The American Two Party system

[Dill]

(03-08-2023, 05:27 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Alignment with "conservative" parties is not only "possible"; it is exactly what happened in every country where fascism succeeded during the interwar years. The first Italian fascists only got .04 percent of the national vote. Then the Nationalist Bloc took them, thinking they could manage them. Same with Hitler and Franco. The rest is 20th century history. And regarding your next door neighbor, it was the even farther right Jobbik which initially gave Fidesz its initial ruling majority, wasn't it? Your argument here seems to be that if MAGA were a 20% party they would be safely isolated there, maybe like the AfD in Germany--making noise but in no danger of ruling. The other 80% would not be "forced" to support their policies. But because of the two party system, all those good folks had no choice but to vote for the misogynist daily sending up authoritarian red flags. 

Back to the interwar examples--the conservative and nationalist parties did sometimes un-align themselves with fascist parties, and in most countries with fascist parties, the fascists were successfully opposed by leftists, liberals, and even other conservatives (e.g. even in France, the country which birthed fascism as political movement).  But the BIG DIFFERENCE in the countries where fascism succeeded was that in EACH CASE the party had strong press organs and journalists which could compete with or shout down the press organs of other parties.

And this brings us to another big difference in our assessment of the dynamic in current U.S. politics. The GOP has become a regime party tacitly obeying a Fuehrerprinzip, a party with its own special and massively influential press organs, tasked with defending its politicians and policies against the national interest with "alternative facts." 

If the U.S. is indeed, as you say, the current liberal democracy farthest down the authoritarian track, it is more because of the this tie between party and news organization than anything else. It's what explains the continued support of Trump in the face of "actual facts" regarding his unfitness for leadership. And just as importantly, it explains why so many "conservatives" and others on the right cannot bring themselves to vote for Democrats who are "destroying the nation" with their health care and infrastructure proposals. That paralysis is a goal, an intended effect; and it's why voters no longer can shift in mass from one party to another, to produce "landslides," as they did between '52 and 2008--in a two-party system.  It's why Democrats aren't just a little less worse with some people who also want their biases confirmed. It's because GOP-Fox is altogether new entity in U.S. politics, not some mirror image of "the left," just a bit louder. It has become a massive machine for illiberal politics, anti-democratic.