The American Two Party system

[Dill]

(03-01-2023, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: I won't share all my reasons to say so right now. But to tackle a few points in advance. It is a system that creates division and tribalism. As evidenced, it allows extremism to become mainstream and get a guaranteed election win over time. It allowed for the creation of two party molochs fighting for power. Two molochs that can do whatever they want and they can never ever be replaced. Together they got all the money, all the influence, all the media connections, they would destroy every other viable movement with ease. And they both by design share around 50% of the power over time, and if they were demons from hell it would be so. The opposition party always wins at some point, see: midterms.

Yow Hollo! I'm offline for a week and come back to find you, again, wreaking havoc on our political system.

The last time we went over this ground, I reminded you that over the last 20 years, the liberal democracies which went authoritarian were not two party systems. Given this evidence, why can't one properly infer that multiparty systems pose at least an equal, if not greater, threat than two party? Why can't some 3rd or 4th party become that nasty core which draws authoritarians in numbers and concentrates their power, and augments or even doubles it by aligning with the nearest right wing party?

You describe these two U.S. parties as mirror images of each other, sharing power in cycles by equally bad means. You admit that one side is worse, but don't seem to see any essential differences between the party easily turned from democracy by a grifting dear leader, and the one which won't countenance that.

This seems to me an excessively "structural" description, which maintains its validity by staying away from history and from the issues of substance which animate voters on each side. In short, idealist, not materialist. And as a result, the structures just seem to be driving themselves, turning in cycles to arrive at the same point, regardless of the myriad forces at work on nation, state and voters at any given moment. Were that the case, we'd still have slavery and women would not be able to vote, nor gays to marry.

So my primary objection is that the two-party hypothesis, as you have framed it, misses the real causes of current division, rendering them insoluble.

(03-01-2023, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: In the end, money is the main power and pretty much all influential politicians are either big money themselves or officially bribed. It's tough to call that system a democracy really. It's rather depressing. If you do not align with one of the two parties, you might as well not care at all. Unless there's a smaller evil to be chosen, so that democrats can celebrate a big win and see proof that their ideas and slogans are popular because Biden narrowly beat Trump and they lost less votes in the midterms than usual. Great stuff.

Money is the "main power" everywhere--be the system liberal democratic, theocratic, or Stalinist. I disagree that all influential politicians are "either big money themselves or officially bribed." E.g., I don't think Warren or Sanders were, and I might extend that to some serving Republicans as well, had they not been voted out of office for standing on principle against oligarchic grift. At the moment, liberal democracies seem to be the best way of containing that money power. When they break down, that is more on the education system than any other sector. Democracies do require a critical mass of citizens who honor the concept of public good and the checking and balancing of power, and understand something of the social contract which defines their relationship/responsibility to each other (and before any government is set, if we are following the 17th century precedents). And in the 21st century, students also need a generous dose of critical media literacy and a historically based narrative about how democracies succumb to authoritarian politics, along with learning "there are three branches of government" etc. Developing more viable parties and ranked voting (both of which would be great) will not save us if enough citizens remain uniformed and susceptible to propaganda.

(03-01-2023, 07:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: One last point, giving one option in an election sure would be autocracy, China style. You have two options, very democratic, but it's quite a logical development that especially when the division seekers gain power, there will be the idea to end this back and forth with this domestic enemy and reduce the available choices by one. Better have emperor Trump than demonrats in the house, after all. And the constitutional safeguards against that appear severely flawed. Eg. when Trump says that as president he can do whatever he wants, it seems to me as though he is right. But even if not, it would take a president and his moloch only to conspire with five not so independent people to make it so anyway. Or some corrupted state secretaries or electors. A VP with less integrity than Pence. Or maybe a mob.

Once you dive into the factual record, you cannot help but describe how ONE SIDE of the two party mirror image is quite cracked. That this may be REFLECTED in the other side by some harsh rhetoric does not mean both sides are broken, still less that a two party system caused this division. Biden and the Demonrats, not Trump, are in power precisely because a majority of voters did not want to live in an autocracy.

You are right that our constitutional safeguards are flawed, but this is a problem with every democracy. And with us it is more an education problem than anything else. A growing mass of citizens genuinely do not understand the concept of "safeguards," how they evolved, or why anyone should want them in place when their own side is in power.