4 ms·
This was better than I expected. Everyone here is already aware of the two-party swindle (I hope), but the author describes it in a fresh way. He also explains
by johnnybgoode 17y ago
This was better than I expected. Everyone here is already aware of the two-party swindle (I hope), but the author describes it in a fresh way. He also explains some of the reasons it happens, for people who know the swindle exists but don't understand why.
Also, he rather subtly points out that we haven't actually dispatched of the idea of people being ruled by a separate class, contrary to what we're taught in school.
- tome 17y agoEven calling it a "swindle" is an example of this phenomenon. Why does it necessarily have to be "the political elite"/"the ruling class" versus "the disenfranchised populous"? I'm sure a huge number of politicians are very frustrated by many of the policies of their party and would like to diverge from them to a greater or lesser extent. They are constrained too. Why can we not see this as an emergent phenomenon of a complex system, with little overall direction?
- scott_s 17y agoThat is how he presents it. There doesn't have to be a conscious, collaborative effort by Your Politicians and Their Politicians to keep the Voters screaming at each other, so that they don't notice the increasing gap between the Voters and the Politicians. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It emerges from the interests of the individual politicians in getting you to identify with them instead of judging them. He calls it a "swindle" because whatever reservations politicians have with their party, they all try to get you to identify with themselves.