Pew Research has determined that four in 10 Americans do not support the notion of a two party political system.
The two party system has deep roots in American history.
After the two terms of George Washington, America’s first president (1789-1797), the political operation of America began to operate largely along two political parties, loosely defined as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
The two party advocates of Washington’s time were the U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, an advocate for a strong federal government, and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, who wanted to focus more on states’ rights.
That is not to say that only two political parties have existed since those early days some two and a half centuries ago. For example, in the 2020 election ballot, Joe Biden and Donald Trump were joined by seven other presidential candidates from various political parties.
Since the 1850s, the two largest political parties have been the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, which together have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and controlled the United States Congress since 1856.
In Minnesota, founded in 1858, it is a similar story though the 1944 merger of two major parties – the Democrat and Farmer Labor – created the now majority Democratic Farmer Labor party under the guidance of the former Minneapolis mayor, United States senator and vice president, Hubert Humphrey.
Today, the DFL holds the two U.S. Senate seats, four of the eight U.S. House seats, the governor/lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and state auditor and majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate.
During my time as state chair of the Republicans in the 1970s as the Nixon presidency inspired Watergate scandal unfolded, the party recognized how important the non-aligned voters of the state were and formally changed its name to the Independent-Republicans of Minnesota (IRM).
The 1978 general election saw the IRM candidates win both U.S. Senate seats, the governor/ lieutenant governor, auditor, four of the eight U.S. House seats and gained additional members to their Minnesota House and Senate membership, though did not gain control of either body.
The two parties have evolved in terms of ideologies, positions, and support bases over their long life-spans in response to social, cultural, and economic developments – the Minnesota DFL Party being the left-of-center party since the time of the Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Republican Party now being the right-of-center party.
But what about those in between?
The Gallup poll in the past year has looked very hard at the partisan divide in America. Republicans and Democrats were virtually tied. Over the past 30 years, Democrats have held an edge in voter ID most of the time.
Some 10,000 telephone interviews in 2022-23 concluded that the Gen X and millennials identify as political independents nearly half of the time. About one third of older voters do as well.
Gallup polls have for 20 years consistently seen independent voters as almost half of those who turn out on Election Day.
[image_caption]Chuck Slocum[/image_caption]
Analysts have concluded that the candidates that substantively addressed health care, immigration and the environment would earn the votes of independents. Large portions of the group also were interested in impeachment or the removal from office for misconduct of those candidates who demonstrate a lack integrity.
Some food for thought for those interested in candidates and public service.
Chuck Slocum is a Minnetonka based management consultant.
I don’t really disagree with the author’s recitation of the history of the evolution of the two party system. But the legal requirement that Congressional seats are decided by “first past the post” means that a two party system is now baked into the cake. As well as the disastrous electoral college, which also dooms third parties.
Mr Slocum is very temperate in this piece, but I do not find the party he once oversaw to have the slightest “moderation”. His version of the “IR” party at least understood that that having a criminal as president was, um, non-optimal. The reality is that, despite the endless hype from the Rightwing Noise Machine, the 21st Century Dem party has positions that are very moderate, as compared to the “neoliberal” iteration of the Bill Clinton years. And one can see this in simply the three major issues that Mr. Slocum throws out for consideration.
The Dems have very moderate positions on every one of those important issues, and indeed have passed legislation on each of them except immigration. 21st Century Repubs of course refuse to countenance either the approach of Obamacare or action on climate change. And immigration is too much needed by Repubs as an issue on which to enrage, pander and demagogue. And obviously there is no need to mention the position of today’s Repub party on having a criminal in the WH…or the impeachment of such criminal.
This is why poll after poll show that most voters agree with the policies advocated by Dems, yet large numbers of those voters approving such legislation vote Repub. This is the natural consequence of the nationwide Rightwing Noise Machine and its daily cavalcade of lies and spite generation.
“the legal requirement that Congressional seats are decided by “first past the post” means that a two party system is now baked into the cake”
Alaska has switched to ranked choice voting for their house and senate seats. That seems to have had the effect of electing moderates rather than idealogues.
Why is electing “moderates” an inherently good thing?
Does “moderate” even mean anything?
I would rather have Lisa Murkowski in Congress than Sarah Palin. Perhaps you disagree.
Whom I would rather see in Congress (the lesser of two evils?) is quite irrelevant. Why should the system be structured around the idea that we should elect “moderates?”
Why should the system be structured around the notion that party activists pick the candidates?
My beef is with idealogues uninterested in compromise. Where I use the term moderate, I’m referring to people willing to listen to and learn from people with a different point of view. Whether they have ‘moderate’ views is less relevant than a willingness to work with others to achieve a common good.
Why should the system be structured around any type of candidate?
No matter what pieties get voiced about a “willingness to compromise” or “reaching across the aisle,” we get the officials we do because the public does not disapprove of rigidity.
You are conflating moderation with a two party system. They may be related, but they are in no way synonymous. Ranked choice voting will likely have little effect in getting 3rd parties to hold greater representation in legislative bodies.
I don’t care how many parties there are. I am more interested in good governance. As things stand today, the party extremists who participate in primaries are nominating candidates that appeal to those voters, leaving general election voters with lousy options. A system that reduces the influence of party activists will, in my opinion, produce better outcomes.
Exactly. The hole isn’t in the middle. It’s on the left. The political window has shifted rightward for the last several decades, so that “far left” is moderate, at best.
Exactly, we already have a party for moderates……the Democratic party. There is no major left wing party in the USA.
There is no need to write an article if one can’t think of anything new to say. Musings on the need of political parties to remember the “center” are about as interesting as the music played when you’re put on hold. Come up with something original for a change.
The only redeeming feature is the ahistorical comedy inserted. The Minnesota Republican Party became the “Independent Republican Party” to distance itself from the Nixon scandals. It had nothing to do with “the importance of independent voters.” The IR swept the 1978 elections due to voter disgust with Governor Anderson appointing himself Senator after Walter Mondale was elected VP. A cosmetic name change had nothing to do with it.
After the election of Ronald Reagan and his subsequent rise in popularity, it was decided that it was cool to be Republican again and the name was changed back. Apparently, there was no further need for the important “independent voters.”
There is no need for a liberal to define what a Republican is.
What?
Why not? You consume right wing media that exists solely to define liberalism as Marxism, pedophilia and satanic. Pot meet kettle.
If one persists in defining “Republican” as “a member of the Republican Party,” his comment still makes no sense,
People need to vote for what they believe in and against what they oppose. It is undeniable that we have problems. I go with those who propose solutions. For example, it has been clear for 50 years than two related issues – dependence on imported fuel and manmade climate change – were serious problems. Republicans have never admitted either is a problem and have consistently blocked solutions.
Civilizations progress or they are “cooked.” Are we ready for high temperatures in Arizona of over 120 degrees? Problem after problem Republicans have ignored it dragged their feet. They continue to look for ways to enrich and give power to the privileged and practice their hate fueled “Christianity.”
When they clean house, maybe the idea “anyone but a Republican” is the best approach. Change takes time and thought, but we don’t have decades.
Well, there were those two years of a federal tirfecta. But those days are gone.
“Some 10,000 telephone interviews in 2022-23 concluded that the Gen X and millennials identify as political independents nearly half of the time. About one third of older voters do as well.”
Meanwhile, Republicans skew older, whiter, and more religious. The boomers are finally losing the grip they’ve had on politics since the Reagan administration. The millenials & gen Z are participating more than their predecessors did at those ages. While they don’t identify as Dems, they do vote far more liberal than conservative. In other words, Repubs are more at risk to demographic change than Dems. Perhaps the GOP will rethink its strategy after the great implosion of 2024.
If you’re not a liberal at 18, you have no heart, but if you’re not a conservative at 40 you have no brain.
That cute quote died 40 years ago.
With the last intelligent conservative.
Now THAT’S a punch line!
It’s only partially a punch line. Forty years ago, a lot of conservatives did talk about ideas, and were able to engage in intelligent conversation (if not merely name-dropping) about Burke, Madison, or on a more sophisticated plane, Kirk and Viereck. I was, I admit, kind of jealous.
Now, what do you get? People like Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro, who are nothing more than professional irritants. Mike Lindell, who needs no further description. Fake Christians, who have no interest in anything Jesus really said. What ideas do they have, beyond owning the libs?
Needless to say, I’m no longer jealous.
Nothing about conservatism appeals to me, and I just turned 45. My brain works just fine, thank you.
Bumper sticker rhetoric and cultural grievance is pretty much all the GQP has left.
The idea that unaffiliated voters generally fall in the middle of two equally extreme parties could only be parroted by a former GOP chair.
We have one extreme right wing party and one center right party. A generic centrist should feel very comfortable supporting the party of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
These presidents were fiscally responsible, supported military spending, were ‘tough on crime’, supported bailouts and largess for corporations, and wouldn’t touch single payer with a ten foot pole, nor codify Roe protections, nor pass legislation to counteract citizens united, nor pass legislation to counteract the gutting of the voting rights act, nor to do anything at all that would pass as left of center in any country that actually has a party that is left of center.
Any honest assessment of Democratic policy outcomes would find the vast majority of those outcomes are solidly centrist. Are there a couple of democrats to the left of the party? Yes. But they are marginalized by the party. By contrast, the right wing wackos in the GOP set the agenda for that caucus.
The last time I identified as independent it was because the Democrats did not endorse single payer, gas taxes, a wealth tax, or a carbon tax. It was because they did support welfare reform and mandatory minimums, farm subsidies, pharma subsidies, oil subsidies, and bank bailouts.
When I was an independent, it was because there was no major party that was progressive enough to earn my vote. There still isn’t, but the alternative now is fascism.
The politics of the 1970s are irrelevant. MN is not a swing state. Nor is it filled with a large population of reasonable centrist undecideds looking for a considered reason to vote republican, despite our elderly remnant population of “independent” republicans desperately wanting it to be.
Well, that was as useful as warm spit. Or double-chewed pablum. Or rehashed hash. I got to the end and thought, “This is it?”
This just in: the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
It’s still fundamentally true that the two political parties can be defined as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, with conservatives believing that government closest to the electorate governs best while the democrats still want the federal government to rule with one-size-fits-all mandates.
But as you’ll see with the republican primary debates starting next month, the republican party has split into nationalist and globalist factions. I’ve served in the U.S. military when it was focused directly against the Soviet Union, I believed in the purpose and value of NATO, etcetera, but Donald Trump caused me to change my thinking. He’s argued for decades that it’s not in our national security interests to maintain armies at thousands of facilities around the world, that we need to bring our troops home to defend the nation as our founding fathers envisioned. As the salesman that he is, he’s argued that it’s best to try to get along with our adversaries … that a handshake and a compliment goes farther towards peaceful coexistence than hurling insults at leaders of nations who pose potential threats. His opponents fundamentally disagree. Putin never would have invaded Ukraine, for example if Biden hadn’t encouraged/promised NATO membership to Ukraine then labeled Putin a “war criminal” when he did. Anyway, I digress.
Getting abortion law returned to the states was another example of the federalists’ priorities that separates them from those who want to make it federal law, which includes some republicans by the way. So, about 60% of those who vote republican have adopted these federalist positions and philosophies, which are the traditional republican positions, by the way.
But about 40% of republicans are still aligned with the view that the U.S. should be the world’s policeman and we should be meddling in foreign wars like Ukraine because only we can affect the “correct” outcome. It’s like when warmonger Madeline Albright asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military if we can’t use it?” That’s the globalist view that most republicans, especially military veterans, oppose. We signed on and took an oath to defend this nation, not some foreign nation.
Shallow thinkers and other superficial political observers mistakenly believe that the republican party is “far right” or “extreme” in their positions when in fact these Trumpian views are really the traditional republican views of fiscal conservatism, controlled borders, states rights and foreign policy nationalism that have been the federalist views since federalism was adopted by the founders. They’re not new and they’re not “extreme” and many “independents” are starting to see that. Watch the debate next month with an open mind and you’ll see the split exemplified by people like Vivek Ramaswamy versus people like Mike Pence and Chris Christie, the so-called “moderates” of the party.
Just so you know, only 70 of about 220 House Repubs voted to abandon Ukraine last week, so you’ve got your percentages about Repub “globalists” exactly reversed. And methinks your recitation of Federalist va anti-Federalist positions has gotten somewhat muddled, but that’s a quibble.
A bigger quibble is your hilarious revisionism that that the unqualified Putin stooge Trump was merely an affable salesman, glad-handing the world’s leaders. The (unilaterally declared) “Trade War” with China ring any bells? How about Trump blowing up the fantastically favorable nuclear energy deal with demonic Iran for no good reason whatever, to be replaced with animosity and more sanctions. But I digress…
The main problem with your presentation is that American conservatives have never actually been proponents of fiscal “conservatism”, least of all Donald Trump, who happily enacted the usual round of unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, including himself. Nor have “conservatives” talked much of “borders” until they found that sparking rage against Latinos was politically profitable. Isolationism in foreign affairs does go back to George Washington and the 18th century, but certainly hasn’t been a plank in modern “conservatism” since the last-gasp opposition to confronting Hitler in the thirties, all washed away by Pearl Harbor and the succeeding Red Menace. If you want to call Isolationism the True Olde Tyme Conservatism, feel free. But we hardly need a $800 billion annual defense budget to protect ourselves from Mexico and Canada.
As for “states rights”, that has been the buzzword of social reactionaries since the days of formal slavery and then Jim Crow. Now you want to add state abortion bans to the list. Well, bravo, please proceed! But I do agree that spiteful social reaction has been part and parcel of the American “conservative” tradition for a long time, and that escalating the culture wars is the prime obsession and motivation of the MAGA movement.
I call such views and positions “far right” in the 21st Century, so I guess I’m a shallow thinker. But if you want to call it a return to “traditional conservatism”, go for it!
I’m not talking about GOP congressional politicians, I’m talking about the people. Most of congress is in bed with the MIC. Other than that, your shallow political stereotypes, probably picked up at the union hall, should be embarrassing. But that’s what you get when grown men still vote for the collectivists.
Well, you’ve also got the percentages for “the people” mixed up as well, since even 56% of Repubs still support aiding Ukraine. And I’d note that national security is pretty much a function of “collectivism”, properly understood anyway.
“Mike Pence and Chris Christie, the so-called “moderates” of the party.”
When evaluating the lucidity of the above post, consider the concluding characterization of Mike Pence as a moderate. I mean, where does one start to rebut?
Pence is a globalist, which tells you all you need to know about this uniparty member. In others words, he agrees with most democrats.
His anti-abortion stance is due to his religious beliefs, which last I looked was still legal in this country even if you don’t agree with him. It was interesting and gratifying to see Tucker Carlson end Pence’s career in one 5 minute interview.
It was hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_lD_biUbmaQ
“As the salesman that he is, he’s argued that it’s best to try to get along with our adversaries … that a handshake and a compliment goes farther towards peaceful coexistence than hurling insults at leaders of nations who pose potential threats”
Did not work out so well for Neville Chamberlain. Of course DJT thinks Neville Chamberlain is a Las Vegas singer and he would emerge from his one day meeting with Putin waving a piece of paper and saying he has achieved “peace for our time”.
Trump is the most anti-war president of our lifetimes. He tried to get along with Putin (and Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un) but the democrats would have none of that. His attempts at peaceful coexistence was rewarded by being accused of being in bed with the tyrants. And by labeling Putin a war criminal, they’ve basically given away any hope of a peaceful, negotiated settlement to end the war, ensuring more lives will be lost. Stupid. That’s what happens when life-long government bureaucrats and politicians in bed with the MIC try to do diplomacy when it really calls for the skills and demeanor of an anti-war salesman.
“And by labeling Putin a war criminal, they’ve basically given away any hope of a peaceful, negotiated settlement to end the war”
Hmmm…
You mass troops on your border, stage for an invasion, invade and bomb schools, housing and hospitals without regard for civilian casualties, rape and execute captured soldiers and civilians and kidnap and remove to Russia children and adults.
What label would you propose?
And:
“At Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was ‘Peace for our time’. Hitler said he had ‘No more territorial demands to make in Europe.’ On 1 October German troops occupied the Sudetenland: Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot.”
“Chamberlain believed that Hitler was a man of his word.”
“Putin never would have invaded Ukraine, for example if Biden hadn’t encouraged/promised NATO membership to Ukraine then labeled Putin a ‘war criminal’ when he did.”
Baloney, or stronger. Putin has long railed about the “tragedy” that was the breakup of the Soviet Union. He would have invaded Ukraine with or without the NATO “provocation (did NATO goad him into taking over Crimea?).” In any event, Ukraine had expressed an interest in joining NATO since the early 2000s. Joining NATO is a priority set by the Ukranians.
Which brings up a larger point: a sovereign nation has the right to choose its own alliances.
“And by labeling Putin a war criminal, they’ve basically given away any hope of a peaceful, negotiated settlement to end the war, ensuring more lives will be lost.”
Why should Ukraine negotiate with someone who invaded their country illegally, and wants to end its independent existence?
The Russia-Ukraine issue is not so much a digression, as you say, but a symptom. The Republican Party is abandoning any pretense of a commitment to democracy or freely representative government in favor of a slide toward authoritarianism. The support for Putin – tacit or otherwise – has nothing to do with some game of three-dimensional geopolitical chess, Instead, it’s sympathy for a like-minded leader. The right-wing has become enamored of Eastern European dictators (Viktor Orban, anyone?) and wishes that their policies could be replicated here.
Putinmania is a sign of a dangerous trend in American politics.
“The right-wing has become enamored of Eastern European dictators (Viktor Orban, anyone?) and wishes that their policies could be replicated here.”
The “right wing” is in agreement with nations and national leaders who recognize that their nation’s culture is important enough to protect through managed immigration policies. That’s what infuriates the globalists who would rather see a world without borders. European nations who have had open borders for years (see England, France, the Netherlands) have begun to re-think those policies at the urging of their people. It’s called “democracy.”
It’s called “the first step on the road to fascism.” The US has always been a multicultural country, and the thought of imposing some kind of affected cultural norm is contrary to all our traditions.
Once upon a time, that brand of “democracy” in America enacted Jim Crow laws and worked to wipe out Native cultures and populations. Vox populi, vox Dei, am I right?
“the thought of imposing some kind of affected cultural norm is contrary to all our traditions.”
My Sioux mother would disagree.
Sorry; I would have mentioned the attempted genocide of indigenous populations, but that would have been making white people feel guilty. Can’t have that, can we?
Or are you saying that conservatives see nothing wrong with the old “kill the Indian/save the man” philosophy?
That’s what’s so hilarious about today’s social/cultural/political reactionaries. They imagine that they would have been dumping the tea in Boston Harbor and proclaiming abolitionism and fair treatment for natives and fighting Jim Crow, when their actual personalities would have made them Tories and Confederate sympathizers and stone throwers at the kids desegregating schools. In short, today’s “pro-lifers” imagine THEY would gave been the social progressives, lol.
No insight or self awareness of what “conservatism” was over the centuries, and what they would have been naturally attracted to.
“European nations who have had open borders for years (see England, France, the Netherlands) have begun to re-think those policies at the urging of their people. It’s called “democracy.””
And the result of their rethinking is broad commitment to the EU and open borders. Near 2 to 1 approval in all countries except Greece. And in the one who left:
“Share of people who think Brexit was the right or wrong decision 2020-2023. As of July 2023, 57 percent of people in Great Britain thought that it was wrong to leave the European Union, compared with 32 percent who thought it was the right decision.”
You missed the point where DJT was enamored with all global dictators because he wanted (wants) to be one and the “R” folks are more than happy to make the R party a party of dictatorial rule, one need look no further than minority gerrymandering rule, reducing women to 2nd class citizens, and making anyone of not perfect sexual orientation illegal humans! The 3rd Reich would be more than happy with your “peaceful” resolution efforts! Guess, I’m one of those > 40 with no brain!
‘
“The “right wing” is in agreement with nations and national leaders who recognize that their nation’s culture is important enough to protect through managed immigration policies”
C’mon now, you don’t really care about the “through managed immigration policies” part, right? It’s pretty obvious that your party doesn’t either.
You’re really desperate in trying to make Vivek Ramaswamy a thing since your first choice, DeSantis, can’t seem to mount a coherent campaign…or thought.
Sadly, DeSantis is quite coherent, to the extent fascist thought is coherent.
His problem is why would a MAGA person support a boring deputy over the exciting cult leader? And how can he attack Dear Leader without alienating his followers? That and the fact that DeSantis is just another rightwing grifter at heart…
Comment noted and recorded for reference in 12 months. Thank you for your comment.
While we’re on the subject, someone should be tracking all sorts of predictions.
How many more times will Trump be indicted?
Will the Biden Crime Family ever be indicted?
How many of Trump’s inner circle will end up behind bars?
Who leaves the Senate first – Feinstein or McConnell?
Does Manchin run for POTUS with ‘No Labels’?
Does MNGOP break DFL trifecta?
Does GOP nominate Trump while he’s a criminal defendant? With whom as running mate?
This could be fun!
“Does GOP nominate Trump while he’s a criminal defendant? With whom as running mate?”
The guy in the cell next to him with the shaved head and the homemade tattoos. Water finds its own level.
It certainly appears in the world of Special Prosecutors Jack Smith is the Harlem Globetrotters and John Durham a poor excuse for the Washington Generals. Trump could not even competently weaponize the DOJ no matter how much he and Barr tried.
This commentary is accurate as far as it goes. Most close elections are won by the independent/swing voters that Slocum talks about and in general elections they are typically the focus of the two parties’ appeals. But he ignores at least two key features of the current partisan landscape.
First, large numbers of voters tell pollsters that they are independents for a variety of reasons (e.g., they are reticent about revealing their views), but they lean and consistently vote for one or another of the two main parties, if only because they don’t want to waste their votes. But more likely because when push-come-to-shove that is who they identify with and the vector of policies that they support. (Independents may be quite conservative on some policies and liberal on others. They don’t consistently support some vague centrist agenda.) The percentage of true independent voters who are willing to switch between the two parties’ candidates is small, especially in presidential elections, contrary to the superficial data that Slocum cites. I would guess the 7 percent in this 2019 Pew piece, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/15/facts-about-us-political-independents/ (those who express no “lean”) is still higher than reality. In any case, it is a far cry from the half or one-third Slocum cites.
Second and more important, the nominating process for president (also true for statewide offices in Minnesota) are dominated by the parties’ “bases” (i.e., core, activist committed voters) and those bases have more extreme views – hard right for the GOP and pretty far left for the DFL. That means it is difficult to nominate candidates that can credibly appeal to centrist voters. For example, the current GOP presidential primary is dominated by two candidates, Trump and DeSantis, who have little appeal to true independents, centrist type voters. Unless that basic dynamic changes, the parties and especially the GOP will be stuck not following Slocum’s advice.
As a much more heterogeneous party, the Dems have been better at this than the GOP. For example, in the 2016 primary the GOP candidates were unwilling to band together against Trump and anoint one strong candidate to defeat him, unlike what the Dems did in 2020 when multiple marginally viable candidates withdrew after the SC primary to ensure Biden, the most centrist candidate, would be nominated and give the party its best chance to defeat Trump. I have often wondered if that is because the leftist ethic is more communitarian, while the GOP is more individualistic. Maybe GOP politicians are just more delusional about their chances and, thus, are unwilling to give up the fight?
The whole thing is a conundrum and flaw in our political system. The structure of our political system with its single member legislative districts and whoever gets the most votes wins even if it is only a plurality creates a strong bias toward a dominant two-party system. The days when a few party elites (in smoke-filled rooms?) could pick candidates who appeal to the median voter, who is typically an independent and centrist policy wise, is long gone.
Yes, but…
Probably 80-90% of the people I know claim to be independents. Yet when I talk to them, and get to know their feelings on politics, it’s probably only 10-20% whom I would classify that way. If you know how they’re almost certain to vote, regardless of the individual candidates, they’re not really independent, even if they like to think of themselves in that way.
Exactly right.
I would agree, as a right leaning lefty its usually a choice between the ultra crazy lefty, or the ultra crazy righty, usually choose left because they tend to do less damage! A post about states rights is nothing more than a reversion to feudalism! Seems our R friends prefer feudal war lords like Abbot, DeSantis etc. etc.
Slocum has a knack for mischaracterizing fundamental observations. The notion that some group of people MUST reside betwixt either of two parties rather than OUTSIDE of those two parties creates a false narrative that services “centrist/moderate” extremism and makes realistic political orientation nearly impossible.
This “history” of polarization is as fanciful as the notion that Fascism is just another form of politics and Democrats are a “liberal” political Party. The reality is that people will congregate around successful and popular agendas regardless of Party affiliation. The “Two-Party” system never actually represented any majority and has largely functioned as gate-keeper that marginalized popular voices and policies in order to promote wealthy and powerful interests. The current battles over rent control clearly illustrate this fact. Rent control is a popular policy supported by a clear majority of resident in MPLS and St. Paul, yet it has been dismantled and sabotaged by the Democratic Party machines in both cities. Is rent control a “centrist/moderate” popular initiative or a radical leftist initiative? How can it occupy a radical leftist space outside the two Parties instead of “central” space by virtue of it’s popularity? How can an unpopular or non-existent “center” betwixt the two Parties be the REAL concentration of political power or the solution to polarization?
Polarization itself is a false narrative that seeks to re-establish a defunct status-quo organized around inequality. The truth is if you look opinion polls you will see a clear drift towards liberal consensus on everything from abortion to living wages. This consensus terrifies and confuses the media and the status quo who constantly try to characterize it as some kind of “leftist extremism” but by definition, extremism must lie beyond popular support, not embody it. You can’t rationally define a majority as “extremists”… when the majority becomes extreme… it’s not extreme anymore. The mere existence of extremists or Fascists on the political landscape doesn’t place the entire landscape in a condition of polarized paralysis.
Popular support isn’t the measure of what is moderate versus extreme. There would be popular support for the distribution of Elon Musk’s billions but that certainly wouldn’t be the “moderate” point of view. Drifting towards leftism is meaningless as long as the courts are run by constitutionalists, which is why Trump’s election was so important. Probably the only reason and why it’s not as important that he win again.
Actually Dennis, if in fact redistribution all of Musk’s wealth WERE a popular enough idea, it would in fact not be an extremist objective… extremism isn’t simply something YOU happen to disagree with. However we live in a capitalist economy permeated with delusions of meritocracy, therefore no majority would actually support simply taking Musk’s wealth away from him, and spreading around for no particular reason. Our Constitution would also prohibit that as unlawful taking. A Majority of Americans believe in wealth and it’s accumulation although they may critique disparity and decry excess, but communism would NOT be an extremist position in a communist society with a communist government.
If we start with an assumption that this is a constitutional republic, then:
A right wing “extremist” seems to be a political conservative who agrees with most if not ALL of the constitutional provisions as written, and opposes any proposed changes or laws that would run counter to those provisions, without much exception.
A left wing “extremist” is someone who disagrees with most if not all of the constitutional provisions and supports changing that constitution to say things it doesn’t say now.
Therefore a “moderate” would be one who generally agrees with the Constitution and the limits it places on government, with maybe some slight disagreement on this or that provision.
So right-wing extremists are all in for birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States (except children of foreign diplomats), while left-wing extremists want to see it ended.
May I suggest that you read the Constitution before making blanket pronouncements about who wants what?
Rather shallow. American “conservatives” have long disagreed with actual enforcement of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, as interpreted by previous decisions of the Supreme Court. As well as bitterly denouncing most interpretations of the long-hated 14th and 15th Amendments, including especially birthright citizenship, which they now seek to change.
They disagree with the primacy of the 1st Amendment over the common law of libel as well. They also do not agree with the 2nd Amendment “as written”, since it plainly is an 18th Century “national security” provision dealing with state-run militias, not some vague notion of “personal protection”. They also strongly support the (unwritten) idea that politically-directed money is somehow “speech”, which cannot be regulated.
Further, the actual language of the Constitution almost never gives definitive conclusions to disputes. So it’s an illusion to think there are “constitutionalists” or “originalists”. What we actually have are conservative activist judges who simply impose their preferred interpretations of “history” onto their (preordained) results, and damn whatever the actual historians may say!
Further, you will search high and low to find someone who disagrees with “most if not all of the constitutional provisions”. So your “left wing extremists” don’t even exist.
Finally, it is not per se “left wing extremist” simply to seek to amend the Constitution, witness the first 10 Amendments, all proposed and ratified as part of the initial process. The document has specific provisions regarding amendments, after all. Do you think all 27 amendments were “extremist”?
Dennis, when you start with gibberish, you end with gibberish. This is what happens when people can’t bring themselves to admit they live in a democracy try to explain the nature of the political landscape with no coherent description of extremism or moderation.
Well that illuminates your thought as to why the 19th amendment was a mistake.
The vast majority of Americans do not know who their legislators are. My guess is that if you polled the question, the vnumber of respondents who didn’t know who the vice president is would exceed 10%. And bear in mind, vIery few people answer polls these days so the polls you see are mostly the product of guess work.
There is a hole in the center of our politics, but if that’s true, it’s a pretty small one. What are the issues that affect us most on a regular basis? My picks would be Social Security and Medicare. On those issues, Democrats and the leader of the Republican Party mostly agree. I think a big reason lots of people feel safe in voting for Trump is that on the issues that matter most, he will hold firm. They can afford the risk.
McCarthy’s House of Chaos already seeks to make substantial cuts to both Social Security and Medicare, although they would likely exempt current recipients, lest Repubs suffer electoral annihilation. The idea that Trump would veto any cuts to those programs that a hypothetical Repub Congress enacted is absurd, whatever he may say. It is possible that such a Repub Congress wouldn’t be able to enact any legislation, of course, since they can’t actually legislate.
He is an uninformed imbecile and would be rolled by the “conservative” gub’mint haters in a 10 minute meeting. He’d just say “we are making it so much more beautiful, so much more perfect”…
For me, one of the mysteries of American politics is the Republican desire to cut Social Security and Medicare. But they strangely do. But what I would also point out is that former President Trump opposes any cut in Social Security, and has proposed health care proposals far more radical than I have the nerve to suggest. He wanted to cut presciption drug costs by 75%, and I said more power to him.
Hram, it’s only mystery so long as you refuse to accept the fact that you’re dealing Fascists and sociopaths who cling to Atlas Shrugged like a bible.
Of course the most obvious feature of the two-party “centrist” regime is/was it’s abject failure as a political regime. Over the course of 40 years the system Slocum wants to celebrate utterly failed to address ANY major crises that emerged in the nation. Every major crises I graduated from high school with in 1980 had only gotten worse and more catastrophic by the time Trump got into the White House. A variety of inequities ranging from racial to financial, and gender inequalities deepened and festered to the point where cops were/are murdering people in the streets and sexual predators ran major corporations with near impunity. The crises of poverty and homelessness persisted and worsened, the nations infrastructure started collapsing, and “we” overcame our “Viet Nam Syndrome” and once again started launching our troops into endless wars. Even basic mechanisms of democracy like voting rights and access have been hammered down during this era of centrist euphoria. Meanwhile the notion of a “popular” president became quirky example of nostalgia associated with Eisenhower.
The only bright spot was LGBT progress against discrimination, but bipartisan or Democratic centrists can’t take ANY credit for that since it was largely accomplished despite their resistance or disinterest. The “centrists” Democrats in my part of the woods warned the gay community not to “over-reach” with demands for equality beyond “moderate” sensibilities and had to be dragged into the debates about gay marriage and voter ID amendments.
Even historically a two-party system that came out of the box with enslaved human beings, abject economic exploitation that only got worse with industrialization, and compromise with 100 years of Jim Crow not to mention the genocide of decades of Indian wars, can hardly be described as a: “good as it gets” political regime. And when we find progress and justice, we invariably find that it emerges from activists outside the two Parties rather than between them… in the “middle”.
Meanwhile the rightward lurch of our entire political landscape demolished the very idea of a coherent “center” of any kind. When the neo-liberal/conservative New Democrats took over the Part in the 70’s and 80’s they put the bipartisan regime solidly to the right of the American population. So much so that they had to consistently lie about being “progressive” or even liberal for the next 30 years in order to get elected. This was a lie eventually collapsed almost entirely with the catastrophic failure of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. The political/economic elite enjoyed their affluence and discovered how easy it is to live with crisis everyone else is living with and voters eventually got desperate enough to make Trump a viable candidate.
Trump may be a Fascist but Fascist typically get into power by exploiting the failings of current regimes; and those failing were/are legion. And so it goes. The failures of the past cannot be the antidote to crises of the present.
Wonderful writing and coherent message. All I can offer is that today’s Dem party is more united and is at least trying to drag the (now perverted) “center” leftward. At least that’s what I perceive.
But now we also have an illegitimate Repub Supreme Court with six intellectually dishonest “justices” intent on torpedoeing anything remotely “progressive”, either by intentionally misreading enacted statutes or declaring progressive policies unconstitutional under totally spontaneous, made-up legal “doctrines”. It’s going to be a long uphill climb.
Thank you BK. I would hasten to point out that even the fiasco in the courts right now is a product of the “centrists” bipartisan failure. Remember… Biden et al ushered in the current era of intellectual fraud on the bench when they put Scalia on the court with 98 votes. Biden has been bragging about that for decades because it proved how conservative he could be in a pinch right? With one exception Democrats would go on to empanel more Scalia’s for the next 30 years.
Listen: When Obama took office I thought he was just slinging some obligatory rhetoric when he talked about working with his “friends” on the other side of the isle. I didn’t think he could possibly be THAT deluded… but he was. Then after 5 years of his “friends” doing everything possible to nullify his presidency, they blocked his SCOTUS and other nominations for a year and STILL Obama’s ends up joining the chorus of complaints against “wokeism” rather than condemning Fascism… and he’s supposed a “centrists” let alone a liberal? Booshwah!
For decades the primary function of “centrist” moderation has been that of keeping common sense off the table. Look: just ask yourself which if any of the bipartisan “compromises” or SCOTUS decisions in the last 40 years adversely affected much less harmed the nations political and economic elite? We can easily point to harm and adversity delivered to everyone else from women to labor.
“But now we also have an illegitimate Repub Supreme Court with six intellectually dishonest “justices””
Cites please. Please illustrate how the present Supreme Court is illegitimate. In detail.
I’ve written about that idea dozens of times, Tom. You just aren’t listening. Feel free to peruse my past comments, it won’t take long to see why I maintain the Trump/McConnell Court is democratically illegitimate.
As for intellectual dishonesty, their lengthy string of recent decisions misreading the plain language of statutes or pretending that they cannot believe what the Congress actually wrote should suffice. As should each of their confirmation lies about Roe being “settled precedent”.
But you may be pleased to know that I have been slowly coming to the conclusion that Gravedigger of Democracy McConnell’s decision to unilaterally refuse to hold hearings and an up-or-down vote on Garland was likely unconstitutional under the “advise and consent” clause. Whether others have stated this (“cites please”), I don’t know. But it would certainly mean that the intentionally manufactured vacancy in that seat for over a year was unconstitutional.
The court’s legitimacy couldn’t be more in question following the revelations of so much monetary influence being asserted on the court.
I wonder how anyone could believe the justices have maintained objectivity and ethical discipline befitting judges– the lack of recusals and the naivete shown– the appearance of blatant impropriety is disappointing at best and criminally corrupt at worst.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars being given to people who are appointed for life with a paid staff at their command is OUTRAGEOUS.
And the only “defense” thrown out is: “They are committed conservative judicial activists, so they might as well have rightwing sugar daddies lavishly reward them for their prior (and future) rulings! Where’s the harm?”
And the worthless corporate media notes the story and “moves on”. Irreversible societal degeneracy.
Before we drop off the Minnpost radar here for the weekend let me just tie this discussion about “legitimacy” back into the Two Party fiasco. It’s important to remember that one problem with the two party system has always been the nature of power sharing in a system that only has… two Parties. No matter how whackadoo a Party may be, if it’s one of only two Parties it’s “legitimate” right?
So here we have a Republican Party that really started descending into Fascism in earnest when Nixon and Kissinger committed treason in order to capture the election in 68. THAT act of treason signaled the modern era of Republican politics wherein Republicans were no longer willing to abide free and fair elections. Then Reagan and Bush followed up with similar Iranian deals, and by the time we get to Clinton’s impeachment Republicans have decided that circumventing legitimate elections should be supplemented by nullifying any election they lose, which predictably leads us to the Trump and the attack on the Capital.
It’s important to note the role that the two Party system plays in abiding this Republican descent into Fascism. By virtue of their mere presence as one of two Parties, Democrats end up treating Fascism as-if it’s normal politics. In fact, Fascism can best described as anti-politics because it seeks to capture power and exercise it without the need for political negotiation. As late as Obama and into HRC’s disastrous campaign Democrats were STILL clinging to the delusion that they were just dealing with a Party they “shared” power with because a two party system assumes a de facto level of power sharing. But what happens when one of the two Parties abandons the notion of “sharing” power in favor of a Fascist agenda of capturing power and keeping it indefinitely? When one of the two parties decides it want to take over and create a one party system the two party mentality can actually obscure reality enough to create space for Fascism to emerge… and emerge it did.