The American Two Party system

[Dill]

(03-08-2023, 05:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-American-Two-Party-system?pid=1337236#pid1337236][/url]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.

And yet, with the same "sample size" you are ready to conclude that the two-party system is more conducive to authoritarian outcomes, even though you have no example of that actually resulting in an effective dictatorship, and only ONE of an actually existing two party system. 

And remember that my claim is not that Hungary or Russia or whomever could have avoided an authoritarian turn had they had a two-party system. My claim is only that you have not supplied sufficient evidence of a cause/effect nexus in U.S. politics between the GOP's authoritarian turn and the two party system.  Seems you are presenting a "hunch" and running with that. 

Saying the the U.S. is the most authoritarian liberal democracy right now could be right, but it has not yet become Hungary, right? Not yet an example of fallen democracy, so something was "suppressed" though the fight is still going on. (And we might want to delve into some other teetering democracies like Poland before we decide who is winning the authoritarian derby.)

Your point (ignored by Lenin) about the absence of a liberal civil culture and schooling in the countries that have reverted, like Russia and Hungary, I totally agree with. Without that in place, some form of authoritarian government is likely to return anywhere. Resistance has to come from an informed population. 

You probably agree that understanding whether or why not current U.S. voters may not be up to the task would be very helpful. But just saying "it's the two party system" explains so much less than understanding the incremental process whereby a once fringe and conspiracy-grounded right-wing politics was mainstreamed and captured the White House, and than noticing qualitatively different types of bad behavior.  We get better answers when look to changes in communications technology and the laws regulating them, as well as some unwise exclusions from k-12 and university curricula in favor of vocational training, along with the "fit" of our domestic policies in the context of world political changes, like the fall of the Soviet Union, 9/11 and the recession of 2008.  

We also get better answers if we started clearly defining and identifying authoritarian behavior. E.g., only one sides leaders have INTENTIONALLY misinformed millions to de-legitimate a legitimate election and the press which accurately reported it, resulting in a stormed capital, "voter integrity" laws, and new tactics for disputing and gumming up legitimate elections. Only one side has an effective paramilitary aching to serve a dear leader if millions of voters can return him to power--many of them in jail waiting for the pardon which will come if the dear leader wins.

So I am just mystified as to where the urge comes from to say things like "Well, the Dem side has its biased voters and politicians too" so they share responsibility for this illiberal turn. That seems to totally miss the scale of the problem; a misrecognition of the real problem misrecognized as "avoiding partisanship."