Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[hollodero]

(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. But to say the two-party system is to blame for the current divisions?

I mean, it's of course not just as easy an answer as that, there are additional factors in play. But yeah, the two-party system creates a huge divide, by design and so clearly visible that I find it difficult to even start somewhere. So I won't. Would be worth a thread sometimes.

I will say that you lived in Germany for quite some time. So you know that we (well, I'm Austria, but similar thing) have political alternatives, we don't have to go along with everything because the only alternative would be a total betrayal to our political beliefs, we have new parties gaining influence, old parties crashing down, a vote that actually counts for the party one votes for, and we have the extremists contained in extreme parties instead of infecting the more moderate ones. As you said, you know the advantages of that. For one we're less extremely polarized.

(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: I ask myself, would Italy have gone fascist had they a two-party system in 1920, or Germany in 1930? I have some doubts. Authoritarians have seized power from (small "d") democrats in many places because they were in a system which enabled governance with pluralities/superminorities.

Now that is comparing apples to oranges. I'd argue the authoritarians would have risen up no matter which democratic system. The Weimar Republic was a young and hence very vulnerable, widely unsupported democracy forced upon the country through a devastating defeat in a devastating war. And then the global depression, the huge reparations. There was poverty, suffering, desperation (and a constant sense of humiliation) on a level that does not compare to modern times.
That's of course not meant as an excuse for history. But no, I wouldn't know how a two-party system would have prevented Hitler. My reasoning is one of my grievances with this system actually. To gain power, one only has to get a hold of one of the parties. Enough hold that the rest falls in line. Similar to what Trump did, with maybe say around 20% (something around that) of voters actually liking him initially (and quite many more that still vote for him over the democrat anyways and of course quite some more who don't vote at all). And as soon as you're there. You just have to wait. The party in power does not get reelected too often, especially when the world is as grim as it was in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Once, maybe twice if the other side is real scary, but at some not too distant point the swing is bound to happen. You got 20% of devout followers and time, you get there, even if you're a monster.

(11-05-2022, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 3. The current divisions have much more to do with 1) economic conditions--decades of flat wages amidst dramatically rising worker productivity, and workers aren't pocketing all that extra value they are creating (neoliberalism), 2) shrinking union membership, and the political socialization that went with such membership, 3) an economic elite with a long tradition of ruling through fear (of working masses, a black underclass, immigration, socialists from Europe, and Muslims straining to impose Sharia on us all), and 4) new communication technology which advantages 3 over traditional political debate/discussion subject to civil norms and standards of evidence. So that 3 elite is able to control the "narrative" about why the U.S. is going in the wrong direction--though their success also undermines their control, as millions believe the uncontrollable MJT and DJT speak their pain.

That's it? 1, 2, 3, 4, explanation done? Yeah I want to add 5) a two party system that kills the middle ground, forces everone to pick sides, divides even the news in left and right, turns people to messengers of talking points and designed controversies to get the wheel of disdain spinning, two sides that can't even listen to each other any more with any sense of earnesty, it's only about shooting holes in someone else's opinion, make him look as crazy, stupid and immoral as possible. An atmosphere where hateful messages can rise and truth isn't important and 6) a whole lot of other awful consequences of a dualistic system, like both parties being bought by big money and engaging in open bribery and then some. As stated, worth a thread sometimes. And of course 7) a whole lot of other things, you haven't even mentioned social media for example.


We widely agree on Tulsi though.