The American Two Party system

[hollodero]

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: I think you can boil your assertion to the fact that you find the two party system to be the root of most of the issues in the country. To that end, I do agree to an extent. Also if you would expand on your religious terminology and how it relates to  your overarching thread I'm sure interesting conversation could come from it.

Oh right, I sure used the word demon a lot. First time, I just did so to drastically illustrate my point. Second time, I used the term demonrats that Jeanine Pirro used as replacement for democrats. A term I chose because its mere existence in main stream media can be seen as part of my point.
There were zero religious insinuations behind it.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: The reason I say I agree only to an extent is because I've noticed an issue with the perspective of some people who hyper-focus on the nature of the two party system. Yes, the two parties are in a symbiotic relationship to a degree. Yes, they both at times have prioritized specialized monied interests over the interests of your average citizen. All that is true.

Well, if these things are true then imho there's hardly any hyperfocusing. These things deserves a severe amount of focus. Of course I would add several additional points, but yeah.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: However, this specific focus on the nature of our political reality is also used as a kind of ward, an excuse for apathy, for the tired to be done with it all. It's all too easy to say they're both the same and exonerate oneself from the exhaustion that comes with caring about direction of a country as a whole.

I can be an excuse for laziness, but that is hardly an argument against critizism of the two-party system. And as far as what caring about the direction is concerned. For one, many people very well might not like either of the two directions they are offered. That is not apathy, it's being left voiceless when not in the two big choirs. Also, the two-party system created a climate where topics are seldomly discussed in sincerity, but with anger, tribalism, hysteria and bad faith arguments. And disclaimer, that is not about me stating that both sides are equally bad or just the same in the end. I don't think so, specifically I think the republican party is worse. It's just that I guess for many people, and it would include me were I an American, both directions offered lead to an unsatisfactory choice in an environment hostile to nuance. Or in short, it's about both options just being bad. Judges, congressmen, governors, presidents, state secretaries and so on and so on. All parts of the same molochs, always red vs. blue, other options bitterly missing. Calling people that are frustrated with that apathic and telling them to just pick a lane and be constructive would be unfair.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: So you have this reality that a system, beyond the control of any individual, has sort brought about itself naturally. People over time, given their social abilities and intellect have organized into these systems over time. In the US specifically our political system has maturated into a sort of stalemate federally where stances have been made, lines have been drawn, processes have come and gone in the formation, interpretation, and practice of our collective will in lawmaking. This slowdown is not some insurmountable decay that is inescapable. Growth in this case is not linear. It will slow to a slog, and at times it will seem faster than we could imagine.

I find that a bit dreamy. Not untrue per se, but I'm just more cynical maybe. System's not only built by skills and intellect, so in short well-meaning people, but also by interest groups and big money and lots and lots of self-centered people that only consider their own riches and power maintenance. I don't think that is controversial, unless one thinks people like the Koch brothers or other superPAC members are warriors for some greater common good. I rather see them as the ruling caste that are not elected and hold those dependant that are. I find that hard to disagree with really, it's pretty much in the open.
And adressing the growth aspect and how proud you can be (sorry for deleting that part of your response), sure I will not argue with that. What I will argue is that the two-party system and its specifics probably had nothing to do with any of it. All of it could have been achieved with a system less adversiarial to pluralistic ideas.

(03-01-2023, 08:54 PM)treee Wrote: Essentially I agree with you but there is a thread of fatalism woven throughout your OP that I disagree with. There are many mechanisms that allow for US citizens to legally compel the system to change to closer align with their will. All it takes is the collective focus and will of it's constituents to enact it. I do think we can change our path on a fundamental level if we approach things with the right mindset.

I confess to fatalism, I think this very well can be fatal. I see things like the Jan 6 riot [and then some] as an indirect consequence of the two-party system, and I don't think this is getting any better in the future. The US appears to have a more and more radicalized society, two sides that can't constructively communicate any longer, only getting whipped and rant about each other. I consider this to be the potential downfall of US democracy, there's no mincing words, there were some valid coup attempts recently and many people don't seem to mind. And when it comes to the right mindset creating a real change for the better within the boundaries of the sclerotic two-party system, I am sceptical. Erin Brochovich stories might rather be the exception than the usual outcome. More specifically. My point would be that getting rid of the two-party system in its current form might be the right mindset, not fighting within it (and getting frustrated in the end like Bels was).