The problem is that we have a three party system masquerading as a two party system.

[hedgehog]

Republicans are generally conservative, Democrats generally progressive. then there are Republicans who are more liberal than the true believers and Democrats who vote with the Republicans. They call themselves Blue Dogs, but I think they should be called yellow stripers. (A reference to Jim Hightower:"There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos".)

Nothing is worse than finally getting a Democrat elected in your district than to see him go down to Albany or DC and vote with the Republicans!

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. It's never not been that way.

At any given time we have in the US four or five parties, but only two labels. American politics is coalition politics, but then all politics is coalition politics. This country is just backwards from Europe. In Europe you fight the election, then form the coalition. Here you form the coalition, then fight the election.

Any coalition large enough to govern will have at least one fault line along which it will split. And all coalitions can be split.

A generation or two ago, you had an informal alliance between the remains of the Southern Democrats and the GOP, over the war in Vietnam and civil rights that kept a paper Democratic majority from doing all it wanted to, or could have.

A generation or two before that you had an informal alliance between Bull Moose goo-goo reformist Republicans and populist Democrats that kept the McKinley Republicans from doing all their majorities seemed to entitle them to do.

Fracturing a ruling coalition doesn't move legislation, but it can stop legislation quite easily.

In six months, Obama won't be able to do anything, because a righto-leftist Congressional alliance of convenience, unable to agree on anything to do, will be able to agree on what to stop.

You saw the bloc begin to emerge on the supplemental budget vote. You saw it start to emerge on ACES, where Kucinich and DeFazio voted with Boehner. ACES passed by one (1) vote. The next big 'Democratic' bill, health care, may not pass at all -- thanks to Democrats.

[enlightenment]

2. Excellent reply.

Thank you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Blades, huh? Brighton-Hove Albion fan here. Up the 'Gulls!...

...and see you in the Championship in '10-11

[enlightenment]

11. Good fortune to you!

You all were solid mid-table last season, yes? And a new stadium coming soon?

Sounds like you're moving in the right direction!

[Uzybone]

3. great reply

do nothing politics appears to be rearing it ugly head again in the Congress.

[Romulox]

9. The problem being, there no basis to assume all coalitions should form around one of two parties

The system is rigged to preclude participation by all but the established parties; that all coalitions must coalesce around one of two parties is not the result of some peculiarity in the American electorate.

[PVnRT]

13. Good, thoughtful reply

A very interesting observation regarding American vs. European politics.

[Orsino]

4. It's a one-party system...

...and will remain so as long as we allow the same corporate money to buy our "representatives" from both sides of the aisle.

Get the goddamned coporate money our of our politics, and then we'll see how many parties we can have.

[Echo In Light]

18. And it's in place to prevent genuine democratic interference

[DireStrike]

5. That sounds like either a four party system or a one-and-a-half party system

I don't see how it works out to three.

But anyway it's a one party system.

[misanthrope]

6. I beg to differ...

...If you use the industrialized world as a measuring stick, then you can shift all that rightward.

American Republicans would be fringe conservatives on the far right. Blue Dog Dems would be a sliver between the GOP and most Dems, which on that larger scale are pretty middle of the road. True progressives are few and far between and given a modicum of the credence and legitimacy that radical conservatism enjoys.

This nation is tilted so badly to the right, people here have lost their perspective. Just look at the discrepancy in the tolerance exhibited toward laissez-faire capitalists and that given to socialists. The former is gingerly discussed and shown respect while the the latter is flatly demonized.

[nolabels]

12. Yea, one party says torture is necessary and another says we don't know anything about it

The only difference between the two is how much they will admit or acknowledge how well greed serves them.


No need to get angry, it's been this way a long time, it's just now we are getting to see it more unfiltered than ever :shrug:

[Echo In Light]

16. Thanks for that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. George Washington was right in his Farewell Address about political parties.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. Can you think of any strong democracies that don't have political parties?

Washington says it himself in 25: "parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government". In order to have a functioning democracy you need to have an opposition to the government that has a voice. In order for that opposition to have a voice, they must be organized. In order to be organized they need to form a political party. Sure you could call their organization something else but it is still a political party.

Given that voting was restricted to landowning males and that Presidents were chosen by the electoral college (electors weren't directly elected yet in most cases) and Senators chosen by state legislatures at the time, I don't think Washington had the kind of democracy that you or I have in mind when he said that political parties aren't necessary.

But I admit that I haven't extensively read his writings so maybe you know more about what he had in mind than I do.

[Romulox]

10. Both major US Parties are conservative by any objective assessment.

So I find the talk of three parties a bit confusing. I see two parties representing corporate rule at home and foreign aggression abroad. Maybe the two parties disagree on abortion or something.

But they surely see eye to eye on defense spending, and sending money to Wall Street, e.g.

[Umbral]

14. and functioning as a one party system. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. That's not the problem; we have a multiparty system masquerading as a two-party system

The winner-take-all nature of American elections naturally leads to a two-party system. This in turn leads to the two major parties becoming not clearly defined and ideologically coherent parties, but coalitions of diverse interests (Christianists and 'small-government' libertarians, etc for the R's; a spectrum from democratic socialists to social-conservative economic liberals, for the D's).

[The2ndWheel]

17. Wouldn't things be easier with a universal party?

Brings costs down(how much money is wasted on political attack ads?), resources are pooled, everyone would be enfranchised, etc, etc. It would be far more efficient.

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. Why *isn't* there just one party...

..or why are there always at least two?

As usual, there's an old Jewish story....Basically the Yiddish version of Federalist 10:

Sooo....it's the 1680's -- Robinson Crusoe era -- and explorers come upon a marooned sailor on a desert island. It's clear he was there for years, and as he went around showing them his hut, his food store, his signal tower, his latrine, his rescuers marveled at how resourceful he was, how much he had built, and complimented him. The castaway said "So nu? It's not like I didn't have a lot of time."

Finally they came to two identical small buildings, both with the Magen David over the door. They asked the castaway, "What's that building?" He proudly answered "That's my shul!" They asked him "But what's the other building? Why did you build two?" He spat and said, "Feh! That's the other shul, the I one wouldn't be caught dead in!"

Moral: People like factions. Unanimity is impossible, even on a desert island.

[cbdo2007]

21. Where I think you're wrong is in assuming the "Conservatives" or the "Progressives" are dominant

within their groups.

I would put the % of "Conservatives" at 20% and the % of "Progressives" at about 20% and the other 60% of the country is really in the middle and up for grabs. That's why the elections go back and forth and why you'll get the same people who voted for Regan, voting for Obama for different reasons, and many of the same people voted for Clinton as did for Bush and etc.

That's why we'll never have socialism in the U.S. is because most people don't want it. The closer we lean toward it, the more voters are going to switch back to the other side. Then, as that group becomes more overrun with the liar, fundamentalist christians, it will come back to the left, and so on.