It used to lead to civil war, although these days both communism and fascism have been tossed on the ash heap of history. Mostly the conflict is political between softer versions of the two; i.e., multiculturalism vs. ethnic nationalism.
I agree with you that communism is in the dustbin of history, but I’m not so sure about fascism. At the very least Trump is searching the wastebasket and has a brush ready to dust it off. As far as what will happen, I see two main options.
The first is that we will continue on our current path of both parties alternating control of government every several years. The way I see it this era started with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and we’re still moving right along that path.
The second is that one party or the other will achieve a victory lasting more than two presidential election cycles or managing to reach a solid majority of five justices on the SCOTUS (FWIW I think the Republicans only have three at this time, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas). At that point the other side will have to give up some of it’s core principles to become more like the other side. In my view the last time that happened, not coincidentally, was also when Clinton won in 1992. Unfortunately the Republicans reacted to the victory of having forced the Democrats to become more moderate by moving further to the right themselves in 1994.
…and Gore losing in 2000 thus prevented us from finding out (if he wins again in '04 and Obama comes along in '08) what the GOP would have done if the Dems had ended up occupying the WH for 24 years.
The polarization is window dressing for a plutocratic government. At some point, the majority of Americans may come to realize that they are being pointlessly fucked over for the benefit of a few, at which point there will be a Robespierre-like event, but the broader misery index will have to be much higher than we have seen even 80 years ago.
If it seems like you are going in circles, it might be wise to cut back on the revolutions – sadly, that is a very hard, verging on impossible, lesson to learn.
It’s almost impossible for a party to hold on to the White House for longer than 16 years in a row. Even Bush Sr. went from having 92% approval ratings to losing his bid for reelection.
If Gore wins two presidential elections, Obama probably would lose in 2008 - even to old boring McCain.
Roberts cast a vote supporting the critical component of the PPACA, so, though he tends to land on the right, he is also nominally flexible on some questions.
Roberts and Kennedy are conservative, but if push came to shove, I have faith that they would put the interests of the country over the interests of Trump and the Republican party. I think Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, on the other hand, would twist the constitution in whatever way the could come up with to help Trump and the Republican agenda, even if it goes against what would be best for the country. My guess is, for example, if a case involving Trump made it to the SCOTUS, that those three would rule in favor of Trump no matter what the issue was. I don’t think that Roberts and Kennedy would be automatic votes in the same way.
I think that’s just the way it seems to us because it happened that way. Had Gore won in 2000 and 2004, I think the Republicans would have been forced to move to the left, if for now other reason that by 2008 the SCOTUS would have been 6-3 or 7-2 (depending on how Kennedy was feeling that day) in favor of a liberal lean. Had such a thing happened, I think even the intransigents in the GOP would have moved to the left, similar to how the Democrats moderated after the shellackings in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Sure, the GOP might have won in 2008 under such a scenario, but it wouldn’t be the GOP of Trump, or even the GOP of Bush Jr., it would probably be more like the GOP of Lincoln Chafee back when he was still a Republican.
The terms “left” and “right” are ill-defined; but, however defined, many schisms don’t fit a left/right model. For example, anyone who thinks Thailand’s civil problems fit a left/right socio-economic schism has bought into extremely confused U.S. reporting.
Moderate/extreme_right is a better description of U.S. polarization than left/right but, after reading this article, perhaps you’ll agree with me that befuddled/batshit_insane better describes the U.S. dichotomy.
I agree that the Democratic party is not left wing compared to current liberal parties in the countries of western Europe. Each party certainly has changed over time, however, moving right or left. I was still a kid in the 80s, but the way I remember it is thay 1984 Walter Mondale and 1988 Michael Dukakis we’re perceived as more liberal than 1992 era Bill Clinton. Looking back at the Republicans, I think it’s also fair to say that in a sense Reagan was more conservative than Nixon, with the latter having founded the EPA and opening up trade with China, which are now liberal positions.
I maintain that what led to both parties moving rightward as the 80s went on was the Republicans succcess during that time period. Sure, Clinton won in 1992, but in order to win he had to run as a more moderate Democrat. Had Dukakis been nominated again in 1992 and rerun the same campaign he did in 1988, I doubt he would have won. I think similarly had Gore won in 2000 the Republicans would have had to move to the left to regain relevance.
My apologies for double posting, but I want to explain what I think is the underlying dynamic that led to this situation. I think that there is a group of voters in the middle that want to “just see some results”, and when they see a Democratic administration fail to produce they vote Republican, but then when they see a Republican administration fail to produce results they change their minds and vote Democrat. What those voters fail to realize is that until the president has over 60 votes in the senate and a majority in the house of the same party for at least a few years things just won’t make any significant advances in one direction or the other.
Well they are also of mixed mind when it comes to wanting “change”, and I am not here talking about what change but change at all. They want it and are afraid of it. In general the voting population will vote for brakes on the ability of one or the other party to implement change. They don’t want gridlock but they do want the parties to police each other. A president who appears to actually be changing things, such as Obama with the ACA, and no question Trump by the mere chaos he incites, seems more likely to get a midterm reining in towards divided government.
Anyway, not sure how left/right polarized we are, at least in comparison to times past. It’s more aligned with party and geography maybe, and the megaphones are louder, but we’ve pretty much always had a wide spread and still have many of less loud voice of divided thoughts depending on the exact issue at hand. (Hence the fracture lines within each party.)