I Cannot Wait for the Inevitable End of the Two-Party System in America

IWB ^ | Robert Carbery

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The supposedly liberal party claims to fight for Americans’ liberties while furthering a destructive globalist agenda and kowtowing to its deep pocketed donors. But the Republicans are no different. They are far from the conservative party. Source: Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyond

In the above graph, the vertical axis might be considered to represent faith in American society (positive up) and the horizontal axis to represent faith in government (positive left)

Thus. the left-right spectrum, as conventionally understood, would on this chart not run straight from right to left horizontally, but rather from the bottom left to top right. To understand this clearly, consider

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

Paine draws a sharp distinction between government, on the one hand, and society on the other. The only reason to support having any government at all is the fact that your trust in society is not unbounded; some people cheat. Government is a necessary evil. But if you have great faith in government it means that you think that society is in desperate need of fixing. A politician on the lower left of this spectrum says, “I will fight for you.” Someone in the upper left quadrant of the graph, trusting society, will respond, “You are a loose cannon - who is there to fight?” And someone on the upper right quadrant will take it as a direct threat and say, “You are wrong to fight ME.”

The bottom horizontal axis represents minimal or no faith in (i.e., cynicism toward) society; the right hand vertical axis represents cynicism toward government.

Conventional analysis of politics tries to put everyone on the diagonal which starts with trust in government combined with cynicism toward society (at the lower left), and climbs to blind faith in society combined with cynicism toward government. The figure above suggests that in the real world there is another country being heard from - people with significant faith in both society and government. In fact, that territory has some obvious members. We certainly hope that our military has faith in our society, and we expect them to put their lives on the line for society under orders from the government.

The lesson Hillary expected to teach us in November was that there are a lot more people “on the left” (viewed as the lower left quadrant of the chart) than there are on the right, viewed as the upper right quadrant of the chart. The chart shows that she was correct. But what Donald Trump proved was that there was a winning majority of people in the top of the chart vs. the bottom. In short, Donald Trump won by including people “on the left” who were winnable because they were also on the top. There was a shocking number of voters in the bottom left quadrant; the Framers would be turning over in their graves. But, by all-too-thin a margins, there was enough concern for society to turn the tide of the elections in the critical states where the issue was in doubt.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[DownInFlames]

If the norks take out hi and the west coast, it will be a 1 party system for what ever the half life is for plutonium.

[laplata]

Thanks for the ping, c_ I_ c.

[Celerity]

“Take the various challenges on a widespread institution like marriage. Once upon a time, it was accepted without question or challenge that marriage was a bond between one man and one woman. But because certain advantages to the institution were tied to the existence of this bond, it was not “fair” that other non-heterosexual couples or even multiple groupings should not also enjoy these same benefits. No logical reasoning was ever provided as to why these benefits “should” be included, and always the exceptions and/or disclaimers focused on a very small part of the wider demographic involved.”

This is a wonderful example of the corruption. You see, there IS no logical reason to make or pass laws redefining marriage until one considers the money. Where we went wrong on marriage was the introduction of fiscal benefit to getting married.

No one is preventing the following:
1. Two gays wearing matching rings.
2. Two gays living together.
3. Either gay changing their last name. It’s the same process.
4. Gays from professing their love of each other.
5. A large party to celebrate the above.

What IS prevented is the tax break. Gay marriage is about money. Period. As far as the church, they can’t get married in churches for the same reason my accountant can’t get married in my catholic church.

They ain’t that persuasion.

So the root of the issue was the addition of a fiscal incentive. It was great to get people together to start making babies and buying homes - but they never saw the evil that lurked with the greedy, selfish future generations who like to put things in each other’s butt.

As usual, the core of every problem in the world is a government decision.

[Celerity]

“The problem is, they never do that. Despite periods of GOP majorities, the government still grows ever larger, the national debt continues to rise, more regulations burden businesses, our tax system remains an abomination, costly wars and nation building efforts persist, and our precious freedoms decline. “

Conservatism will fail by design. I believe our founders knew this - it’s only rational.

Lets say I run for office. As a conservative Republican, of course. And it’s my job to say “No” to things. People elected me to keep things the same, right ? The problem that I’m faced is this: “Do I fight to keep things the same from the moment -I- get into office, or do I fight to keep things the way the founders had it?”

Liberal douchebags use this argument ALL THE TIME. They say “If it were up to you, would you go back to slavery and jim crow laws ? Many of our founders and constitution signers owned slaves, ya know.”

So as generations pass, and new people are elected and old ones retire the line keeps moving.

So its not about preserving “The past” It’s about preserving a republic.

[aquila48]

This is nonsense.

The reason we have a two party system is the natural outgrowth of a winner take all voting system and voting for individuals rather than parties.

In Europe and elsewhere where they have proportional representation you have a dozen or more parties.

And even with that, their “establishment” is just as entrenched as ours.

The “establishment” is first and foremost the party of power, and power is the same everywhere. People that obtain power are roughly the same everywhere and they scratch each other’s back to retain that power. Rarely does a “saint” happens by to upset their apple cart. Trump may be such a rare occasion.

[Starboard]

So its not about preserving “The past” It’s about preserving a republic.

************

Republicans are not doing a good job of that either. The list of their failures to even preserve a semblance of a viable republic is a long one. When given the opportunity by the voters they do precious little, if anything, to preserve the integrity of voting, crime continues to soar unabated, they get us into protracted wars which weaken our country, they never hold anyone accountable for anything, and they essentially give the Dems whatever they want (such as approving Obama’s reckless spending). I could go on for page after page of failures but the point is, the GOP is not preserving anything.

Things deteriorate on their watch. And they don’t even make an effort to fight it. They are all talk, and no show.

[PeterPrinciple]

Do some research on what happens with a multi party system. A minority rules. Our two party system is not perfect but it is the best there is....................

[logitech]

(Excerpt) Read more at...

No.

[Safetgiver]

we devolve into a single party or have so many splinters that no on can rule.....THEY are not supposed to rule. They are supposed to LEAD to get the PEOPLE’S will done and help the people. THEY want only to dictate, much as we are devolving into today. THEY say “Elected? We want selected. Makes it more profitable for us.”

[Nifster]

Wrong choice of word on my part

The critters need to get some things done. The current group is part of the D.C. political Class

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is nonsense.

The reason we have a two party system is the natural outgrowth of a winner take all voting system and voting for individuals rather than parties.

In Europe and elsewhere where they have proportional representation you have a dozen or more parties.

Exactly. The left-right, "conservative-liberal” dichotomy is not the only way to configure the parties to attract voters. My #41 shows a different way.

My interpretation of that graph is that it plots trust in/ concern for American society vs. skepticism toward government. On that graph, IMHO, the left-right “political continuum”, conventionally understood, becomes a lower left - upper right continuum. This ignores two of the four quadrants of the graph and, as the figure shows, the lower right quadrant is indeed lightly populated - but the upper left quadrant is about as significant as the upper right quadrant is..

Trump won because, although in contrast with Hillary he competed in the upper half of the graph, he competed for the upper left as well as the upper right. On that playing field, Democrats with national stature are overcommitted to the bottom half of the graph. They would have to either move to the right economically or up culturally to attract more voters - and their core would hate either move. We economic conservatives thought of ourselves as the core of the anti-Hillary vote, but we find ourselves outnumbered by the Hillaryites - but saved by economically less conservative anti-Hillaryites.

The expectation has to be that economic success is/will follow Trump deregulation - and that will pull some of the population of the top left quadrant of the graph at least marginally rightward toward the middle of the top of the graph. That is, toward the core of Trump's support in the very middle of the upper half of the graph. Those/we on the right side of the upper half of the graph will be either politically unmoved (seeing it as the sun rising in the East, as usual), or will credit Trump’s success - and his judicial appointments - as being “worth a Mass" on Trump’s economic centrism.

[Safetgiver]

No problem. I get PO’d about hearing LSM media types saying “Hillary would rule better/more efficent/ etc”.

[Reily]

There will always be a 2 party system of some sort our system forces that. They may not be called Republicans & Democrats but our system is purposely designed by the Founding Fathers minimize factions (parties). The problem now is not our system but the “professional political class”. You would have that even with a multiparty system.

The only way a multiparty system can work in the USA is if we somehow amend the Constitution so its a Parliamentary system. The third party idea for conservatives is sirens call to break up the conservative movement just like the Sirens call to break Odysseus up on the rocks. (These Sirens just want to feed their egos & fill their pockets!)

And before someone jumps in and screams “UNIPARTY UNIPARTY” in principle I agree! However the only way that gets solved is support Trump, support primary candidates that support Trump, and work toward term limits!

Term Limits
1. Two consecutive terms (12 years) in the Senate, because pragmatically we will never rid ourselves of the professional politician, it must sit out one term (6 years) before returning to the Senate.

2. Six consecutive terms in the House then sit out three terms (6 years) before they can return to the House.

A decade in DC should be enough for any man!

While they are sitting out, above all GO HOME!!!!
Run for something else if you must. Maybe even get a private sector job. For compensation/retirement make it equivalent to a GS15 step 10,retirement is a 401K with matching Fed funds they can take home. All campaign money raised that's left over either goes to charity or to the party. Not to PACs or any “special interest” groups.

But above all GO HOME!!!!!

And

[NamVet71MP]

what a fantastic post. thanks.

[sport]

Man, you are like Rip Van winkle, the two party system died decades ago. We have had a one Party system with Team A and Team B ever since.

[Nifster]

Agreed

[ROCKLOBSTER]

I Cannot Wait for the Inevitable End of the Two-Party System in America

Q: What is a majority vote?
A: 50% + 1.

Q: What's 100% divided by 50%?
A: Two.

Right now, you have the RATs (one unified party) the RINOs (one "opposition party") and the conservative Republicans (the other opposition party)...so you already have three parties with the occasional "coalition vote" ruling the day.

There already are 54 or so other "third parties" How's that working out?

[Theoria]

Well said.