Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[Dill]

(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero 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.

I quite understand the post-war shocks of post 1918 and Weimar, and agree that they are not comparable in intensity to the current U.S. (though do note some affinities, such as the challenge to government legitimacy).

But Hitler's seizure of power was by no means inevitable or unavoidable. Nor was Mussolini's. 

So all I'm doing is a kind of thought experiment to test the two-party concept, not to compare the U.S. to struggling Weimar. What might have happened had Germany only two parties, like an SPD which included most Communists and a dozen socialist splinters, and a center-conservative party which included the Zenrum, DVNP and DNP and similar liberal and nationalist parties?

There would have been authoritarians in such a two-party system, sure, and possibly a higher percentage than the U.S., but I don't see disruptive fascists rising through a traditional party hierarchy on either side. I don't see how they could have engineered a "Preussenschlag" style take over of one state (Land) to set the stage for power seizure on the national stage. That was only possible because of the way state (or in this case Land) power could be momentarily (and legally) levered to single party control, amidst many competing parties. 

(11-06-2022, 05:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

And that's the trick isn't it?  That's not so easy with these big umbrella parties. 

There have always been at least 20% of "devout followers" in the U.S. since the Civil War, often more, if by that you mean anti-democratic authoritarians. And Trump is not like Hitler, someone who dedicated his life to a long-term goals, single-mindedly following them to a terrible final solution decades later. 

Trump's authoritarians were ready made for him and fell into his lap. Where we disagree, possibly, is whether they were the product of a "system," or something more amorphous, growing more to historical and economic divisions between regions and classes now registering as identity threats.

The "fall in line" phenomenon has not occurred to this extent since the Civil War, right after a new major party had formed, and several others were in throes of dissolution.