3 ms·
Sibling post by "addicted" takes aim at your "two party war" throwaway line. He/she seems offended by the implied "false equivalency". Let me take this in a dif
by FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
Sibling post by "addicted" takes aim at your "two party war" throwaway line. He/she seems offended by the implied "false equivalency". Let me take this in a different direction --
What's keeping the US from having a Speaker of the House? Infighting within the Republican party.
Or, what have the fiercest political fights been around the Bay Area? Who "cancels" whom? It's all infighting among Democrats.
So while there's polarization, there's also infighting. This concept of "realignment" captures some of it, but not completely. (Also, Democrats have been fighting recently, with success, to hang onto labor, and Republicans have been noticeably absent from recent strikes, which calls the whole "realignment" into question.) I do see a "hidden" political axis that is split between the two parties and neutered, though.
- wkat4242 3y agoI didn't mean for it to be a throwaway comment. I just didn't feel like going to deeply into it, thinking it was obvious to everyone. While I'm personally more aligned with the democracts in the US (I'm a socialist in Europe), I do see the same kind of zero-sum thinking from both parties. "The loss of the other side is a win for our side". This is not sustainable as it leads to ever more polarisation. I wrote about this in a little more detail recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37860952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37860952
- FooBarBizBazz 3y agoYeah, I wouldn't fundamentally disagree with your point, either. While there is this other layer I describe, the polarization is of course a major problem. I'd also agree with your characterization, in your other post, of how the proportional, Parliamentary systems in Europe make the issue a little less bad there. When that comes up I always cite Duverger's Law.