3 ms·
(I know it's flagged, but .02 cents). Sorta, not really. The traditional alignment had been D: cities-tolerance-open society, R: country-religion-traditional s
by burntrelish1273 10y ago
(I know it's flagged, but .02 cents). Sorta, not really.
The traditional alignment had been D: cities-tolerance-open society, R: country-religion-traditional society but so many people live in cities now that it doesn't make sense to have everyone in one, giant party. Either another bikeshedding wedge issue or major issue will end up splitting the majority along (new/different) lines.
With two interchangeable, heavily corrupted parties, Bernie and progressive need to split and make their own, viable party. Also, sensible R's like Lawrence Wilkerson gotta retake/remake/splinter off a party that puts common sense ahead of Freedom Caucus & fringe.
Right now, the 800 lbs gorilla socioeconomic tension is (re)distribution of wealth (inequality). Whichever group tackles that realistically will capture the majority of independents... I don't think lies on this issue will endure, people will eventually wise-up.
Bottom line: 2-3 viable parties are necessary for balanced, countervailing powers to operate correctly (balance of power) and prevent collapse into Rome-style end-game. If the elite continue to exclude the grassroots and corruption reaches titanic levels, they (or someone) will eventually be replaced a-la Korea.