The assumption being made is that there is a good policy that people would vote for if they dropped partisan loyalties. But it this true? First of all, what a policy *does* is often unclear. Some people may think it does A, others B, where A and B are mutually incompatible. Second, even if they agree on what the policy does, they may disagree on the desirability of the thing it does.
Disagreements on these two dimensions is why you have ideologies and different parties in the first place. America did have a time when it got rid of party politics, after 1816 we had a one-party state. And what happened? They came back.
"First of all, what a policy *does* is often unclear. Some people may think it does A, others B, where A and B are mutually incompatible. Second, even if they agree on what the policy does, they may disagree on the desirability of the thing it does."
The above points are directly related to uninformed voters. If what a policy does is unclear, firstly, why are you still voting for a party with no clear idea of what policies they have? Secondly, if the process and result of the policy is unclear, as informed voters we should demand for that to be made clear. Better informed voters who vote on policy will demand more from politicians than voters who will vote with allegiance. That's why you get what you vote for. If you vote for policy that is not clear, don't be surprised when you don't see any tangible benefits.
Also, there is nothing wrong with ideology or different parties. It's actually much healthier to have more than two parties. The two party system is tragic for democracy as it fiercely divides people whilst also entrenching power with the parties.
"If what a policy does is unclear, firstly, why are you still voting for a party with no clear idea of what policies they have? "
Well informed voters may disagree over what the policy does. Sometimes this reflects a true lack of understanding of the effects of a policy, other times they are simply lying. For example, Republicans will cut taxes on rich people whenever they can. They've been doing this for 43 years, everybody knows it. Tax cut policy has enabled more money to flow into real estate, driving prices higher. People decry the unaffordability of homes yet pull the lever for Republicans. Democrats have condemned Republican tax cuts for the rich for as long as Republicans have been doing them, but when they are in power, they rarely undo them. So, are they really against them? As for third parties, they don't even address this issue.
This is probably the most important policy of all. It affects everything else. Nobody talks about it--its politically incorrect. Politics for decades now has been largely about ephemera.
It's not the voters. They were just as informed today as in the past Part of the problem is those who make the policy do not always understand themselves how the policy they want actually works. And when they do, they often lie about it to others and (sometimes) themselves.
You make a lot of good points Mike, especially the conclusion. That's the fundamental flaw of the two party system. But its only a two party system because the voters allow it. There are other parties out there, or independents, but no one votes for them.
The parties have convinced the electorate that their only options are red or blue when it's not the case.
My comment about the voters being not well informed in the past as well as the present was a reference to my newest post, which was not yet up then, but is now.
In this post I discuss how the country made the wrong choice in the elections of 1960 and 2000, creating significant adverse effects we still deal with today. It is not the voters' fault. The Gore campaign did not explain the lockbox adequately. I knew what it meant, but to read others' takes suggests most did not. That is a failure to communicate, or perhaps a lack of understanding of what their policy was supposed to do and how it was to do it.
And Nixon never made the best argument against Kennedy's program, and later went over to THEIR side when he became president, which suggests he didn't know what he was about any more than Kennedy did. This is what I meant by policymakers not understanding their own policy preferences.
Two party system is not the voter's fault. Duverger's Law refers to the observation that political systems with only one winner that fail the sincere favorite criterion typically result in two-party rule. Plurality voting systems like the one we have in the US typically fail the sincere favorite criterion and so result in two-party systems.
Nixon's 1971 proclamation that he was now a Keynesian in economics. By "Keynesian" he meant he would no longer worry about deficits. This notion was incorporated into Reaganomics later on and used to justify deficits resulting from tax cuts, a combination known as "supply side" or "trickle-down" economics. But the door to all of this was opened by 1960's Democrats which is why Kennedy in on my shit list as a Democratic president, not fit to carry FDR's slippers.
As you point out, at least in the US, democracy has become a tribal affair that is completely detached from reason and nuanced debate. This is, partly a consequence of the two party Presidential system, and the vetocracy that it has bred, which I analyzed here: lianeon.org/p/democracys-final-days
I do not know how America gets out of this political death spiral, but it must happen sooner rather than later. You already have many in the GOP asserting that they will not accept the election results…unless they win. That is a recipe for civil war.
The assumption being made is that there is a good policy that people would vote for if they dropped partisan loyalties. But it this true? First of all, what a policy *does* is often unclear. Some people may think it does A, others B, where A and B are mutually incompatible. Second, even if they agree on what the policy does, they may disagree on the desirability of the thing it does.
Disagreements on these two dimensions is why you have ideologies and different parties in the first place. America did have a time when it got rid of party politics, after 1816 we had a one-party state. And what happened? They came back.
"First of all, what a policy *does* is often unclear. Some people may think it does A, others B, where A and B are mutually incompatible. Second, even if they agree on what the policy does, they may disagree on the desirability of the thing it does."
The above points are directly related to uninformed voters. If what a policy does is unclear, firstly, why are you still voting for a party with no clear idea of what policies they have? Secondly, if the process and result of the policy is unclear, as informed voters we should demand for that to be made clear. Better informed voters who vote on policy will demand more from politicians than voters who will vote with allegiance. That's why you get what you vote for. If you vote for policy that is not clear, don't be surprised when you don't see any tangible benefits.
Also, there is nothing wrong with ideology or different parties. It's actually much healthier to have more than two parties. The two party system is tragic for democracy as it fiercely divides people whilst also entrenching power with the parties.
"If what a policy does is unclear, firstly, why are you still voting for a party with no clear idea of what policies they have? "
Well informed voters may disagree over what the policy does. Sometimes this reflects a true lack of understanding of the effects of a policy, other times they are simply lying. For example, Republicans will cut taxes on rich people whenever they can. They've been doing this for 43 years, everybody knows it. Tax cut policy has enabled more money to flow into real estate, driving prices higher. People decry the unaffordability of homes yet pull the lever for Republicans. Democrats have condemned Republican tax cuts for the rich for as long as Republicans have been doing them, but when they are in power, they rarely undo them. So, are they really against them? As for third parties, they don't even address this issue.
This is probably the most important policy of all. It affects everything else. Nobody talks about it--its politically incorrect. Politics for decades now has been largely about ephemera.
It's not the voters. They were just as informed today as in the past Part of the problem is those who make the policy do not always understand themselves how the policy they want actually works. And when they do, they often lie about it to others and (sometimes) themselves.
You make a lot of good points Mike, especially the conclusion. That's the fundamental flaw of the two party system. But its only a two party system because the voters allow it. There are other parties out there, or independents, but no one votes for them.
The parties have convinced the electorate that their only options are red or blue when it's not the case.
My comment about the voters being not well informed in the past as well as the present was a reference to my newest post, which was not yet up then, but is now.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/nixon-gore-the-paths-not-taken
In this post I discuss how the country made the wrong choice in the elections of 1960 and 2000, creating significant adverse effects we still deal with today. It is not the voters' fault. The Gore campaign did not explain the lockbox adequately. I knew what it meant, but to read others' takes suggests most did not. That is a failure to communicate, or perhaps a lack of understanding of what their policy was supposed to do and how it was to do it.
And Nixon never made the best argument against Kennedy's program, and later went over to THEIR side when he became president, which suggests he didn't know what he was about any more than Kennedy did. This is what I meant by policymakers not understanding their own policy preferences.
Two party system is not the voter's fault. Duverger's Law refers to the observation that political systems with only one winner that fail the sincere favorite criterion typically result in two-party rule. Plurality voting systems like the one we have in the US typically fail the sincere favorite criterion and so result in two-party systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
When you say 'THEIR side' what do you mean?
Nixon's 1971 proclamation that he was now a Keynesian in economics. By "Keynesian" he meant he would no longer worry about deficits. This notion was incorporated into Reaganomics later on and used to justify deficits resulting from tax cuts, a combination known as "supply side" or "trickle-down" economics. But the door to all of this was opened by 1960's Democrats which is why Kennedy in on my shit list as a Democratic president, not fit to carry FDR's slippers.
As you point out, at least in the US, democracy has become a tribal affair that is completely detached from reason and nuanced debate. This is, partly a consequence of the two party Presidential system, and the vetocracy that it has bred, which I analyzed here: lianeon.org/p/democracys-final-days
I do not know how America gets out of this political death spiral, but it must happen sooner rather than later. You already have many in the GOP asserting that they will not accept the election results…unless they win. That is a recipe for civil war.