The American Two Party system

[hollodero]

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 

Yes, that is true. I do not have conclusive evidence. I see a system I deem unhealthy on many fronts and laid out what these signs of unhealthyness are to me and what that leads me to believe, that is indeed all I have. If the great rebuttal is the lack of proof, then yeah I could shut up, but we also probably best turn off this whole board, because it's always mostly speculation and thoughts and interpretations. No one has conclusive evidence how the Bengals will perform next year or if a draft prospect will develop nicely and so on. There's certain indicators that's all.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Well you asked me, in bold font, quote "given this evidence, why can't one properly infer that multiparty systems pose at least an equal, if not greater, threat than two party?" It was you that claimed to have actual evidence leading to a certain conclusion. I never did. I just have a take that's all.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 

To me it is more than just a hunch. It's not like I did not lay out several reasons (not undisputable evidence, sure) that make me think that way. Seems like you claim I am not entitled to debate any of that.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Saying the the U.S. is the most authoritarian liberal democracy right now could be right, but it has not yet become Hungary, right?

Nope, and I hope it never does, even though that would give me evidence. It is a sad fact that it's usually too late then. Let me throw in an inappropriate Hitler comparison for once, folks that warned of Hitler's rise could very well have been told "oh you have no proof" and "there's no example of someone like Hitler actually taking over a democratic country" as well, and this lack of hard evidence could have been brought up just until the end.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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. 

Oh I agree, just saying "it's the two party system" is not a wholesome analysis. But neither is "oh it's the right wing", whích seems to be your sole focus.
I claim that the two-party system is a big contributor for the strict ideological rift and the absurd loyalties folks display to their side. The only one, certainly not. I acknowledge fully that the system worked better in former times than it does now, and sure that has to do with social media and with a wave of right-wing extremism and lots of other things. Imho also including the two-party system that gives people only two choices.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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"

I say things like that because imho they are true. I am equally mystified with you having such an enormous problem with that, time and again. If I had said that to make a case for republicans, then ok I understand the response. Or if I said MSNBC is biased and therefore I only watch FOX. But taking exception with someone claiming that MSNBC is biased? Well, they are. And time and again your stance seems to be that saying things like this is some kind of taboo.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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."

I'm not avoiding taking a stance. As American, I would have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, if that is partisan enough for you. But I don't feel the need to then be also completely uncritical of their side and scold everyone who has a different take. Indeed, most of your stance reads like "don't you dare saying anything but good things about the good guys that are the only opposition to republicans" and "if you do so, you employ a false sense of equivalency".

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 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."

Yeah. And I assume that besides other aspects, this development is aided by a two-party system that gives most conservative people no other choice but to begrudgingly go along with that. Others feel inclined to even celebrate it, because there is only one other side and most people - indeed on both sides - have learned that the other side is mentally deranged or evil. Extremes that a more pluralistic political landscape seems to somewhat prohibit. But I can not conclusively prove that, so I might as well just shut up.