They are clearly out of vogue, ebbing in their power and reach. I have been saying in various threads here that this is not a good thing. Now I’ve come across a very well articulated explanation, from the NYT’s David Brooks on his weekly PBS Newshour segment, for why it is so important that they be something more than a biannual ad hoc meeting ground of candidates and voters:
He was speaking there specifically about Drumpf, but the larger point applies just as well to Bernie Sanders, who has not really joined the Democratic Party, who isn’t raising money for the party or its downballot candidates, and many of whose followers (as we’ve seen right here on this board) disavow the party.
If they’re a good thing then there should be more of them, each more attuned to those they attract. America — like most places — is wedded to the Two Party System:
*How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la !
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative !
Fal, lal, la ! *
and shoehorns everyone into one of two choices.
If forced to join in coalitions of those parties representing different societal groups, that might please the voters who selected them and not leave millions who were duped feeling disillusioned and betrayed. The usual objection is that this doesn’t give strong, purposeful government: however, you already don’t have strong, purposeful government.
Sanders’ lot are somewhat to blame for joining the Democrats, when the Democrats will have no interest whatsoever in actually achieving those things such people want ; however the Democrats are far more to blame for * expecting* the votes of people they will not deliver to. Whether they cannot, or prefer contrary policies.
Honesty would demand that the Democrats say: "We don’t want your votes: go elect someone else."
And of course for the Republicans to do the same to those whose demands they will never choose to meet.
I couldn’t disagree more. In Canada, where my mother and sister live and are dual citizens, they have three leftish parties: the Liberals, NDP, and Greens. They used to have more than one right wing party, but they merged to form just one Conservative Party. The result was that in 2011, the widely disliked Prime Minister Stephen Harper was able to win reelection, his party controlling 54% of the seats in Parliament despite getting less than 40% of the popular vote.
Much better to combine forces and compromise rather than splinter into myriad boutique factions.
People seem to hate the idea of two large parties, but there have been times when they’ve functioned reasonably well.
The problem isn’t parties; it’s people. There’s too much ignorance in American society. Ignorance in the news media, ignorance in our education system, ignorance among civic leaders, and ignorance among voters. Ignorance about climate change. Ignorance about economics. Ignorance about history and geography. Ignorance about our political system. I won’t say I’m the most informed person on the planet, but I know the basics at least. But increasingly, you can’t even have intelligent conversations with people about political issues. What used to be intelligent back-and-forth on PBS has been replaced with a generation of Crossfire, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, and now the most recent stage of our devolution, Twitter storms from Trump.
We don’t need to reinvent the political system. We just need people who can push back against stupidity. I hope that Bernie 2.0 will be a guy who not only attacks Wall Street, but someone who finally stands up and challenges Christianity and its place in American politics. Because it has no place. Religion has no place in politics, and frankly, it really shouldn’t have much place in society. But it does because people are afraid of the religious.
I think there has been an arrogant assumption that America can afford to be ignorant, as long as it just finds ways to keep making money. I guess our ignorance isn’t a problem…until it becomes a problem. But by then it’s too late.
Fyi, the Canadian Liberals are basically oppurtunistic centrists and the Greens are mostly a non-entity. People who talk about “unite the left” in Canada are generally people who don’t know anything about it.
Everything you’ve said about hurray for political parties is so blatantly self serving I don’t think I’ll bother getting into discussing individual points.
You are a highly partisan Democrat who wants a nice safe leader. I mean look at the discussion so far
You: political parties are great. They weed out the fringy guy I don’t like.
Claverhouse: those fringe guys should have their own party
You: no because then we might lose.
(Paraphrased of course)
So really this thread is about praising the two party system
The smart political play is nearly always not to try to get your dream candidate elected, but to prevent your nightmare candidate from being elected. Having multiple parties oppose your nightmare candidate works at cross-purposes to that goal.
That smart political play was why the communists voted alongside the nazis during Wretched Weimar.
In any case, that also is why millions of ordinary Americans will be voting Cruz or Trump: anything to keep out Hillary.
I read somewhere that strong two-party systems are effective as long as the two parties negotiate well and compromise as necessary.
When the candidates were chosen via the legendary “smoke filled rooms”, the PTB tended to choose candidates who could be effective in that environment of compromise. (I’m making an assumption with this statement because I am not a very well informed on political history.)
But now, with the relatively ignorant and selfish public choosing the candidates, we’ve seen the ever widening gap between the two parties get to the point where compromise is strictly forbidden. Hence, our ineffective government, and the appeal of someone like Trump to those who are fed up with our ineffective government.
With the movement to the extremes and the potential for viable third and fourth parties to emerge in the middle (or further out?), will our government evolve to more of a parliamentary system that requires compromise and cooperation between factions to function?
Not if you want a “Bernie 2.0” who stands up to Christianity. Talk about splitting up the Democratic Party. Yikes!
I do think that the US needs more parties, but the issue is that both parties want the other one to go first. The Democrats are fine if the 3rd party are the Libertarians or Right-Wing Populists, and the Republicans are find if the 3rd party are the Greens or Socialists. It’s almost like mutually assured destruction at this point.
Personally, I’ve always enjoyed Brooks’s writing. Definitely far more than Salon. And there does appear to be some evidence that President Obama is a fan as well. Regardless, that entire line of thought is, of course, the definition of ad hominem.
During most of the 20th century, moderates from both the left and the right felt welcome in either Party. Yes, the hard left favored the Demos, and the hard right the GOP, but both parties were big tent parties, with mostly moderates. Policy differences between the parties were often small things, at the margins.
But now, only the moderate left is welcome in the Democrats, and only the hard right in the GOP. Those in the moderate right, or in the hard left, have nowhere to go. This polarization is caused by echo chambers and the ignorance it fosters. We want the two Parties to function as big-tent parties again. But how can we achieve that? Enlightened journalists still exist — but it’s sensationalism and invective that get the eyeballs and clicks.
