so dominated by the party primary system, in which two parties’ passionate faithful exercise such inordinate influence. It seemed a pity we didn’t have a third, centrist party that could attract support from moderate Democrats and Republicans, leaving the left- and right-wing nuts to stew in their own juices.

But the other day I realized our existing two-party system is better:  It separates and contains the nut jobs, while giving them an outlet for their passions, and reducing the odds of their thinking in terms of unpleasant alternatives like the violent overthrow of the system.

Consider how events play out in just about every election year:

• The candidates court the passionate faithful of their parties.  This renews the sense of hope among ‘the base’ that someday they can achieve their societal goals through the political process. 
• On the other hand, if a given party can be successfully portrayed as having fallen too much under the sway of its lunatic fringe, then in November the swing states and swing voters tend to punish that party, metaphorically smacking it upside the head.

Moreover, in our two-party system, candidates must develop a knack for nuance, a talent for choosing their words and positions carefully — they have to motivate their party’s true believers to donate money and organizational efforts, but at the same time they can’t afford to alienate the swing voters who may well decide their fate in the general election. 

If you ask me, that’s not a bad set of skills for elected officials to be made to demonstrate, before handing them the keys for governing a society as diverse and complex as ours.