|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 16:03:40 GMT -5
I’m curious. The current debacle in Congress is showcasing a very deep fracture in the Republican party. In Canada, or most western democracies, they’d split; one side would finally get tired of the other side, and start their own party. Which is never a particularly good idea as far as retaining power, because it splits the vote, and there is generally an enormous amount of rancor which gets in the way of future cooperation. But, it seems that the divisions in the GOP are such that a break seems near inevitable.
I know the two party system has been solidly in place for a very long time. Would it be possible for another party to split off and be acknowledged?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Oct 24, 2023 16:57:06 GMT -5
The two main parties we have are often changing. The Democratic Party used to split a lot on issues because all the so called Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) always went their own way on issues involving race. In the late 1960s the Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party over the Civil Rights Act and became Republicans. Twenty years after that, the Democrats abandoned the working class in favor of Wall Street.
Now, with open primaries, each party can become anything it’s leading candidate wants it to be. Important issues have been replaced by memes and social complaints that have nothing much to do with governance.
Our constitution makes no mention of political parties so they are free to become anything they wish.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 24, 2023 17:01:05 GMT -5
I’m curious. The current debacle in Congress is showcasing a very deep fracture in the Republican party. In Canada, or most western democracies, they’d split; one side would finally get tired of the other side, and start their own party. Which is never a particularly good idea as far as retaining power, because it splits the vote, and there is generally an enormous amount of rancor which gets in the way of future cooperation. But, it seems that the divisions in the GOP are such that a break seems near inevitable. I know the two party system has been solidly in place for a very long time. Would it be possible for another party to split off and be acknowledged? Yes we have a 2 party system. One party wants to kill the constitution and move the country toward Communism, that is the Democratic party. The other party is split between originalists supporting the constitution as written and some who want to make changes that will destroy the ability to change some things toward a more recent thought profile. The originalists know that the constitution includes a way to make changes but it's difficult and 2/3 of the states would have to agree to the change. The RINOs just want their way like the Democrats want their way. I'm with the originalists but I think it's over now, we're going Communist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Somebody said that a long time ago. I hope to die before it happens.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 17:01:45 GMT -5
All fine, Dub, but that implies that a chunk of a party joins the other party, or that the party puts aside its internal differences to follow one leader. Neither seems terribly likely right now, but anything can happen, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 24, 2023 17:01:58 GMT -5
Yes, it's possible. The disadvantage, as you mention, is that a split would divide the Republican vote. I don't think we're likely to see it. I think it's more likely that the Republican Party will evolve and shift more towards the center.
Meanwhile, I've passed the word that I'd be willing to come out of retirement and serve as Speaker of the House if we could agree on the salary.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 24, 2023 17:11:18 GMT -5
Third parties have been tried quite a few times in this country. If I recall, there's a new one brewing here somewhere, but I don't know anything about it.
But in the end the 2 big parties have resources and numerous advantages of scale. Really tough to break that.
And besides, starting in the 60s most politicians became aware that actually doing things like legislating was often career suicide. So the actual "doing things" is done by regulatory agencies and the politicians just spend money to fund agencies and dance for the camera's. Accomplishing anything provable is not required.
That's why Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is such an interesting thing to watch. Could very well destroy the Supreme Court two step that got us here and force politicians to do their actual jobs as laid out in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 17:48:03 GMT -5
Third parties have been tried quite a few times in this country. If I recall, there's a new one brewing here somewhere, but I don't know anything about it. But in the end the 2 big parties have resources and numerous advantages of scale. Really tough to break that. And besides, starting in the 60s most politicians became aware that actually doing things like legislating was often career suicide. So the actual "doing things" is done by regulatory agencies and the politicians just spend money to fund agencies and dance for the camera's. Accomplishing anything provable is not required. That's why Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is such an interesting thing to watch. Could very well destroy the Supreme Court two step that got us here and force politicians to do their actual jobs as laid out in the Constitution. Ah, yes. Our boys came up with an even better idea. Take a money losing propostion like BC Ferries, (which is always going to lose money because it’s incredibly expensive running that many ferries, that often, for that many people — it’s either essential, or it isn’t, so make up your mind.) The government spun it off into a ‘Crown Corporation.’ The advertising being that since it was now ‘not a government department,’ it would be run better, at a lower cost. Except the government still regulates everything it does, and how much it makes, and subsidizes the shortfall. But now they can point fingers at it as being something seperate, and say that the problems and costs are all their fault. Sometimes the finger pointing even works.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 24, 2023 18:37:48 GMT -5
I find the Parliamentary system interesting. But I don't know how it works when they form a coalition government. Does each party in the coalition get a department to run as they please, or is there some oversight and compromise between the parties.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 24, 2023 18:39:46 GMT -5
The advertising being that since it was now ‘not a government department,’ it would be run better, at a lower cost. Except the government still regulates everything it does, and how much it makes, and subsidizes the shortfall. But now they can point fingers at it as being something seperate, and say that the problems and costs are all their fault. Sometimes the finger pointing even works. The Post Office.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 24, 2023 18:47:45 GMT -5
I think there's only one way to alter the two party system. Ranked voting. Since that's never going to happen, we'll always have two dominant parties and live with the illusion of choice that gives us.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 19:06:25 GMT -5
I find the Parliamentary system interesting. But I don't know how it works when they form a coalition government. Does each party in the coalition get a department to run as they please, or is there some oversight and compromise between the parties. They negotiate. They might decide on what legislation to pursue. They might decide on what cabinet seats the smaller partner(s) get.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 19:14:55 GMT -5
I think there's only one way to alter the two party system. Ranked voting. Since that's never going to happen, we'll always have two dominant parties and live with the illusion of choice that gives us. It might go that way. But the US has not been typical of western style democracy, where new parties happen all the time. Now, there always seem to be two ‘great philosophies’, which we see as the left and the right, the contents of which change constantly, and are really uneasy alliances between special needs. Why, for instance, is the right now seen in most countries as being financially and socially ‘conservative’? Why is the left the owner of environmentalism and labor? But there’s no reason you can’t have multiple parties — in Canada the Liberals are like your Democrats, center-left, and the New Democratic Party are much more socialist. They agree on some things, work together on some things, revile each other on other things, and rarely get along with the Conservatives, who are more like the GOP. We have had multiple conversative parties that coalesced back into one party not long ago. I don’t know that it’s any better or worse. The current ridiculous state of affairs in Congress wouldn’t happen in Canada; but we can get ourselves tied in knots of stupidity in entirely different ways.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 24, 2023 19:25:04 GMT -5
The current hijinks are sad to see. They have already hurt the country and they could cause more harm. But we've had the same basic system for 250 years. It has worked well enough that I'd be reluctant to start experimenting with entirely different approaches. I'd like to try some reforms first.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 24, 2023 19:30:23 GMT -5
From a story in the NY Times:
Republicans were growing increasingly frustrated with the spectacle of their own chaos. Late Tuesday afternoon, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky suggested that the only way to bridge the party’s divisions was to get everyone drunk.
“I think they’re going to have to bring alcohol in there to solve this,” he said. “There’s some angry drunks that can fight it out. There’s some friendly drunks like me. But I don’t see this happening without alcohol.”
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 24, 2023 19:43:22 GMT -5
The current hijinks are sad to see. They have already hurt the country and they could cause more harm. But we've had the same basic system for 250 years. It has worked well enough that I'd be reluctant to start experimenting with entirely different approaches. I'd like to try some reforms first. 250 years is also usually the amount of time it takes for all great societies in history to go from birth to complete self destruction. Generally accompanied by being overrun by somebody else and ceasing to exist. Have a nice evening.
|
|
|
Post by david on Oct 24, 2023 20:50:03 GMT -5
The current hijinks are sad to see. They have already hurt the country and they could cause more harm. But we've had the same basic system for 250 years. It has worked well enough that I'd be reluctant to start experimenting with entirely different approaches. I'd like to try some reforms first. 250 years is also usually the amount of time it takes for all great societies in history to go from birth to complete self-destruction. Generally accompanied by being overrun by somebody else and ceasing to exist. Have a nice evening. Peter, that is a depressing but interesting theory. Probably a good theory for a futuristic novel. What foreign government or entity do you think might be able to overrun a USA that had self-destructed? What is preventing some moderate Republicans from joining with Democrats to appoint a moderate Republican Speaker?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 24, 2023 20:51:49 GMT -5
The current hijinks are sad to see. They have already hurt the country and they could cause more harm. But we've had the same basic system for 250 years. It has worked well enough that I'd be reluctant to start experimenting with entirely different approaches. I'd like to try some reforms first. What's worked is we are a nation with ample natural resources, and great climate and farm land that can feed the world. We've developed a wonderful industrial capacity. We have a history of "freedom" that allows creativity and innovation to thrive. And through the Great Wars of the last 100 years, we were geographically distant from the long arms of global conflict. (Pearl Harbor was just a singed finger). All this economic success allowed us to surf over the natural vagaries of peoples and personalities. Will it last? hard to tell. We've still got more going for us than the competition. But we're no longer out-of-reach for the angry wannabees of the world. And our internal conflicts could still throw a monkey wrench in the works.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 24, 2023 21:05:39 GMT -5
One cannot forget the issues with budget. Pretty much every great power from the last several hundred years died on budget concerns, mostly over the military expenditure. You can only overspend yourself for so long. That being said, the US is still strong and well placed geographically to maintain itself.
The only military power on the planet that could challenge would be China; they have a bigger navy, and a bigger army, and no one knows how advanced their systems are. Russia has certainly been revealed to be pretty much useless; if they were stupid enough to attack NATO now, they’d be crushed in pretty short order.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 24, 2023 22:17:26 GMT -5
"What is preventing some moderate Republicans from joining with Democrats to appoint a moderate Republican Speaker?"
I'm not sure I see any solution to this except for reasonable people in both parties to cooperate.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 25, 2023 5:27:30 GMT -5
What is preventing some moderate Republicans from joining with Democrats to appoint a moderate Republican Speaker? The assumption that there is such a thing as moderate and there is no such thing as principle. I'm not paying attention to the news, so I don't know the parties involved. But the language discussing it is nauseatingly familiar. Liberal Democrats are reasonable and never extreme. Republicans are crazy. Compromise means acceding to the Democrats and is always reported as the reasonable solution. Even when Democrat voters allow as how there are one or two extremists in their party, they will always vote for them anyway. When they do, they are allowed as how it is the only choice offered and forgiven. The Republican voter is never given the same grace. There is no reasonable definition for "moderate".
|
|