Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The case for third party alternatives in the US

loquitur · 12-22-2006, 06:46 AM

No, I wasn't contending that more political parties means more control. I thought I was making two distinct, though somewhat related, points: one, that multiple-political-party systems have serious drawbacks (one of which, but far from the only one, is that it requires coalition bargaining that in many cases is just legalized corruption, trading votes of tiny parties whose votes are needed in return for sinecures and pet projects that make no sense as a matter of sound policy); and the second point, which is that governmental corruption is less of a problem when you have small government with tightly defined roles and plenty of accountability, because there are fewer opportunities and it's easier to get caught. The latter point is true no matter how many parties there are (though if there are fewer goodies to give out there are likely to be fewer factions/parties competing for them).

In terms of the two parties being flexible, there are two things I think you're overlooking: (1) you have to step back a second and look at how different the parties look now. As I said up in #11: "Compare the Democratic Party of today to the populist/segregationist-laden monstrosity it was 40 years ago. Or the Republican Party of today to the elite-industrialist-driven monstrosity it was 40 years ago." (That actually should be 50 years ago, pre-Goldwater). The GOP of today is, so far as I can tell, undergoing tremendous upheaval. I don't remember where I posted this, but if you look at who tops the GOP preference polls for 2008, it's Rudy Giuliani: twice divorced, dallied publicly with his girlfriend while still married, and when his wife tossed him out, he moved in with his friends who are a gay couple. He's pro-choice, pro-gun regulation -- and yet he gets great numbers from the GOP base. You're looking at a very small, compressed time frame in your critique, and your perspective seems to come from critiques of the Bush admin -- historically that's a blip, and it assumes a lockstep party behind Bush, which there isn't. (I understand your comment about fascism as rhetorical, because it makes no sense as a historical/factual matter.) GWBush and Reagan (who is the GOP hero of the 20th century) are about as different as can be, and they are only 20 years apart. To my eyes it looks like the GOP is going to be more centrist going forward - though I have been wrong before (back in 2000 I thought Bush and Gore were both centrists. As I said, I was wrong before).

The Dem party has historically been an unusually raucous coalition that has evolved tremendously too. Chuck Schumer (my senior senator) is a very talented and insightful guy, who was in charge of recruiting Senate candidates. He understood that the Dems can retake the Senate only if they put up candidates who don't scare people by being screaming lefties - which is how you end up with James Webb as a successful Democratic candidate (and he was helped along by George Allen taking his own foot and shoving it down his throat, then chewing), and ditto for pro-life Casey in PA. In the last few decades the Dem party has been torn between the populist wing and the lefty wing, which is still is. At least it seems to have rooted out the racists. So point #1 is that over time the parties have evolved dramatically. FDR's Dem party was very different from Bill Clinton's. Eisenhower's GOP was very diff from GWBush's.

(2) Even in the shorter term, what has happened is that the parties adapt. They are living organisms that have a mission - to win elections - and they do what they can to achieve that mission. When they aren't good at it they change. They co-opt the useful rhetoric, they jettison old baggage. Ken Mehlman spent a lot of time trying to expand Repub influence among blacks. Howard Dean in 2004 was talking about getting votes from guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks. People are adaptable, and so are organizations of people.

Fundamentally, the US is a very centrist country. People generally aren't comfortable with ideologues or pie-in-the-sky. If whoever is in control moves too far off the center they get disciplined. Terry Schiavo may have been responsible for the switch of Congress in 2006, just as Hillary's health care plan was in 1994.

12-22-2006, 06:46 AM	#18 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	No, I wasn't contending that more political parties means more control. I thought I was making two distinct, though somewhat related, points: one, that multiple-political-party systems have serious drawbacks (one of which, but far from the only one, is that it requires coalition bargaining that in many cases is just legalized corruption, trading votes of tiny parties whose votes are needed in return for sinecures and pet projects that make no sense as a matter of sound policy); and the second point, which is that governmental corruption is less of a problem when you have small government with tightly defined roles and plenty of accountability, because there are fewer opportunities and it's easier to get caught. The latter point is true no matter how many parties there are (though if there are fewer goodies to give out there are likely to be fewer factions/parties competing for them). In terms of the two parties being flexible, there are two things I think you're overlooking: (1) you have to step back a second and look at how different the parties look now. As I said up in #11: "Compare the Democratic Party of today to the populist/segregationist-laden monstrosity it was 40 years ago. Or the Republican Party of today to the elite-industrialist-driven monstrosity it was 40 years ago." (That actually should be 50 years ago, pre-Goldwater). The GOP of today is, so far as I can tell, undergoing tremendous upheaval. I don't remember where I posted this, but if you look at who tops the GOP preference polls for 2008, it's Rudy Giuliani: twice divorced, dallied publicly with his girlfriend while still married, and when his wife tossed him out, he moved in with his friends who are a gay couple. He's pro-choice, pro-gun regulation -- and yet he gets great numbers from the GOP base. You're looking at a very small, compressed time frame in your critique, and your perspective seems to come from critiques of the Bush admin -- historically that's a blip, and it assumes a lockstep party behind Bush, which there isn't. (I understand your comment about fascism as rhetorical, because it makes no sense as a historical/factual matter.) GWBush and Reagan (who is the GOP hero of the 20th century) are about as different as can be, and they are only 20 years apart. To my eyes it looks like the GOP is going to be more centrist going forward - though I have been wrong before (back in 2000 I thought Bush and Gore were both centrists. As I said, I was wrong before). The Dem party has historically been an unusually raucous coalition that has evolved tremendously too. Chuck Schumer (my senior senator) is a very talented and insightful guy, who was in charge of recruiting Senate candidates. He understood that the Dems can retake the Senate only if they put up candidates who don't scare people by being screaming lefties - which is how you end up with James Webb as a successful Democratic candidate (and he was helped along by George Allen taking his own foot and shoving it down his throat, then chewing), and ditto for pro-life Casey in PA. In the last few decades the Dem party has been torn between the populist wing and the lefty wing, which is still is. At least it seems to have rooted out the racists. So point #1 is that over time the parties have evolved dramatically. FDR's Dem party was very different from Bill Clinton's. Eisenhower's GOP was very diff from GWBush's. (2) Even in the shorter term, what has happened is that the parties adapt. They are living organisms that have a mission - to win elections - and they do what they can to achieve that mission. When they aren't good at it they change. They co-opt the useful rhetoric, they jettison old baggage. Ken Mehlman spent a lot of time trying to expand Repub influence among blacks. Howard Dean in 2004 was talking about getting votes from guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks. People are adaptable, and so are organizations of people. Fundamentally, the US is a very centrist country. People generally aren't comfortable with ideologues or pie-in-the-sky. If whoever is in control moves too far off the center they get disciplined. Terry Schiavo may have been responsible for the switch of Congress in 2006, just as Hillary's health care plan was in 1994.