The American Two Party system

[hollodero]

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?

Well, for one I would say there isn't nearly enough sample size to reach any conclusion on that. The countries you refer to were young democracies, a generation old, and were never stable to begin with. I have no convincing reason to believe that had they only implemented a two-party system, that development could have been avoided in these countries like Hungary. I rather think CPAC hero Orban would just have pulled the same stunts. Last hungarian election, the other parties formed a coalition and ran as some kind of singular opposition party and still lost.
The other issue is that I don't really know of any other country than the US that employs such a strict, irreplacable two-party system. The closest might be GB, and while not authoritarian they are not exactly on a great path. But the main point to me is this, if one would name the western democracy with the most evident authoritarian tendencies, it would have to be the US and it's not close. When there are election deniers and capitol stormers around, I find it a tough position to claim the two-party system suppresses that exact tendencies. It most clearly did not recently.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?

Well, that sure is possible. I would argue it's somewhat more unlikely, for the nearest conservative party might just not want to align with them, and even if they do and try to tame the tiger, they are not tied to them and could always back out. Unlike in the US, where maybe 20% of devout backers brought Trump the presidency, aided by the conservatives that could not vote any other way. These loyalties that make it unthinkable that any of the US parties could ever fall under 45% total support, no matter what, is imho a strong evidence that the two-party system does not exactly reign in authoritarian - or any other unwanted - tendencies. It's the US that elected a person like Trump, something that could hardly be imagined in Germany or any other western democracy. Where a Trump party would be stuck at 20% and be ostracized like most extreme right-wing parties are.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Yeah well, I did not solely focus on the fact that the republican party is worse, that much is true. I don't think that is the most important issue in this debate. The republican party, the way I see it, is a product of the system, the more extreme product for sure, but there are systematic "bad means" issues that affect both parties and turn both into molochs. Like taking in money from big donors and being beholden to them, the partisan role most media organizations find themselves in, and so on and so forth. I know you see that differently and usually seem to imply that pointing to the republican party and identifying them as the main culprits is the apparent conclusion (and else you denounce "bothsidesism" or something like that), but I feel that is a too partisan viewpoint.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Sure, I see the status quo. I did not claim that a two-party system makes progress impossible.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Nope, not going there. I'm not willing to claim it's just republicans that are the real cause.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Money is the "main power" everywhere--be the system liberal democratic, theocratic, or Stalinist.

Sure. I did not demand to get money completely out of politics, or the media or whatever, for of course in a capitalist society that would be an illusion and I am not advocating a revolution. But there's still varying degrees of money taking influence, and it could be reigned in. The US system does precious little to reign it in and imho it's just gotten out of hand.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Bernie is the one and only exception, and he's quite an outsider that does not fit neatly into the party moloch system. But there is no one else. Warren, the quickest of google searches show that she takes plenty of billionaire money. I'm not scolding her, I blame the game and not the player. But it is what it is, and what it is is a system where the most important talent of a politician is raising money from big donors and relentlessly making phone calls to that end, and possibly barring Sanders they all do it. Which, again, is something no politicians in other countries have to do to such an exorbitant extent.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Sure, from a partisan lens one could always just leave it at that. Eg. Gerrymandering, yet another symptom of a sick system, can of course always be blamed solely on the bad republicans, they do it more often after all. And if democrats do it too, it's just because they have to and it's still the republican's fault. But I think that is just too convenient. The main issue for me would be that gerrymandering is possible in the first place, not so much which party does it more.

(03-07-2023, 09:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Biden and the Demonrats, not Trump, are in power precisely because a majority of voters did not want to live in an autocracy.

Yeah well, the results of your last presidential elections were real close both times. 44.000 votes in relevant swing states decided the last one for Biden - while Trump increased his vote total - not exactly what I would consider a resounding refusal of authoritarianism. And if Trump is the candidate again in 2024 after four years of a democratic presidency, it will probably be yet another coin flip. And if he wins, which again imho is far from impossible, then where does your argument go.