The American Two Party system

[Dill]

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think one of the things that needs to be considered in this discussion, though, is that our parties do not operate the same way European countries do. In Europe, a politician's positions are much more in step with their party. The way it has been here for the 20th century the political party's sole purpose was to win elections. That's it. In the 19th century it was more about single-issue topics. Parties coalesced over one issue and they were very ad-hoc. In the 20th they became these behemoths that just bankrolled candidates who were not at all beholden to the platform of their party. It evolved into a system where the platform doesn't matter at all, it's all about gaining power. This is evidenced by the GOP not even adopting a platform in 2020 at their meeting and McConnell saying as much: they only care about winning. Then, when they are in office, the lobbyists are writing the legislation.

Couple notes for the Bels too--

First bolded--good point and support.

Second--not with you there. All parties are always about gaining power. They can accomplish nothing if they don't. And without 
a platform, there can be no party-wide desire for power, though individual McCarthy types (Joe and Kevin) may go after power
regardless of principle/platform. So I don't think any party in a democracy where parties compete for votes for power can
really be just all about power.

It is essential to note though that they don't all do it in the same way or to the same degree--
because platforms do matter. Always did, always will--at least to most voters. The separation you speak of though, effected by
lobbyists, etc., may be less a problem now than it was in 1890 or 1925. I don't see some systemic evolution here, but 
a concerted effort by the right regain power lost in the '60s and '70s; if there are wobbly cycles here which aren't quite repetitions of 
the same, then what's happening now has disturbing affinities with reconstruction and the '30s, when the U.S. right coalesced to 
oppose then dominant liberal politics. They won the former, and might have won the latter had not WWII forced the U.S. to come 
down on the anti-fascist side. 

As with Hollo, your primary evidence seems restricted to the behavior of one side. A GOP without a platform is not evidence this is 
a problem for "both sides." 

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There has been a brain drain in Washington. 40-50 years ago, the halls of Congress were filled with staffers that were subject matter experts working on legislation for elected officials. They knew their topics and would hammer out details, advising their bosses on the issues. However, we have seen a continual decline of staffers of DC and officials sending more staffers to their district and state offices to work on constituent services. This sounds great, right!? They are listening to their people more, right!? Nope. What is happening is that the lack of subject matter experts on staff created a vacuum filled by lobbyists for special interests. Industries are writing the legislation intended to be oversight for their own industry. CRS reports go unread or misunderstood.

Tl;dr: Our system is broken and there are a lot of things beyond just the two-party system that needs fixing.

I thought this insightful. Though I would argue that, at least with respect to China, Biden has drawn real subject matter experts into his circle of advisors--best in the Anglophone world, I'd say.  I hope he listens to them. 

The sad trend you describe is not clearly a consequence of the two-party system, that I can see (that point aimed at the author of this thread!).