Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[Dill]

(06-21-2022, 09:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. I hope this is not offensive to every American, but I find it extremely odd how this argument of the framer's intention gets so overused. These people did a marvellous job, no doubt about it, but they set their frameworks over 200 years ago, clearly not even thinking about 50 states or any situation that resembles today's circumstances. What they intended is not all that relevant any more, can't be, at least it holds no particular value to me. Which is no offense to Jefferson or anyone else.

And looking at the constitution as is, and your whole system of democracy that stems from it, imho there are clear and severe mistakes in there. A two-party system - as an inevitable result of the election system - is inherently toxic and lays the groundwork for an everlasting battle that either can go on for all vile eternity or has to end in the destruction of the enemy party (or a civil war, it's not like that never happened). And I wager this is how many people feel now.

"Severe mistakes"????

Looks like someone's hatred for our freedom has led him to forget that our Constitution was divinely inspired.   

I'm all for considering that a two-party system may lead to "gridlock" and illiberal solutions, but I don't see a problem with an "everlasting battle" for all eternity--provided both sides remain within the norms of liberal democracy. Or social democracy, if we can eventually get there.

And I don't see why a two-party system is any more likely to lead people to "vilify" opposition than your vaunted parliamentary system.

Your next-door neighbor and one-time partner in empire had a parliamentary system with at least five large parties, and still went the illiberal route, along with now Russia, the Phillipines, and Turkey. Illiberals in parliamentary Italy and Poland are knocking on the door to state power. 

In the U.S. case, I cannot really entertain the "inherently toxic" claim when there are other factors at work which are accidental and not essential to a two-party system, which appear to be generating and amplifying current divisions. E.g., Fox and right wing news media, constantly undermining U.S. democracy by going after those progressives who "hate America." Liberals apparently "cause" this illiberal reaction by wanting to "change" America, granting gays the right to marry and allowing illegal immigrants to attend public schools. 

I used to think parliamentary systems enriched and deepened public discussion of political issues, making it harder to conflate "the left" (liberals and center-right neoliberals) with a real left and the alt right with conservatives, while allowing people to identify more wholly with their party's platform.

But before I can endorse the "two party system=EVIL" thesis, I'd need some closer reasoning and evidence to convince me that what looks accidental to me is really essential, structurally unavoidable.