Can real civil discourse and good governance exist in our current 2-party paradigm?

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure the two party system is the problem. The problem is that it's an us versus them scenario. Rich versus poor, haves versus have nots, those in power versus those not in power. We have cleverly over time been pitted against each other, and guess who benefits? The government of the U.S. should exist for the benefit of it's entire populace, and to promote fairness and equality among it's citizens.

We have people so cleverly trained that they argue for those very issues that are harming them such as reduced taxes for the rich or a mediocre minimum wage. We are kept arguing over abortion or systematic racism while hands are reaching into our wallets and removing as much of our income as possible to distribute to the ruling class without us even realizing it.

Every two years we have a chance to use the power of the people to completely change the ruling party, yet we never give them enough time or power to do so because we think we need "checks and balances". This is really all about money, it's the root of every decision and issue that haunts us. Every political motivation behind the scenes is a grab for more money, or more power to try and extract more money.

I personally think the internet is to blame, along with the shift towards more control of the parties by regular voters instead of the old timey smoke filled rooms. Seriously.

I think the internet has not only linked up extreme people to continue to radicalize each other, it's closed people off to dissenting viewpoints and the concept of a shared reality. We then moved away from elites who had a broad shared interest in the maintenance of our system towards a primary system where regular voters would be the dominant force. In theory this sounded good but what happened in practice is that by and large the people who vote in primaries are the hardest of the hard core partisans.

So basically the internet turned a lot of us into crazy people and then the crazy people were put in charge of picking our elected officials.

 

[soundforbjt]

I personally think the internet is to blame, along with the shift towards more control of the parties by regular voters instead of the old timey smoke filled rooms. Seriously.

I think the internet has not only linked up extreme people to continue to radicalize each other, it's closed people off to dissenting viewpoints and the concept of a shared reality. We then moved away from elites who had a broad shared interest in the maintenance of our system towards a primary system where regular voters would be the dominant force. In theory this sounded good but what happened in practice is that by and large the people who vote in primaries are the hardest of the hard core partisans.

So basically the internet turned a lot of us into crazy people and then the crazy people were put in charge of picking our elected officials.

Exactly. The weekend dinners and drinking by Congress is where the real deals were made in the saner times. They didn’t run home every week.

 

[pmv]

I personally think the internet is to blame, along with the shift towards more control of the parties by regular voters instead of the old timey smoke filled rooms. Seriously.

I think the internet has not only linked up extreme people to continue to radicalize each other, it's closed people off to dissenting viewpoints and the concept of a shared reality. We then moved away from elites who had a broad shared interest in the maintenance of our system towards a primary system where regular voters would be the dominant force. In theory this sounded good but what happened in practice is that by and large the people who vote in primaries are the hardest of the hard core partisans.

So basically the internet turned a lot of us into crazy people and then the crazy people were put in charge of picking our elected officials.

Something that's interesting about that theory is that it seems analogous with the idea I've come across that nationalism is a product of democracy. You got the rise of pathological nationalism when nations started to be defined and run by 'the people' rather than aristocratic elites and monarchs, doing deals with their cousins.

 

[pmv]

Personally I am tired of parties. I want each issue to be voted independently anf each representative ia independent. For example, a pro life anti gun person can be elected. Reduce number of electoral districts but keep the number of reps. So say you merge five districts, each voter would get five votes, that gives you flexibilty on supporting multiple candidates. That should weed out most whackjobs. Electoral boundary should not be controlled by whoever is in power. Setup proper data driven comission to deal with electoral map.

EC has got to go, the president and VP should just be elected by popular vote.

I think it's just unrealistic to think you can do away with parties. Every country in the world with democracy (and many without) has seen the development of a party system. It seems to be an unavoidable feature of politics (and maybe some of the problems with the US system stem from the founders misguided idea that you could avoid having such things). The rest of what you say makes sense, though.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'll just copy and paste this again.... a both sides thing:

It literally is not. I'll explain.

Beholden to special interests

Both sides do this, but this is not always a bad thing. What really matters here is what do you mean by a 'special interest'. Many 'special interests' are good for the republic, and are needed to make positive change. If you really want to fix our system, it will have to be done through a 'special interest' group that is for governmental reform. The environmental regulations that made the smog in our cities mostly a thing of the past was the result of special interest groups. The problem here is that you are equating those special interest groups with dark money from the maga-rich whos special interest is robbing the federal and state coffers of every penny and setting up a new aristocracy.

Lack of independent thinking

Yes, this is both sides. Because it is required to win, in any electoral system. Because people are not voting for someone to think independently. They are voting for someone to represent them.

Creating rigged and corrupt policies and election laws that favor them and stifle choice and competition

This goes very strongly in one direction. Democrats tend to do better in elections that have less restrictive policies, so they tend to favor inclusive and liberal policies that invite choice and competition. Sorry, but this one is almost all one sided.

Lack of honesty and integrity

This has nothing to do with 'bothsides' as it has to do with the fact that we vote them in anyway. And take a good look at your politics. Democrats are the ONLY group that is likely to vote someone out for lacking integrity. The GOP practically requires it.
Look what happens when a politician gets caught in a scandal. If they are a Democrat they are likely to resign. If they are a Republican they ride it out and get reelected. This is the reason why near an election you start to head all sorts of minor scandals about democratic candidates, think Hunter's laptop. The GOP knows that democrats are less likely to vote for a candidate that is perceived as lacking integrity, while that hardly hurts GOP candidates at all. Just look at Ted Cruz.

Permanent campaign

Once again this is almost all one sided. Can you name a democrat that has held a campaign rally this year? On the other had Gaetz and Greene are holding rallies across the country right now and I've lost count of how many Trump has had already this year. Biden has not held one since before the election.

Blank check spending

This is not even something. There is no blank check spending, everything is allocated and budgeted. If this is something you are concerned about you really need to be a bit more specific.
While every President since Coolidge has increased the national debt, overall GOP Presidents have spent more then Dem Presidents.

Trump - increased debt by 33%
Obama - increased debt by 73.6%
GWB - increased debt by 101%
Clinton - increased debt by 31.6%
GHWB - increased debt by 54.3%
Reagan - increased debt by 186.3%

So, while this might be a bothsides thing, it is certainly not equal. And it is a question if this is even a issue or not. So far it has never been a real problem.

Intrusive/oppressive laws

This means nothing. All laws are intrusive or oppressive to someone. You might as well have put 'doing stuff I don't like' here.
I'm going to stop here, because the rest is all like this, nothing you can really look at with any scrutiny because you are being so vague that it comes down to yelling at clouds.
In fact almost all of this is half baked concepts that are intended to sound like you know something with out having to actually say anything.

What this message really tells me is that you have not really put any thought into this, you are just spouting something you think sounds smart without actually taking the time to question you beliefs.
This is the real problem with our politics. Too many people accept some concept that they vaguely think is true without ever questioning it. Do the work. Question the premise. Follow the conclusions.
There are no easy answers. The truth is one of the main reasons our politics is so divertive today because we have long ago solved the easy problems. All that is left is the hard problems for which the seemingly obvious answers are the wrong ones.

 

[Meghan54]

No, they don't. Not everyone, not all of it, and nowhere near equally.

And you still provide no documented examples, just your own generalized statements, based on feelings (whether there's any truth or not). Just because you say something and repeat it, doesn't automatically make it so or the statement true.

You can pretend to be some hyper-independent, non-partisan, politically enlightened intellectual if you want. You might even fool high-schoolers or s0meIdi0ts, but most of us can think critically here, and you're an easy read.

You want to point out how broken our two-party system is and has been, but you want to place blame equally on all sides, and that just isn't logical or rational, and so neither are you.

The whole OP and further posts by the OP come off as just scripted...I've seen it regurgitated before on here. Utterly predictable. And unoriginal. And just ambiguous enough you can't and never will pin him down on anything specific. How many times have we seen that gambit?

And for the cherry.....the "What say you?" ending. Just a stereotype of a stereotype. Sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Something that's interesting about that theory is that it seems analogous with the idea I've come across that nationalism is a product of democracy. You got the rise of pathological nationalism when nations started to be defined and run by 'the people' rather than aristocratic elites and monarchs, doing deals with their cousins.

That's an interesting idea. I haven't read anything about the origins of nationalism but at least intuitively it makes sense where before when you were fighting for the king it was in many ways transactional as opposed to a calling for the defense of country.

 

[cwjerome]

Excellent posts, here is what I've learned so far:
1) Hateful strangers know me better than I know myself
2) This incestuous echo chamber is petty and tribal
3) Most of the discussion here confirms my thoughts on why our politics is so toxic and dysfunctional

Smogzinn responded to my points so I owe him a response. I'll be happy to elaborate and clarify what I mean so you actually understand the points. But I'll just throw this out once again... I have never said the parties are equally bad, so you all need to put that straw man away. I said they are both bad and have both heavily contributed to the worsening political landscape. You can dwell on which is worse (and I'll basically agree with you) but in my mind, that's a sideshow. We have structural issues (the two-party apparatus being a major component) that are breaking down society, and today's GOP is more symptom than cause.

 

[kage69]

If you disagree with the tribe, you're presumed guilty until proven innocent. I've stated multiple times that I voted Democrat last 2 election cycles. They immediately ignore that tiny tidbit and resume their tribal monkey tactics - with post after post indicating that I supported Trump.

Welcome to the land of no credibility, clown. Population: you. If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn't have made yourself the poster child of lies and intellectual bankruptcy on this forum.

Still projecting, nothing new with you I guess. I did see your earlier evolution/monkey dig though - nice to see CRT isn't the only working theory you know jack shit about.

Start caring about facts, ditch your culture war and outrage addictions, then maybe people will start taking you seriously. Maybe.

 

[fskimospy]

Excellent posts, here is what I've learned so far:
1) Hateful strangers know me better than I know myself
2) This incestuous echo chamber is petty and tribal
3) Most of the discussion here confirms my thoughts on why our politics is so toxic and dysfunctional

Smogzinn responded to my points so I owe him a response. I'll be happy to elaborate and clarify what I mean so you actually understand the points. But I'll just throw this out once again... I have never said the parties are equally bad, so you all need to put that straw man away. I said they are both bad and have both heavily contributed to the worsening political landscape. You can dwell on which is worse (and I'll basically agree with you) but in my mind, that's a sideshow. We have structural issues (the two-party apparatus being a major component) that are breaking down society, and today's GOP is more symptom than cause.

I think you would be well served by spending less time complaining about the board and more time addressing the criticisms of your theory because it has a lot of holes in it.

Can you answer these three questions?

1) what specifically has changed about America that has moved the two party system from functional to non-functional?
2) how would removing the two party system address this?
3) how do you propose to remove the two party system?

 

[kage69]

Exactly. The weekend dinners and drinking by Congress is where the real deals were made in the saner times. They didn’t run home every week.

Maybe that will start again once Moscow Mitch takes up his future role as cemetery urinal. Would be nice to see Team Treason start acting like Americans again.

 

[dank69]

Excellent posts, here is what I've learned so far:
1) Hateful strangers know me better than I know myself <- This is often the case for many people incapable of self-reflection. For example, you seem to be unaware that calling us hateful is an example of you thinking you know us better than we know ourselves.
2) This incestuous echo chamber is petty and tribal <- How could you tell the difference between this and you just being comically wrong?
3) Most of the discussion here confirms my thoughts on why our politics is so toxic and dysfunctional <- This is called cognitive dissonance and shows you never intended to learn anything with your original question. Surprising to almost nobody here.

...

 

[MrSquished]

I'm reading a thread on a NYC subreddit. Someone asked what do they tell their Trumpie relatives from the South when they visit and do their usual 'how do you live in such an anarchist city with no police and total crazy crime everywhere. do people even leave their homes? yada yada.'

A bunch of folks that live in NYC chime in to say yep, this is what my family out in central PA thinks, or my colleagues in TX think, etc...

So the answer to your question is when one party decides to come back to reality. There is no civil discourse when one side consistently has no facts and a completely fabricated reality. And since the GQP/Trumpie party is doubling down everyday on misinformation, that won't be anytime soon.

 

[cwjerome]

hahahah, nice one. You got me. I especially like how you say that me describing the sarcastic, insulting, degrading, and condescending attacks on me as hateful is just me 'thinking I know you people better than you know yourselves.'

 

[dank69]

hahahah, nice one. You got me. I especially like how you say that me describing the sarcastic, insulting, degrading, and condescending attacks on me as hateful is just me 'thinking I know you people better than you know yourselves.'

The defining characteristic of a troll is that it responds to the nonsense and ignores completely the actual questions that entirely obliterate it's bullshit opinions.

 

[fskimospy]

hahahah, nice one. You got me. I especially like how you say that me describing the sarcastic, insulting, degrading, and condescending attacks on me as hateful is just me 'thinking I know you people better than you know yourselves.'

Yes, as dank69 said if you want to have actual rational discussion instead of trolling and complaining about how mean this board is to you the first step would be to go answer the numerous posts challenging the pretty obvious flaws in your theory.

Maybe that's not as much fun as complaining but it would show you were at least serious.

 

[pmv]

hahahah, nice one. You got me. I especially like how you say that me describing the sarcastic, insulting, degrading, and condescending attacks on me as hateful is just me 'thinking I know you people better than you know yourselves.'

So _still_ no answers to the points raised?

For example, what is intrinsically wrong with a party being 'beholden to special interests'? Isn't politics supposed to be all about struggles (or at least 'negotiations') between different interest groups?

Personally I distrust any political group which claims to be 'above' sectional interests. It's those who claim to be speaking for 'the people' (presumed to be a homogeneous mass) or 'the nation', who historically have ended up doing the most harm.

The question is _which_ interests do they represent and are they honest about it?

 

[HomerJS]

Lying is a wholly owned subsidiary of the right. Not withstanding any single human being is capable of lying.

Look at this thread title. He was unable to open up a legitimate topic without starting it with a bald faced lie.

Inflation is Through the Roof - Whats Biden Admin's First Priority? Stockholders, of course!

Inflation is through the roof on multiple common goods - all of which effect your average everyday people. A thread was already made on Chicken Wings... which understand - it isn't a chicken wing thing... It's the entire bird. Prices for chicken is up 30%+. The other most well-known one is for...

forums.anandtech.com

 

[MrSquished]

Yes, as dank69 said if you want to have actual rational discussion instead of trolling and complaining about how mean this board is to you the first step would be to go answer the numerous posts challenging the pretty obvious flaws in your theory.

Maybe that's not as much fun as complaining but it would show you were at least serious.

Both-sides folks or folks that are like ok, one side is kinda slightly worse but they are also essentially the same - in this day and age - are usually completely intellectually dishonest.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But I'll just throw this out once again... I have never said the parties are equally bad, so you all need to put that straw man away.

I understand that you have never said that, but I think your argument only works if you think it is mostly true. I don't feel it is a strawman when the argument kind of relies on it.

I said they are both bad and have both heavily contributed to the worsening political landscape. You can dwell on which is worse (and I'll basically agree with you) but in my mind, that's a sideshow. We have structural issues (the two-party apparatus being a major component) that are breaking down society, and today's GOP is more symptom than cause.

One side is breaking our system, and it really appears that they are intentionally doing so. The only way you can say that is a problem with the system is if you believe that there exists a system that could withstand nearly half the country actively working to undermine it.
The system has it's flaws, but all systems do. The system is designed to deal with some small amount of pettiness and shenanigans. The problem we are facing is that a significantly large group of people are actively working to exploit the flaws to actually break the system, and that is almost all one sided. The other side is mostly still doing the minor shenanigans that the system was designed to allow for.

 

[fskimospy]

Both-sides folks or folks that are like ok, one side is kinda slightly worse but they are also essentially the same - in this day and age - are usually completely intellectually dishonest.

Maybe, although I get more of a sense that they are sitting around smugly smelling their own farts.

Like I said in my original response people who subscribe to the #bothsides nonsense seem to spend most of their time arguing because they are criticizing all parties their opinions are inherently credible and well reasoned. Usually this is a cover for an opinion that is dumb.

 

[cwjerome]

Yes, as dank69 said if you want to have actual rational discussion instead of trolling and complaining about how mean this board is to you the first step would be to go answer the numerous posts challenging the pretty obvious flaws in your theory.

Maybe that's not as much fun as complaining but it would show you were at least serious.

Sorry, I didn't know there were rules that I had to only reply to certain comments and not others. I said I was going to respond to Smogzinn's legitimate (but wrongheaded) post... but I think I won't respond at all. P&N is still P&N, a pathetic leftwing strokefest that's creepy as hell. This -in a nutshell- is what's wrong with politics. See ya in a couple years when I come back for another experiment.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, I didn't know there were rules that I had to only reply to certain comments and not others. I said I was going to respond to Smogzinn's legitimate (but wrongheaded) post... but I think I won't respond at all. P&N is still P&N, a pathetic leftwing strokefest that's creepy as hell. This -in a nutshell- is what's wrong with politics. See ya in a couple years when I come back for another experiment.

There are no rules at all to what you have to reply to, I was simply offering you a suggestion on how to proceed if you wanted to have a productive conversation instead of complaining.

It appears you weren't interested in productive conversation after all, which is fine too.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sorry, I didn't know there were rules that I had to only reply to certain comments and not others. I said I was going to respond to Smogzinn's legitimate (but wrongheaded) post... but I think I won't respond at all. P&N is still P&N, a pathetic leftwing strokefest that's creepy as hell. This -in a nutshell- is what's wrong with politics. See ya in a couple years when I come back for another experiment.

The fact that you have this attitude shows that you didn't enter this thread with the intent on having a rational discussion, you intended to confirm your feelings about something, which you did by picking a fight you knew you'd lose.

So, yeah, have fun. See you in a few years and we can do this all over again. I look forward to seeing what that timeframe spent self-hating does to your behavior.

 

[JD50]

lol no one saw that coming