The reason for the current division-widening, not your historical thesis, is advertising. The more division, the more clikcks, the more ad revenues, the more "gotcha" attacks, the more advertizing viewers...and on and on...
A distinction in search of a difference. For all of time political parties have been selling something, and they are among the most prolific advertisers. Small wonder that there is little to distinguish between the two major parties and the major media.
This two party polarization argues for the parliamentary system, where a party has to be careful not to alienate another party that might later be needed as a member of a coalition. At least it keeps the rhetoric at a lower decibel level.
I think the two party system argues for a five party system...
And as I mentioned in David's comment, political parties should not be able to exist at all levels of government, federal, state, and local. The EU has no overarching parties with effective control of the entire EU. We're supposed to be like that. Think how much better it would be.
It's wishful thinking, but I'd like to see it be illegal for a political party to exist at all three levels of government, federal, state and local. There's no constitutional reason such a law couldn't exist. Then the states would have the authority that they're supposed to have over the federal government, with no concerns of political parties orchestrating everything.
Are you talking about the Uniparty of fools. Ok. Do you honestly think people are out here arguing about politics democrats against republicans. That went by the wayside with the Teaparty.
I get your point. But there's still two distinct parties. I never suggested that one of them was the good party and one was the bad party. I just pointed out essential differences between the two parties.
Perhaps it's a bad analogy, but in the 1930s, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of the Soviet Union were vying for control of Europe. They were both illegitimate, but they weren't both the same. Then again, they weren't all that different. So, I don't completely disagree with your statement.
Reading thru my posts leaves no doubt that I want BOTH parties GONE. They are the problem, not the solution.
Divide and advertise.
The reason for the current division-widening, not your historical thesis, is advertising. The more division, the more clikcks, the more ad revenues, the more "gotcha" attacks, the more advertizing viewers...and on and on...
A distinction in search of a difference. For all of time political parties have been selling something, and they are among the most prolific advertisers. Small wonder that there is little to distinguish between the two major parties and the major media.
This two party polarization argues for the parliamentary system, where a party has to be careful not to alienate another party that might later be needed as a member of a coalition. At least it keeps the rhetoric at a lower decibel level.
I think the two party system argues for a five party system...
And as I mentioned in David's comment, political parties should not be able to exist at all levels of government, federal, state, and local. The EU has no overarching parties with effective control of the entire EU. We're supposed to be like that. Think how much better it would be.
Nice summary
If political parties were illegal and had one term only it would help a lot
It's wishful thinking, but I'd like to see it be illegal for a political party to exist at all three levels of government, federal, state and local. There's no constitutional reason such a law couldn't exist. Then the states would have the authority that they're supposed to have over the federal government, with no concerns of political parties orchestrating everything.
Very good idea
Are you talking about the Uniparty of fools. Ok. Do you honestly think people are out here arguing about politics democrats against republicans. That went by the wayside with the Teaparty.
There’s no difference. Fools enabling fools
I get your point. But there's still two distinct parties. I never suggested that one of them was the good party and one was the bad party. I just pointed out essential differences between the two parties.
Perhaps it's a bad analogy, but in the 1930s, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of the Soviet Union were vying for control of Europe. They were both illegitimate, but they weren't both the same. Then again, they weren't all that different. So, I don't completely disagree with your statement.
Reading thru my posts leaves no doubt that I want BOTH parties GONE. They are the problem, not the solution.