13 ms·

> the natural evolution of the two-party system The US has a long history, almost all of it with a two-party system. Only sometimes is there extremity. To my

> the natural evolution of the two-party system The US has a long history, almost all of it with a two-party system. Only sometimes is there extremity. To my mind, 1860 is even more extreme than today. (My opinion is that an important common thread between then and today is a class of people with a great deal of money who are deliberately driving the political atmosphere. But in any event a claim that it is a natural outcome of a two-party system needs to account for the historical fact that the US experience is typically not extreme.)

hannasanarion 7y ago
1860 was also the first year of a brand new two-party system. The previous decade was unilateral Democrat rule while the Whigs died and Constitutionalists, Know-Nothings, and Republicans fought over the scraps. It was an unusual time.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Yep. 1860 is more accurately characterized as the first year of the two party system. And the people only wanted another party because of the slavery issue. Literally, the only time we dealt with extremists, was when we first started the two party system. So it's disingenuous to say that 1860 was like today. It wasn't. At all. There is no new, powerful, upstart party that people can vote for to get away from the extremists today. There is no overriding issue that people can legitimately claim to be at once barbaric and deleterious to the republic. There is none of that. We just have two parties... who choose to be extreme for dubious reasons. So it hasn't been as polarized as it is today, ever really during the two party era. Today is way outside the norm. We haven't seen anything like this before. Of course, we've never had anything like our current leaders either. But that's a whole other issue. (A related issue though.)
crazygringo 7y ago
Slavery was a particularly and uniquely intractable problem where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing. There's extensive literature on what's been driving polarization, but it really is a new "era" for it and not a cyclical thing. Factors include: - More democratic/open primaries, which select extreme candidates - More statistically targeted media (including social media) to take advantage of extreme views (including social media) - Increasingly partisan news media made possible by more fragmented media (first cable, then the Internet) None of these show any signs of going away, and all three are phenomena that are fundamentally new in the past few decades.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing... True. Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it. I mean what's the compromise? They have to be slaves 3.5 days out of the week? And you can teach them to write, but any reading is strictly forbidden. So under no circumstances can you teach them to read? Just hard to come up with any compromise that doesn't just sound ludicrous on its face.
  - tlholaday 7y ago
    > Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it. Contrariwise: Compensated emancipation was typically enacted as part of an act that outlawed slavery outright or established a scheme whereby slavery would eventually be phased out. It frequently was accompanied or preceded by laws which approached gradual emancipation by granting freedom to those born to slaves after a given date. Among the European powers, slavery was primarily an issue with their overseas colonies. The British Empire enacted a policy of compensated Emancipation for its colonies in 1833, followed by Denmark, France in 1848, and the Netherlands in 1863. Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880 after having enacted freedom at birth a decade earlier. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      So in other words, still slavery. Right? I mean, there's still slaves. "Your kids can be free! But only the ones born after the next Vernal Equinox falling on a Tuesday. Oh, and by the way, You can never be free." Again, a solution that's ludicrous on its face and doesn't really get rid of slavery. Kind of like the compromise we had here, where you could "technically" have slaves in the North. (Of course, occasionally in the North, your neighbors came by to kill you and take your slaves to Canada. But you could have them.) Obviously, it just turned out to be not a very workable solution. Like any compromise on an issue like that. There were just a whole lot of people out there taking that whole "..then, thenceforward, and forever free.." thing deadly seriously. Either you have slavery or you don't. It's kind of binary. You really can't go into a roomful of pregnant high school girls and pick out the one who is the "most virgin" is kind of my point. It's ludicrous to think that you can.
BurningFrog 7y ago
A big difference between the past and now is that in the past, politics was a very minor part in American life. Outside of wartime, the federal government was something you mainly interacted with when going to the post office. If the national politicians hated each other, it made for good gossip, but didn't affect daily life much Today, it is involved with and regulating most aspects of our lives, and federal government dysfunction is a much bigger problem.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

hannasanarion 7y ago

1860 was also the first year of a brand new two-party system. The previous decade was unilateral Democrat rule while the Whigs died and Constitutionalists, Know-Nothings, and Republicans fought over the scraps. It was an unusual time.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Yep. 1860 is more accurately characterized as the first year of the two party system. And the people only wanted another party because of the slavery issue. Literally, the only time we dealt with extremists, was when we first started the two party system. So it's disingenuous to say that 1860 was like today. It wasn't. At all. There is no new, powerful, upstart party that people can vote for to get away from the extremists today. There is no overriding issue that people can legitimately claim to be at once barbaric and deleterious to the republic. There is none of that. We just have two parties... who choose to be extreme for dubious reasons. So it hasn't been as polarized as it is today, ever really during the two party era. Today is way outside the norm. We haven't seen anything like this before. Of course, we've never had anything like our current leaders either. But that's a whole other issue. (A related issue though.)

crazygringo 7y ago

Slavery was a particularly and uniquely intractable problem where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing. There's extensive literature on what's been driving polarization, but it really is a new "era" for it and not a cyclical thing. Factors include: - More democratic/open primaries, which select extreme candidates - More statistically targeted media (including social media) to take advantage of extreme views (including social media) - Increasingly partisan news media made possible by more fragmented media (first cable, then the Internet) None of these show any signs of going away, and all three are phenomena that are fundamentally new in the past few decades.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>where a "moderate" or "centrist" solution was particularly unappealing... True. Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it. I mean what's the compromise? They have to be slaves 3.5 days out of the week? And you can teach them to write, but any reading is strictly forbidden. So under no circumstances can you teach them to read? Just hard to come up with any compromise that doesn't just sound ludicrous on its face.
- tlholaday 7y ago
  > Moderation is no solution at all when you think about it. Contrariwise: Compensated emancipation was typically enacted as part of an act that outlawed slavery outright or established a scheme whereby slavery would eventually be phased out. It frequently was accompanied or preceded by laws which approached gradual emancipation by granting freedom to those born to slaves after a given date. Among the European powers, slavery was primarily an issue with their overseas colonies. The British Empire enacted a policy of compensated Emancipation for its colonies in 1833, followed by Denmark, France in 1848, and the Netherlands in 1863. Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880 after having enacted freedom at birth a decade earlier. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    So in other words, still slavery. Right? I mean, there's still slaves. "Your kids can be free! But only the ones born after the next Vernal Equinox falling on a Tuesday. Oh, and by the way, You can never be free." Again, a solution that's ludicrous on its face and doesn't really get rid of slavery. Kind of like the compromise we had here, where you could "technically" have slaves in the North. (Of course, occasionally in the North, your neighbors came by to kill you and take your slaves to Canada. But you could have them.) Obviously, it just turned out to be not a very workable solution. Like any compromise on an issue like that. There were just a whole lot of people out there taking that whole "..then, thenceforward, and forever free.." thing deadly seriously. Either you have slavery or you don't. It's kind of binary. You really can't go into a roomful of pregnant high school girls and pick out the one who is the "most virgin" is kind of my point. It's ludicrous to think that you can.

BurningFrog 7y ago

A big difference between the past and now is that in the past, politics was a very minor part in American life. Outside of wartime, the federal government was something you mainly interacted with when going to the post office. If the national politicians hated each other, it made for good gossip, but didn't affect daily life much Today, it is involved with and regulating most aspects of our lives, and federal government dysfunction is a much bigger problem.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]