Future of the American party system?

[pecksniff]

The thing is, each major party is now going through an intra-party war.

The Pubs are divided between the old-guard Republican establishment, more concerned with protecting business interests than anything else, and an insurgency of nationalist right-populists that began with Perot's movement and then morphed into the Tea Party and the Trump movement.

The Dems are divided between the old-guard generally-pro-biz liberals-and-centrists, and an insurgency of left-progressives, many of whom are not afraid to call themselves "socialist" even though few of those really are socialists as distinct from social democrats.

In each case, who is likely to win?

 

[pecksniff]

Third parties are a different discussion . . . there are a great many in existence, right, left and off the map -- good list here -- but most of them are no more than clubs, and none of them can have any future that matters without some deep systemic reforms, such as proportional representation, electoral fusion, and instant-runoff voting -- which are not likely to happen unless the two major parties get behind them, which means signing suicide notes for themselves in their present party formations.

 

[WillJ8787]

The thing is, each major party is now going through an intra-party war.

The Pubs are divided between the old-guard Republican establishment, more concerned with protecting business interests than anything else, and an insurgency of nationalist right-populists that began with Perot's movement and then morphed into the Tea Party and the Trump movement.

The Dems are divided between the old-guard generally-pro-biz liberals-and-centrists, and an insurgency of left-progressives, many of whom are not afraid to call themselves "socialist" even though few of those really are socialists as distinct from social democrats.

In each case, who is likely to win?

If Dems actually show up at the polls they will win hands down every time...the left is going to change more to the left than ever and so long as they don't elect a fucking idiot like the REPUBLICANS did with Dumpty....they should do fine.

 

[Cubantripod]

Third parties are a different discussion . . . there are a great many in existence, right, left and off the map -- good list here -- but most of them are no more than clubs, and none of them can have any future that matters without some deep systemic reforms, such as proportional representation, electoral fusion, and instant-runoff voting -- which are not likely to happen unless the two major parties get behind them, which means signing suicide notes for themselves in their present party formations.

After Ross Perot split the Republican vote in 1992 and 1996 and Nader cost Gore in 2000, the one thing the duopoly can agree on, is making it difficult for 3rd parties to gain traction.

 

[Cubantripod]

The thing is, each major party is now going through an intra-party war.

The Pubs are divided between the old-guard Republican establishment, more concerned with protecting business interests than anything else, and an insurgency of nationalist right-populists that began with Perot's movement and then morphed into the Tea Party and the Trump movement.

The Dems are divided between the old-guard generally-pro-biz liberals-and-centrists, and an insurgency of left-progressives, many of whom are not afraid to call themselves "socialist" even though few of those really are socialists as distinct from social democrats.

In each case, who is likely to win?

One can only hope that they destroy each other so we can actually have real representation intent on fixing America.

 

[CornusKousa]

One can only hope that they destroy each other so we can actually have real representation intent of fixing America.

100%

But I think peck is right about the need for DEEEEEEEEEP...reforms.

The Constitution needs a legitimate overhaul with some solutions that will allow the union enough live and let live to continue being a union in the new modern political/economic/social "eco-system" if you will.

 

[Cubantripod]

100%

But I think peck is right about the need for DEEEEEEEEEP...reforms.

The Constitution needs a legitimate overhaul with some solutions that will allow the union enough live and let live to continue being a union in the new modern political/economic/social "eco-system" if you will.

It's not the Constitution that needs overhaul. We need to kill some of the laws that we've passed and then jumped through mental gymnastics to make the constitution fit. Take the fourth amendment and the war on drugs for example. A cop needs a warrant, but if he has probable cause, exigent circumstances, etc. Too much bullshit.

 

[pecksniff]

One can only hope that they destroy each other so we can actually have real representation intent on fixing America.

If you eliminate the left-progressives, centrist liberals, centrist conservatives, and far-rightists -- who's left to do that?! Is Technocracy (essentially Stalinism without Marxism) going to make a comeback?!

 

[CornusKousa]

It's not the Constitution that needs overhaul.

I totally disagree.

I think there needs to be a number of changes. In a lot of ways to set better boundaries between powers of the branches and levels government for the modern world. I'd like to see better defined and shored up civil rights as well.

A lot of wording and controversy causing phrases really could be fixed and better defined. Not with "what we think the founders were saying" and the 300 million interpretations that go with it, but fix them so that they work better for the modern era...preferably in a freedom/choice oriented manner, because USA not N. Korea.

​We need to kill some of the laws that we've passed and then jumped through mental gymnastics to make the constitution fit. Take the fourth amendment and the war on drugs for example. A cop needs a warrant, but if he has probable cause, exigent circumstances, etc. Too much bullshit.

100...or the PATRIOT act, among many others....The list goes on.

But we have these problems for a reason, it's because the Constitution as it sits is not running as smooth as it could be and this buildup is fucking things up. It needs a tune up....clean it up, put forged internals in it and strap a blower and EMS from 2021 on that 1789 classic.

As stated, the reforms would be deep and widespread, but we could so easily end a lot of bullshit problems and poo flinging bickering with some rather simple changes.

But if we don't adjust our Constitution from what we learned, like when we undid prohibition which was a dumb shit idea, we'll wind back up where we are in 80 years.

 

[pecksniff]

I totally disagree.

I think there needs to be a number of changes. In a lot of ways to set better boundaries between powers of the branches and levels government for the modern world. I'd like to see better defined and shored up civil rights as well.

A lot of wording and controversy causing phrases really could be fixed and better defined. Not with "what we think the founders were saying" and the 300 million interpretations that go with it, but fix them...preferably in a freedom/choice oriented manner, because USA not N. Korea.



100...or the PATRIOT act, among many others....The list goes on.

But we have these problems for a reason, it's because the Constitution as it sits is not running as smooth as it could be and this buildup is fucking things up. It needs a tune up....clean it up, put forged internals in it and strap a blower and EMS from 2021 on that 1789 classic.

As stated, the reforms would be deep and widespread, but we could so easily end a lot of bullshit problems and poo flinging bickering with some rather simple changes.

But if we don't adjust our Constitution from what we learned, like when we undid prohibition which was a dumb shit idea, we'll wind back up where we are in 80 years.

Well, the Constitution ain't that easy to change. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. Even if we somehow amended it so only a 50% vote in a referendum were enough to change it, how many proposals could even get that much support?

 

[CornusKousa]

Well, the Constitution ain't that easy to change. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. Even if we somehow amended it so only a 50% vote in a referendum were enough to change it, how many proposals could even get that much support?

I didn't say it was easy.

But if you present win win solutions where the worst thing anyone has to do is stop being a petty asshole for 2 seconds, people tend to get behind it.

This is where we need a really good leader in the WH and in the parties.

 

[pecksniff]

I didn't say it was easy.

But if you present win win solutions where the worst thing anyone has to do is stop being a petty asshole for 2 seconds, people tend to get behind it.

This is where we need a good leader.

Not that we can't use them, but looking to a "good leader" to solve all our problems is essentially un-American. It's hard to start down that path and not end up with a charismatic dictator.

 

[Cubantripod]

If you eliminate the left-progressives, centrist liberals, centrist conservatives, and far-rightists -- who's left to do that?! Is Technocracy (essentially Stalinism without Marxism) going to make a comeback?!

Centrist liberals and centrist conversations are really independents. The parties are run by the extremes.

 

[Veroe]

I didn't say it was easy.

But if you present win win solutions where the worst thing anyone has to do is stop being a petty asshole for 2 seconds, people tend to get behind it.

This is where we need a really good leader in the WH and in the parties.

Have you not been paying attention? The problem lately is that no one in politics can stop being a petty asshole for more than 2 seconds. The extremism in their own bases completely disincentivizes that even when considering any proposal close to a win win solution.

 

[pecksniff]

Centrist liberals and centrist conversations are really independents. The parties are run by the extremes.

Well, here's a possible solution: We introduce proportional representation, which causes the two-party system to break down, and ultimately sort itself out into a (more or less) three-party system: The Commie Pinko Lefty Hippie Tree-Hugging Pot-Puffing Moonbat Party; and the Pig-Ignorant Troglodyte Bigoted Greedhead Right-Wingnut Party; and the Wishy-Washy Squishy-Spined Centrist Moderate Mugwump Party. (And, those will the the official names.)

In that system, the Mugwumps (formed out of the centrist remnants of the present Dems and Pubs) rule. Because the Wingnuts and the Moonbats can never agree on anything, no bill can ever pass Congress without the Mugwump vote. It would be stabilizing, while allowing everybody across the spectrum to get a fair say in the highest halls of power.

 

[CornusKousa]

Not that we can't use them, but looking to a "good leader" to solve all our problems is essentially un-American. It's hard to start down that path and not end up with a charismatic dictator.

No, a good leader doesn't mean an autocrat.

A good leader is a person who can get people together to accomplish an objective.

Question is is there any desire in DC to accomplish anything OTHER than getting partisan shit on the other tribes shoes?

Have you not been paying attention? The problem lately is that no one in politics can stop being a petty asshole for more than 2 seconds. The extremism in their own bases completely disincentivizes that even when considering any proposal close to a win win solution.

Then we will just going to antagonize each other until we fight like the dumb shit apes we are.

 

[Veroe]

No, a good leader doesn't mean an autocrat.

A good leader is a person who can get people together to accomplish an objective.

Question is is there any desire in DC to accomplish anything OTHER than getting partisan shit on the other tribes shoes?

The problem is even the simplest of things have been made completely partisan. Look at how wearing a mask and following the CDC's guidelines was made entirely a partisan topic during the pandemic for example.

I really don't see how even a good leader can get people together when neither side is willing to accept a compromise with the other side.

And it's not even a difference of degrees its a matter of opposing directives. Case in point: Gun legislation. Democrats want background checks and common sense regulations on the sale and carrying of firearms put in place and republicans want the removal of any regulations on selling and owning and using a gun. The issue for both sides have become catechisms, a part of either side's identity.

Then we will just going to antagonize each other until we fight like the dumb shit apes we are.

That's because we don't try to understand each other anymore, and we automatically assume the worst of each other. Like a democrat raising the issue of background checks on gun sales and republicans automatically jumping to the conclusion that it means federal agents showing up at their door to confiscate the guns they've legally bought and owned for years. A phenomenon helped by the nature of right wing media and the profit driven efforts of a special interest group (the NRA).

We're egged on by our respective medias to regard each other as existential threats to the country. Look at how MSNBC embraced and pushed the Russiagate narrative or how right wing media from people on fox news to idiots posting memes on facebook took a supposition by someone writing an article in a British tabloid that the US may combat climate change by banning red meat consumption and the took that and said Biden is definitely going to ban red meat even though Biden never even suggested that once.

Both sides are unwilling to cut the partisan bullshit and believe without question the strawman arguments of people like the NRA that profit off perpetuating that division.

 

[CornusKousa]

The problem is even the simplest of things have been made completely partisan. Look at how wearing a mask and following the CDC's guidelines was made entirely a partisan topic during the pandemic for example.

I really don't see how even a good leader can get people together when neither side is willing to accept a compromise with the other side.

I think by limiting the 'compromise' to everyone having a big ol' cup of 'live and let live', there could be a chance.

If nobody is interested in getting what they claim they want and is actually truly more interested in just being a control freak antagonist??

Then we get what we voted for and another fight is going to happen...just a matter of time.

That's because we don't try to understand each other anymore, and we automatically assume the worst of each other.

Because the "worst" is the honest truth.

(D)'s want to undermine and degrade 2A until it's effectively gone.

(R)'s do not. "shall not be infringed" as far as 99.9% of them are concerned that's it.

These are irreconcilable differences and the list of them is rather extensive.

So how do we continue as a union?

We're egged on by our respective medias to regard each other as existential threats to the country.

I agree, our media culture is totally toxic.

Both sides are unwilling to cut the partisan bullshit

Better figure out a way to coexist.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

The party system needs more keggers.

 

[Comshaw]

The party system needs more keggers.

"We're not hosting an intergalactic kegger down here." Zed



Comshaw

 

[Veroe]

Because the "worst" is the honest truth.

(D)'s want to undermine and degrade 2A until it's effectively gone.

(R)'s do not. "shall not be infringed" as far as 99.9% of them are concerned that's it.

These are irreconcilable differences and the list of them is rather extensive.

So how do we continue as a union?

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Why does background checks constitute an infringement of the second amendment? Because a special interest group representing gun manufacturers that profit off the unrestricted sale of firearms tells you it does. And you believe it because it fits comfortably into your biased opinion against democrats.

 

[KeithD]

I think both parties will survive as parties. I don't think the union will break up either.

 

[CornusKousa]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Why does background checks constitute an infringement of the second amendment?

It's not the background checks, which we already have.

It's the BANS and registries you guys are after that are the problem.

Because a special interest group representing gun manufacturers that profit off the unrestricted sale of firearms tells you it does. ​And you believe it because it fits comfortably into your biased opinion against democrats.

No, because I'm ideologically in favor of individual liberty and civil rights.

Bias? Are you seriously trying to argue that Democrats aren't anti 2A????

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AbandonedAggravatingBoilweevil-size_restricted.gif

 

[loveupskirt]

Personally, I'd love to see both parties blown up and gone. At the same time so neither has a window of power first. I'd like to see politicians elected solely on their beliefs and accomplishments, not supported by a party that demands the same beliefs from all their members. I honestly respect Manchin because he isn't afraid to step out and do what's right at times. We need more independents and free thinkers who do what's right for Americans instead of their party and financial backers. And more in the middle instead of too far in either direction. A pipe dream, I know......

 

[pecksniff]

Personally, I'd love to see both parties blown up and gone. At the same time so neither has a window of power first. I'd like to see politicians elected solely on their beliefs and accomplishments, not supported by a party that demands the same beliefs from all their members. I honestly respect Manchin because he isn't afraid to step out and do what's right at times. We need more independents and free thinkers who do what's right for Americans instead of their party and financial backers. And more in the middle instead of too far in either direction. A pipe dream, I know......

The matter cannot be so simplified. The early 20th-Century Progressives wanted a nonpartisan, technocratic politics -- one slogan was "there is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street." Which is false. Interest-group politics and even ideology come into it as soon as you have to decide which streets get paved and who will pay for it and how. Many cities do have "nonpartisan" city-council elections, that's part of the Progressives' legacy, but they're not perceptibly better-governed than other cities, and generally everybody knows which nonpartisan candidate is favored by Ds and which by Rs.