6 ms·

The framing is cynical, though I agree with you that stability is valuable. I'd argue the reason the framing is cynical is because the two party system wasn't

The framing is cynical, though I agree with you that stability is valuable. I'd argue the reason the framing is cynical is because the two party system wasn't intentionally crafted as some sort of 'nothing changes' power structure, but is the outcome from the current incentives of our democratic system. The two parties bit is arguably a flaw the founders tried unsuccessfully to prevent (because it can lead to instability). Your comment also implies that little changes as the parties switch power back and forth, but this isn't true. Policy is a large ship and things take time and arguing to change (which is what you want for stability, and the inevitable outcome in a democracy). But policy does change and decade over decade - things can change a lot as people struggle to improve the society. You can read Washington's explicit warnings of political parties in his farewell address (which presciently aligns a lot with the rise of Trump): https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... Relevant bit: "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

scotty79 6y ago
I don't believe intentions matter all that much. Certainly not more than than the outcomes. Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution. And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons witout any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it. > But policy does change and decade over decade That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well. China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution. Washington quote shows that he had some awareness of what qualities parties should have to improve the stability. Basing them on geography would be a terrible idea. Also picking two too comabative ideologies to center the parties on would be bad. You want two halves but not in open war with one another. You want them to agree on everything that matters, like that the rich and ruling should stay rich and ruling, army should be funded as much as it wants, and business should proceed, and differ only on conceptual issues that don't really connect all that much with anything really important. Just ask yourself how would you design a two party system for China.
- fossuser 6y ago
  > "China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution." I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot of violence during the cultural revolution. Deng reversed a lot of this, but it was in a revolutionary context (right after the cultural revolution). "And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons without any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it." I agree that it doesn't necessarily vilify it (pragmatism is good), but if it's done only as an illusion/lie to maintain authoritarian control by one group then that is villainous. This is also not what occurs in the USG (and the underlying suggestion that it is, is what I took issue with). > "Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution." No, but the thing I'm taking issue with is the 'pragmatic solution' being a dead locked two party system that exists only for stability. That's the cynical view I think is wrong. I think the US is a democratic system with rule of law where policy moves forward via arguing. Though recently, party risk and extremism has made this less effective and entrenched incentives make these issues hard to fix. This is a bug though and not by design. Parties form because it's an effective way to coordinate even though there are risks. > "That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well." I'd argue that it's not as resilient in single party systems, both because unelected leaders that serve infinite terms gives some short term advantage at the increased risk of long term instability and because the amount of control used against the public leads to resentment. Wild swings in policy can cause problems, making year over year progress which culminates in big changes over decades is a stable way to improve things. Particularly if it happens in a context where new politicians are being elected all of the time and power is peacefully changing. If you're not stress testing that system (even if you are) with peaceful changes of power, then you're unlikely to survive your first attempt. One party governments can be more efficient at doing things in the short-term, but long term they fail. Without elections the failures are violent.

scotty79 6y ago

I don't believe intentions matter all that much. Certainly not more than than the outcomes. Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution. And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons witout any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it. > But policy does change and decade over decade That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well. China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution. Washington quote shows that he had some awareness of what qualities parties should have to improve the stability. Basing them on geography would be a terrible idea. Also picking two too comabative ideologies to center the parties on would be bad. You want two halves but not in open war with one another. You want them to agree on everything that matters, like that the rich and ruling should stay rich and ruling, army should be funded as much as it wants, and business should proceed, and differ only on conceptual issues that don't really connect all that much with anything really important. Just ask yourself how would you design a two party system for China.

fossuser 6y ago
> "China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution." I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot of violence during the cultural revolution. Deng reversed a lot of this, but it was in a revolutionary context (right after the cultural revolution). "And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons without any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it." I agree that it doesn't necessarily vilify it (pragmatism is good), but if it's done only as an illusion/lie to maintain authoritarian control by one group then that is villainous. This is also not what occurs in the USG (and the underlying suggestion that it is, is what I took issue with). > "Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution." No, but the thing I'm taking issue with is the 'pragmatic solution' being a dead locked two party system that exists only for stability. That's the cynical view I think is wrong. I think the US is a democratic system with rule of law where policy moves forward via arguing. Though recently, party risk and extremism has made this less effective and entrenched incentives make these issues hard to fix. This is a bug though and not by design. Parties form because it's an effective way to coordinate even though there are risks. > "That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well." I'd argue that it's not as resilient in single party systems, both because unelected leaders that serve infinite terms gives some short term advantage at the increased risk of long term instability and because the amount of control used against the public leads to resentment. Wild swings in policy can cause problems, making year over year progress which culminates in big changes over decades is a stable way to improve things. Particularly if it happens in a context where new politicians are being elected all of the time and power is peacefully changing. If you're not stress testing that system (even if you are) with peaceful changes of power, then you're unlikely to survive your first attempt. One party governments can be more efficient at doing things in the short-term, but long term they fail. Without elections the failures are violent.