Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How is it that America can be so evenly divided between just two political parties organically and this division persists over decades and decades?
I’ve asked this question a ton of different places to different people at different times and usually no one understands what I’m asking and no one’s ever given me a satisfactory answer so let me over explain what I am trying to ask:
I work in e-commerce (I sell stuff online.) The Pareto principle is always extremely visible in sales results. My top selling item will always outsell the next best selling item, usually by a factor of 2:1 or greater. This also persists over time. Occasionally I come up with a new item that overtakes the previous leader but if it is an evergreen item it will eventually sell so much that it also reaches the 2:1 ratio or better. Basically the most popular item will always win out over time.
I can imagine a business like a coffee shop, where they have like 10 different drinks. The coffee is the most popular item and then matcha and chai are the second and third most popular. The coffee shop could manipulate demand for the chai and matcha seasonally to nudge one more popular than the other. I can imagine being able to change the popularity of secondary tier items that way, but that’s a product of seller manipulation rather than organic customer demand.
Anyway the way party politics work seems like it would be even more difficult to nudge people from one party to the other. And parties are not just two different flavor drinks, they represent actual underlying philosophical choices and plans/theories of actions. How is it that the Pareto principle doesn’t take over and suddenly the majority of Americans agree that one of the parties is correct and now like 70 percent of Americans in all areas only vote for that party and the 30 percent that’s left only vote for the other one and the 70 percent are just left to rule forever? Aren’t there other democracies where things operate in this manner?
I am not insinuating manipulation or conspiracy but my mental model can imagine the even split over decades of a two party system upheld through manipulation but I can’t conceive of it as an organic process. If anyone can explain I’d love to hear it
Because neither party actually solves national problems, and so each cycle one party comes into power promising to fix problems, doesn't fix them, and the public turns against the party in power. ((This is both people changing their vote and members of either party being more energized to turn out or demoralized and staying home))
Every winning presidential candidate this century has run promising a more restrained foreign policy and every one of them has started wars or foreign entanglement abroad. With the exception of Dubya's reelection in 2004 during the Iraq war, which sort of goes to the point.
2008 Obama runs on getting us out of Iraq, and wrapping up Afghanistan by the end of his term we're still in both and add Libya and Syria, Trump runs on no more forever wars but doesn't pull back anywhere, Biden finally gets us out of Afghanistan but drags us into entanglements in Ukraine and Gaza, Trump II we are back in a fresh middle eastern war.
High cost of healthcare, big corporate malfeasance, immigration etc. Every president comes in promising to fix the issue and doesn't fix it.
We might see a dominant party if one party could deliver actual results.
These problems won’t be fixed because fixing them would require stepping on the toes of powerful industries or interest groups who have skilled lobbyists. The current situation pleases enough of the middle class+ that even appeals to the power of the voters won’t work to create change. And any movement on them will be easily weaponized into a deadly political attack: “government death panels,” “big government interference,” “socialism,” “ICE hates brown people.”
Trump actually ran appealing to his personal wealth as a form of independence from lobbyists and party machines, but governed in his first term as a fairly standard Republican allied with industries like steel and coal.
We’re in the situation because it’s a stable equilibrium since the 80s. Some kind of massive shock would be required to change anything, something bigger than dot-com, bigger than the recession, bigger than Obama, bigger than Trump. In other words, if things changed to the point that major political reform were possible, we’d have bigger problems than healthcare costs.
Yes one explanation is that we have an 80% party and it's the corporate uniparty.
Alternatively, there's the corporate/deep state capture explanation, that as soon as a president seeking to change foreign policy gets into office, he's subject to deep state efforts to undermine him. Obama spoke of clashing with "the generals" when he tried to change course in the Middle East, while generals directly lied to Trump when he tried to pull out of Syria.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link