4 ms·

It's important to note that while there are only two parties, the parties clearly have sub-factions. Trump for example is not what the GOP Republicans would be

It's important to note that while there are only two parties, the parties clearly have sub-factions. Trump for example is not what the GOP Republicans would be. He was his own thing and Trumpism fits within the Republicans, but has pushed out the GOP to the sides of the Republican party. Things like the Trade War would probably never have fit in with regular GOP Republicans. The brand of nationalism that Trump uses is very different from the traditional Republican nationalist rhetoric, which was generally okay with illegal immigration as long as it served the economic engine. You have similar efforts in the Democrats - although no one has been successful like Trump has been. There is the traditional institutional Democrat (e.g. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, now Biden) who operates with Wallstreet backing and largely benefits the neo-liberal agenda. You have the Sanders supports, who are not really Democrats at all, but Sanders implanted himself with the Democrats so now they're competing for control. Then you have the "Progressive" Democrats who are very pro-reform, identitarians, pro-socialism, bordering on very strong statism, possibly of the totalitarian variety. These are the AOCs, the Ilhan Omars, the "Squad". All of the factions in the Democrats are trying to do what Trump achieved with the Republicans, but none have been able to dethrone the institutional Democrats so far. A lot of that is because they lack the impetus, but also because the DNC is extremely corrupt and openly aligned with the institutional Democrats. So in short, while there are "only two parties", these parties are highly maleable and only really retain their names. If you go even further in history there are times where the parties essentially "flipped" in their entire positions on everything. Republicans, who are accused of being racist by the media were the anti-slavery party, while Democrats were pro-slavery.

chrisseaton 6y ago
This is partly due to a unique quirk of the US where someone who isn't a member of a party can run for its leadership, which is insane isn't it when you say it out loud like that. Why do they allow outsiders to run to lead their parties? In the UK you need to be a career member of the party to run as leader.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  Because there are only 2 parties. It would be undemocratic to restrict who is allowed to run in them. More practically, the parties are not homogeneous, and there will always be factions that align more closely to groups outside the party. The most relevent legel precedent I am aware of is Smith v. Allwright (1923), which ruled it was unconstitutional for a political party (the Democrats) to restrict primary voting to whites. >When, as here, primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and federal, the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgment should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election > We think that this statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the state in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election. The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed upon it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party. Granted, in this case, the court was looking at racial discrimination by the parties, which introduces direct constitutional concerns, and so has a lower bar to warrent governmental interference. However, the principle that "private" political parties are not actually private is fairly engrained in US politics (although the exact legal boundaries are still unclear). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/#tab-opinion-1938079 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/#tab-opi...

chrisseaton 6y ago

This is partly due to a unique quirk of the US where someone who isn't a member of a party can run for its leadership, which is insane isn't it when you say it out loud like that. Why do they allow outsiders to run to lead their parties? In the UK you need to be a career member of the party to run as leader.

gizmo686 6y ago
Because there are only 2 parties. It would be undemocratic to restrict who is allowed to run in them. More practically, the parties are not homogeneous, and there will always be factions that align more closely to groups outside the party. The most relevent legel precedent I am aware of is Smith v. Allwright (1923), which ruled it was unconstitutional for a political party (the Democrats) to restrict primary voting to whites. >When, as here, primaries become a part of the machinery for choosing officials, state and federal, the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgment should be applied to the primary as are applied to the general election > We think that this statutory system for the selection of party nominees for inclusion on the general election ballot makes the party which is required to follow these legislative directions an agency of the state in so far as it determines the participants in a primary election. The party takes its character as a state agency from the duties imposed upon it by state statutes; the duties do not become matters of private law because they are performed by a political party. Granted, in this case, the court was looking at racial discrimination by the parties, which introduces direct constitutional concerns, and so has a lower bar to warrent governmental interference. However, the principle that "private" political parties are not actually private is fairly engrained in US politics (although the exact legal boundaries are still unclear). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/#tab-opinion-1938079 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/#tab-opi...