5 ms·

> Understandably, many on the left believe the problem is simply the Republican Party, and if only Democrats could win decisive majorities, American democracy w

> Understandably, many on the left believe the problem is simply the Republican Party, and if only Democrats could win decisive majorities, American democracy would work better. I was waiting for a paragraph that started "On the other hand, many on the right believe the problem is the Democratic party," or something to that effect. The author says the problem is the two party system. I think this article shows that the problem is that half the country pretends the other half doesn't exist, and doesn't even bother addressing them, let alone convincing them to change their minds.

giancarlostoro 7y ago
I've thought about this as well. On the one hand, you have a system that assumes one size fits all for two specific parties. That will never be the case. I can guarantee you there's people who will disagree with both parties on any number of things. On the other hand, if both parties stopped behaving like the other is an enema of the state and actually attempted to collaborate for the good of the American public, that would be great. I think allowing other parties would be useful, the problem is even though other parties totally can be voted in, most people don't bother because you could lose your vote altogether if the party you disagree the most with wins. To put the example more bluntly I heard it said that Obama said a vote that isn't for Hillary is a vote to Trump, as in, if you vote third party, you may regret it. Personally, I don't think two single political parties can represent all the hopes and dreams of all 300 million citizens. I know this may sound controversial to some, but it is starting to prove itself to be a problem.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > enema of the state was it intentional or not? ;)
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    Wow I was thinking of Will Smith, realized the movie's not titled that. It might still apply... I did listen to Blink-182 a lot growing up.
- jkingsbery 7y ago
  > Personally, I don't think two single political parties can represent all the hopes and dreams of all 300 million citizens. I would agree with this. The problem with the article though is that assumes that changing the structure of the political parties is the best way to solve that problem. An alternate solution is to solve fewer problems politically, since the best person to advance one's hopes and dreams is one's self, and political solutions (whatever the arrangement of parties) necessarily are about enforcing conformity.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    I agree: Leave a little more to local governments, which might rub some the wrong way, but some issues might only affect a small area, or set of smaller areas.
Fernicia 7y ago
What a boring and redundant follow-up that sentence would have been. Surely we are not accusing Vox of all places of having a Republican slant?
- throwaway894345 7y ago
  For better or worse, I read it as accusing them of ignoring Republicans; making no attempt to address them or speak to them (presumably because they are the evil other, beyond redemption).
  - jkingsbery 7y ago
    Right... I was waiting for it because one of the claims of the article is politics is broken. Then the author goes on to imply the only reasonable position is that it's all Republicans fault. I was hoping that, even if the author didn't believe it personally, there would be some sort of nod to those who disagree.
happytoexplain 7y ago
Appropriately, one of the symptoms of this problem is that it's impossible to complement/criticise one party without being interrupted by opposite-party whataboutism. Perhaps ironically, I can't tell if you think this is a criticism of Democrats, and hey, why didn't they criticise Republicans; or if you think this is a lenient analysis of Democrats, and hey, why didn't they give Republicans a lenient analysis.
nbardy 7y ago
> let alone convincing them to change their minds. This has become a growing issue in American politics. As much as a love progressive politics myself. I can't deny the important of strong political opposition and the importance of conservative view points in opposition to progress. Progressive politics has become ignorant to the people, and as a result the people have turned a dead ear towards it. Instead of trying to convince them of their new ideas and why they're better than the old ones. Progressives have adopted an assumption of, "the other side is evil and is deliberately holding us back". It should be hard to cause political change. Most new ideas in politics are truly awful and failures at that level affect society gravely. Disagreement over how to move forward is fundamental to a functioning democracy and the emergence of good ideas. Yet modern politics seems to treat any amount of disagreement as a solemn oath of obstinance. Yes, changing minds politically is challenging, and yes it should be.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > It should be hard to cause political change. Most new ideas in politics are truly awful and failures at that level affect society gravely. Part of the problem is that the left has erased all evidence of the failures of progressive politics (and in many cases the right has let them do so). When you just hear about the civil rights movement and marriage equality, it’s easy to assume that conservatives are just there to hold everyone back. I’d offer three examples. First, “socialism.” Socialism failed dismally. One of the most colossal failures of a political idea in modern history. So progressives endeavored to replace “socialism” with “social democracy.” But “social democracy” as practiced in Europe approaches the problem from the complete opposite end. It abandons the socialist economic model and builds on a capitalist one. Put differently, it’s not “socialism with more democracy” it’s “capitalism with more democracy.” So progressives have turned social democracy—which is more than anything an affirmation of the success of capitalism, and an utter retreat from what progressives were pushing before—into a win for progressivism. The second is the sexual revolution. At least in the United States, we have retrenched significantly on that front. Millennials start having sex later, and have fewer partners. “Affirmative consent” has replaced “free love.” The boundary-pushing on things like age have been pulled back hard. The #MeToo movement reaffirmed conservative truths: men cannot be trusted and society has a role to play helping women stave off unwanted and inappropriate advances. (Andrea Dworkin addresses this at length in Right Wing Women, though obviously long before #MeToo. In explaining why many women continue to support patriarchal systems, she notes that the sexual revolution stripped women of a lot of protections that those systems used to provide, with nothing to replace them. While Dworkin was obviously no conservative, she astutely recognized that the progressive tendency to throw out rules can easily end up overreaching. Many have lamented that the #MeToo movement is a return to a more Puritanical approach. There is a lot of truth to that.) Third, eugenics. The history of support for eugenics in this country has been pretty much erased, even though the evils of Jim Crow get plenty of attention. That’s likely because many progressives backed eugenics. Woodrow Wilson, progressive champion, was a former New Jersey Governor and eugenicist who segregated the federal work force for the first time. He fired existing black federal employees (proving he wasn’t just a product of his time). Meanwhile, one of the strongest opponents of eugenics was the Catholic Church. In 1930, the Pope released an encyclical in which he condemned birth control, abortion, and eugenics as all being incompatible with the traditional Christian view of reproduction.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dilap 7y ago
For a sneak preview of how well our democracy will work once democrats have decisive majorities, check out California, or San Francisco.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- closetohome 7y ago
  Don't forget Seattle. Where progressive policies have also led to disastrous situations like a booming economy, low unemployment, and less crime.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    One party rule is working great in Baltimore.
    - closetohome 7y ago
      What a relevant conservative talking point.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        I lived in Baltimore for two years. Sent my daughter to preschool downtown; still go back to attend our favorite church downtown. Love the city, but yeah, it’s a damning indictment of Democratic governance. The city manages to spend more than the wealthy maryland suburbs per student and still get abysmal results. It’s a national disgrace.
  - jkingsbery 7y ago
    Seattle is an interesting case. On the one hand, it has lots of progressive policies. On the other hand, tech companies formed there in large part because Washington State has no income tax (something which conservatives more often advocate for). I think that's a great example of how not all problems need to be politicized - sometimes we as a society can make things better without involving the government.
jfengel 7y ago
I believe that the left loves to tie itself in knots trying to address the right. Books like What's The Matter with Kansas[1] and The Righteous Mind[2] are all written from a left-wing point of view, explaining the right-wing point of view and encouraging understanding. These books go at least back to the mid 90s[3], and during that time, the Overton window has shifted almost monotonically to the right. It seems to me that the harder the left tries to understand and accommodate the right, the more the right takes it as an opportunity to make itself less appealing to the left. And politically, it's successful. I don't want to run down a rabbit hole of blame here. Rather, I wanted to suggest that it's not just symmetrical, and it's not as simple as "if only we on the left tried harder we could solve the problem unilaterally" -- because I don't think I've ever heard any similar accommodation from the right. I think we've tried that, and need to try something different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
- hootbootscoot 7y ago
  If you are from or live in the USA you should check out this thing called the "overton window." You don't HAVE any major left-wing political party, only a hard (and growing harder every day, as the John Birchers have taken over Eisenhowers party, but I digress) right wing party and a corporate centrist party, that would be considered center-right by most of the rest of the world (Democrats) I literally am quite convinced that all evil actions emanate from the right wing, good intentions of some notwithstanding. I see absolute evil and a shocking lack of introspection in today's Repugnant party. They teach that environmental stewardship is for suckers, that Donald Trump is God King and above all laws, that laws are for other people, that money SHOULD be in politics (THANK YOU SUPREME COURT citizens united decision, thank you Bush Jr and Trump! Thank you McConnell you filthy scumbag.) I personally feel that hanging is too good for Donald Trump and that he should be publically drawn-and-quartered on live TV, and I'm happy to discuss the reasons why his treasonous contempt for our Republic merits such and how it will bring a cathartic closure to our violent era of empire. I doubt it, however. I would personally love to hear a Republican't whisper "sic semper tyrannus" into Chumps ear while he twists the knife. That disdainful orange blob who poops on all that is good (and cheats at golf) and raises up the wicked for praise and exhaltation should be cast into the lake of fire, forever. However I doubt it. He will probably get away with it, and you fools who support him and pretend you still have a brain cell left in your sycophantic short-sighted heads will nod and say he is a great leader, because you are mean and want to watch the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty and watch the world burn.... The thing is, you probably feel strongly about your views also (even though you are WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING, lol) So, where does this leave us?

giancarlostoro 7y ago

I've thought about this as well. On the one hand, you have a system that assumes one size fits all for two specific parties. That will never be the case. I can guarantee you there's people who will disagree with both parties on any number of things. On the other hand, if both parties stopped behaving like the other is an enema of the state and actually attempted to collaborate for the good of the American public, that would be great. I think allowing other parties would be useful, the problem is even though other parties totally can be voted in, most people don't bother because you could lose your vote altogether if the party you disagree the most with wins. To put the example more bluntly I heard it said that Obama said a vote that isn't for Hillary is a vote to Trump, as in, if you vote third party, you may regret it. Personally, I don't think two single political parties can represent all the hopes and dreams of all 300 million citizens. I know this may sound controversial to some, but it is starting to prove itself to be a problem.

baud147258 7y ago
> enema of the state was it intentional or not? ;)
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  Wow I was thinking of Will Smith, realized the movie's not titled that. It might still apply... I did listen to Blink-182 a lot growing up.
jkingsbery 7y ago
> Personally, I don't think two single political parties can represent all the hopes and dreams of all 300 million citizens. I would agree with this. The problem with the article though is that assumes that changing the structure of the political parties is the best way to solve that problem. An alternate solution is to solve fewer problems politically, since the best person to advance one's hopes and dreams is one's self, and political solutions (whatever the arrangement of parties) necessarily are about enforcing conformity.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  I agree: Leave a little more to local governments, which might rub some the wrong way, but some issues might only affect a small area, or set of smaller areas.

Fernicia 7y ago

What a boring and redundant follow-up that sentence would have been. Surely we are not accusing Vox of all places of having a Republican slant?

throwaway894345 7y ago
For better or worse, I read it as accusing them of ignoring Republicans; making no attempt to address them or speak to them (presumably because they are the evil other, beyond redemption).
- jkingsbery 7y ago
  Right... I was waiting for it because one of the claims of the article is politics is broken. Then the author goes on to imply the only reasonable position is that it's all Republicans fault. I was hoping that, even if the author didn't believe it personally, there would be some sort of nod to those who disagree.

happytoexplain 7y ago

Appropriately, one of the symptoms of this problem is that it's impossible to complement/criticise one party without being interrupted by opposite-party whataboutism. Perhaps ironically, I can't tell if you think this is a criticism of Democrats, and hey, why didn't they criticise Republicans; or if you think this is a lenient analysis of Democrats, and hey, why didn't they give Republicans a lenient analysis.

nbardy 7y ago

> let alone convincing them to change their minds. This has become a growing issue in American politics. As much as a love progressive politics myself. I can't deny the important of strong political opposition and the importance of conservative view points in opposition to progress. Progressive politics has become ignorant to the people, and as a result the people have turned a dead ear towards it. Instead of trying to convince them of their new ideas and why they're better than the old ones. Progressives have adopted an assumption of, "the other side is evil and is deliberately holding us back". It should be hard to cause political change. Most new ideas in politics are truly awful and failures at that level affect society gravely. Disagreement over how to move forward is fundamental to a functioning democracy and the emergence of good ideas. Yet modern politics seems to treat any amount of disagreement as a solemn oath of obstinance. Yes, changing minds politically is challenging, and yes it should be.

rayiner 7y ago
> It should be hard to cause political change. Most new ideas in politics are truly awful and failures at that level affect society gravely. Part of the problem is that the left has erased all evidence of the failures of progressive politics (and in many cases the right has let them do so). When you just hear about the civil rights movement and marriage equality, it’s easy to assume that conservatives are just there to hold everyone back. I’d offer three examples. First, “socialism.” Socialism failed dismally. One of the most colossal failures of a political idea in modern history. So progressives endeavored to replace “socialism” with “social democracy.” But “social democracy” as practiced in Europe approaches the problem from the complete opposite end. It abandons the socialist economic model and builds on a capitalist one. Put differently, it’s not “socialism with more democracy” it’s “capitalism with more democracy.” So progressives have turned social democracy—which is more than anything an affirmation of the success of capitalism, and an utter retreat from what progressives were pushing before—into a win for progressivism. The second is the sexual revolution. At least in the United States, we have retrenched significantly on that front. Millennials start having sex later, and have fewer partners. “Affirmative consent” has replaced “free love.” The boundary-pushing on things like age have been pulled back hard. The #MeToo movement reaffirmed conservative truths: men cannot be trusted and society has a role to play helping women stave off unwanted and inappropriate advances. (Andrea Dworkin addresses this at length in Right Wing Women, though obviously long before #MeToo. In explaining why many women continue to support patriarchal systems, she notes that the sexual revolution stripped women of a lot of protections that those systems used to provide, with nothing to replace them. While Dworkin was obviously no conservative, she astutely recognized that the progressive tendency to throw out rules can easily end up overreaching. Many have lamented that the #MeToo movement is a return to a more Puritanical approach. There is a lot of truth to that.) Third, eugenics. The history of support for eugenics in this country has been pretty much erased, even though the evils of Jim Crow get plenty of attention. That’s likely because many progressives backed eugenics. Woodrow Wilson, progressive champion, was a former New Jersey Governor and eugenicist who segregated the federal work force for the first time. He fired existing black federal employees (proving he wasn’t just a product of his time). Meanwhile, one of the strongest opponents of eugenics was the Catholic Church. In 1930, the Pope released an encyclical in which he condemned birth control, abortion, and eugenics as all being incompatible with the traditional Christian view of reproduction.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dilap 7y ago

For a sneak preview of how well our democracy will work once democrats have decisive majorities, check out California, or San Francisco.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
closetohome 7y ago
Don't forget Seattle. Where progressive policies have also led to disastrous situations like a booming economy, low unemployment, and less crime.
- rayiner 7y ago
  One party rule is working great in Baltimore.
  - closetohome 7y ago
    What a relevant conservative talking point.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      I lived in Baltimore for two years. Sent my daughter to preschool downtown; still go back to attend our favorite church downtown. Love the city, but yeah, it’s a damning indictment of Democratic governance. The city manages to spend more than the wealthy maryland suburbs per student and still get abysmal results. It’s a national disgrace.
- jkingsbery 7y ago
  Seattle is an interesting case. On the one hand, it has lots of progressive policies. On the other hand, tech companies formed there in large part because Washington State has no income tax (something which conservatives more often advocate for). I think that's a great example of how not all problems need to be politicized - sometimes we as a society can make things better without involving the government.

jfengel 7y ago

I believe that the left loves to tie itself in knots trying to address the right. Books like What's The Matter with Kansas[1] and The Righteous Mind[2] are all written from a left-wing point of view, explaining the right-wing point of view and encouraging understanding. These books go at least back to the mid 90s[3], and during that time, the Overton window has shifted almost monotonically to the right. It seems to me that the harder the left tries to understand and accommodate the right, the more the right takes it as an opportunity to make itself less appealing to the left. And politically, it's successful. I don't want to run down a rabbit hole of blame here. Rather, I wanted to suggest that it's not just symmetrical, and it's not as simple as "if only we on the left tried harder we could solve the problem unilaterally" -- because I don't think I've ever heard any similar accommodation from the right. I think we've tried that, and need to try something different. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)

hootbootscoot 7y ago
If you are from or live in the USA you should check out this thing called the "overton window." You don't HAVE any major left-wing political party, only a hard (and growing harder every day, as the John Birchers have taken over Eisenhowers party, but I digress) right wing party and a corporate centrist party, that would be considered center-right by most of the rest of the world (Democrats) I literally am quite convinced that all evil actions emanate from the right wing, good intentions of some notwithstanding. I see absolute evil and a shocking lack of introspection in today's Repugnant party. They teach that environmental stewardship is for suckers, that Donald Trump is God King and above all laws, that laws are for other people, that money SHOULD be in politics (THANK YOU SUPREME COURT citizens united decision, thank you Bush Jr and Trump! Thank you McConnell you filthy scumbag.) I personally feel that hanging is too good for Donald Trump and that he should be publically drawn-and-quartered on live TV, and I'm happy to discuss the reasons why his treasonous contempt for our Republic merits such and how it will bring a cathartic closure to our violent era of empire. I doubt it, however. I would personally love to hear a Republican't whisper "sic semper tyrannus" into Chumps ear while he twists the knife. That disdainful orange blob who poops on all that is good (and cheats at golf) and raises up the wicked for praise and exhaltation should be cast into the lake of fire, forever. However I doubt it. He will probably get away with it, and you fools who support him and pretend you still have a brain cell left in your sycophantic short-sighted heads will nod and say he is a great leader, because you are mean and want to watch the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty and watch the world burn.... The thing is, you probably feel strongly about your views also (even though you are WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING, lol) So, where does this leave us?