Trump

[luka]

do countries with numerous parties all representing a small percentage of the population manage to work more efficiently? coalitions to form majorities, etc.? I don't know, asking the question. maybe.

I don't think effeciency is the only yardstick.

 

[Leo]

We have had serious multiparty elections in this country it's just been a century or so. Dems are pretty splintered between Sanders and Biden types. The far left, like the far right, is always threatening to break off, a lil AOC Jill Stein crossover event, who knows. Could end up with positive realignment. Multiparty makes extreme candidates more likely to be elected though—see Trump's takeover of the GOP primaries in 2016.

true, but progressive and mainstream Dems came together to support the eventual party candidate. I think that's the healthy situation: various interests within the party -- the big tent -- but at certain points working together for the common good.

 

[entertainment]

do countries with numerous parties all representing a small percentage of the population manage to work more efficiently? coalitions to form majorities, etc.? I don't know, asking the question. maybe.

yes, our system here works much better than yours I think

 

[Leo]

I don't think effeciency is the only yardstick.

well, efficiency in contrast to the stasis you mentioned. the ability to get things done.

 

[entertainment]

politics are a bit less political in a multi-party system.

 

[IdleRich]

Educate me Daddy teach me those radical french lefties, those Frankfurt marxists in tattees—oh wait! Thats where I got half my ideas.


We have had serious multiparty elections in this country it's just been a century or so. Dems are pretty splintered between Sanders and Biden types. The far left, like the far right, is always threatening to break off, a lil AOC Jill Stein crossover event, who knows. Could end up with positive realignment. Multiparty makes extreme candidates more likely to be elected though—see Trump's takeover of the GOP primaries in 2016.

Yeah I've always thought it more likely to be the left that splintered up to now.
Multiparty makes more likely that radical candidates are elected? Does it though? I just wrote the opposite but I think that it depends on the system and it's also important to think about what it would mean if they get elected in different systems.
For instance, in the UK, when UKIP (who I'd consider fairly extreme - or let's say fringe) got 12 percent of the vote in 2015 they only got one seat out of six hundred odd. If we had PR then I guess they would have 75 seats or something and would be more visible sure - but they wouldn't be able to put through any policies on their own and would have to negotiate with other parties on what they would support and what would be supported in return. Presumably any extremely fringe policy that would be anathema to the other parties would still not be passed. But yeah they would be more visible. Hmm.

 

[entertainment]

also more extreme views find legitimate expression easier so you don't get the constipation and smouldering radicalization. of course some of this will just happen above ground but i'd say that's better

 

[IdleRich]

well, efficiency in contrast to the stasis you mentioned. the ability to get things done.

But what needs to be done? A lot of the time you feel that governments are just passing policies cos they are in power and they are supposed to. With a few exceptions a lot of it is either just bollocks or is undoing the previous government's policies. I'd be happy if most of that didn't happen and governments concentrated on important stuff which they really cared about it and put in the work to negotiate and compromise and get it done.

 

[luka]

What has happened in NZ since they introduced proportional representation is that labour or the tories can only govern if they bring in one or more of the little parties. There's a populist party (New Zealand First) which incorporates left and right policies and is usually willing to do business with either, there's a party to the right of the tories (ACT) and then there's the greens to the left of labour.

At least that's how I remember it working.

 

[Leo]

But what needs to be done? A lot of the time you feel that governments are just passing policies cos they are in power and they are supposed to. With a few exceptions a lot of it is either just bollocks or is undoing the previous government's policies. I'd be happy if most of that didn't happen and governments concentrated on important stuff which they really cared about it and put in the work to negotiate and compromise and get it done.

but your last sentence says you want governments that are able to get important stuff done.

also, there's always going to disagreement on what constitutes "important stuff". trump base would say building the wall falls into that category, progressives would say voting rights and election reform are top priorities. and each party would think the other is "just passing policies cos they are in power", right?

 

[IdleRich]

but your last sentence says you want governments that are able to get important stuff done.

Yeah I think that if there is something they think is important they should work for it and get a compromise. But I don't think they should be able to pass whatever spurious rule their focus group comes up with that week without lifting a finger... they should have to work to get their stuff on the statute book and as a result it might help to concentrate their minds and focus on the things that are important. I don't see any contradiction here. Fewer new laws as a kind of guiding principle, not a cast iron rule.
As for the wall - yeah, I'm sure it was important to Trump and his gang, that's why it's so funny that he couldn't get his fucking arse in gear and do it when he had everything in his favour. Campaign promises are the ones you can argue you have a mandate for, but weirdly enough the Mexicans didn't respect the US vote and pay for the wall... this is the problem with Brexit too, politicians howling that "The british people voted for a GOOD brexit" doesn't make it possible.

 

[Leo]

but what laws constitute "important stuff" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[IdleRich]

Yeah but they select their own. I mean if a government is in power for four years and plans to pass 200 laws but it turns out they only have time to pass 50 then they will choose the 50 most important to them. What's the issue there?

 

[Leo]

I was just trying to understand what you're saying. first you said

A lot of the time you feel that governments are just passing policies cos they are in power and they are supposed to.

and then you said.

I'd be happy if most of that didn't happen and governments concentrated on important stuff which they really cared about

and I'm saying maybe the policies you refer to in your first sentence ARE the "important stuff" they really care about.

 

[IdleRich]

I'm saying that presumably more important than others though and if they were restricted in the number that they could put through then that would no doubt focus their minds to help them decide which were THE most important.
I don't think there is any contradiction in what I'm saying is there? You may not agree with it but I don't think it's inherently self-defeating I maen.

 

[Diefreien]

do countries with numerous parties all representing a small percentage of the population manage to work more efficiently? coalitions to form majorities, etc.? I don't know, asking the question. maybe.

The fear in any parliamentary system that has more than two more parties is collapse. But for example. Belgium didn't have a majority government until late 2020, with a two-year period of having a minority government. The PM was only given more power due to COVID. But the bureaucracy kept on running and budgets were reused. It's not like the U.S. does anything different when one party doesn't control the Presidency and both chambers of Congress, which is most of the time.

American politics has essentially four or five or even six parties pretending to be two, forming permanent coalitions b/c they hate each other the least. If we had a system that allowed for more than two parties, we'd see smaller parties that would better reflect the needs of their base, while forming coalitions as needed. The progressive-socialist wing of the Dems still at the end of the day usually buckle up for whatever neo-lib the DNC throws at them after trying to route them, so if anything having a multi-party system would give minorities more power, especially when deciding majority governments.

It seems more accurate to say our election system encourages two party equilibria, but it's not necessary, and it can pop out of equilibrium if conditions are right.

Yeah, there have been times where we had a multi party system (look at the years leading up to the Civil War), but the election system heavily favors a two-party system. Historically, all the smaller parties either die or get sucked back into one of the two parties in order to keep on existing (see: Minnesota Dem-Farmer-Labor)

 

[sus]

Welcome Diefreien! Yes, antebellum America is precisely the historical period I had in mind. Good to have ya

 

[Leo]

yeah, welcome Diefreien. good points, agree. I will say while the progressive wing do tend to side with moderate Dems, Biden's agenda out of the box in 2021 is far more progressive than what he might have proposed had he run and won four or eight years ago. The entire Democratic Party has moved left, what's considered moderate Dem now would have been progressive a decade ago.

 

[Diefreien]

Thanks you two, I appreciate it! I got a copy of k-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished Writings of Mark Fisher (well - the digital version anyways, physical is coming through the mail rn) and Simon Reynolds' intro mentioned Dissensus, so I was curious if it was still around. I thought it'd be nice to join a forum on cultural/political/musical theory with like minded people. Closest one to this was a "European culture" forum I was briefly on that was filled with a bunch of fash.

Welcome Diefreien! Yes, antebellum America is precisely the historical period I had in mind. Good to have ya

For a more contemporary example of what major third-party performances may look like in the future, the period between roughly 1892 and 1944. During this period a number of left-wing parties - usually in the Republican-dominated Midwest - would receive national attention. It was a lot more touch-and-go than with the Antebellum period, they would ebb and flow into periods of popularity before fading away, usually during boom periods when agricultural prices had settled to normal or above-normal. Groups like the Populist Party in the 1890s, (funny how the first modern usage of the word "populist" was by leftists, and now it's a word used to demonize anyone against the neo-lib status quo) the Progressive Party(ies) in the 1910s and 1920s, the Nonpartisan League in the late 10s and early 20s, and the Farmer-Labor movement in the early 20s to 40s briefly would arrive on the scene in times of economic windfall, dominate state politics, and then merge with one of the two main parties. Of course then the Dems and GOP were less divided by political differences (they both had fairly comparable progressive and conservative wings_ than by ethnic differences, so the ability for unwieldy coalitions to rise and fall like that did make more sense.

Still, you have the Vermont Progressive Party which has sizable influence in their home state, and shares some important offices with the Dems (former Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman is both a Dem and Prog Party member, though he runs under the Prog banner). In 2016 the 3rd party progressive Mountain Party (which is affiliated with the Greens) got nearly 6% of the vote in West Virginia gubernatorial elections. Though that's mainly due to Gov. Jim Justice who won in 2016 -- he was a Republican before 2015, ran for governor as a Democrat in 2016 (somehow winning the primaries), then in 2017 switched back to be a Republican.

I think any future of third-parties (particularly on the left) here will be similar to that of the Vermont or West Virginian progressives, and having off-and-on coalitions with the Dems, but walking out if they go too far right. That or local level politics, like the Trotskyist on the Seattle City Council (Kshama Sawant - member of Socialist Alternative) the CPUSAer on the Ashland City Council in Wisconsin, or the Greens/SAers in Minneapolis.

It'll be interesting to see if the DSA does eventually pull the gambit and become an independent party. I hope not, I feel like they'd squander a first-rate opportunity to shift the Dems to the left.

yeah, welcome Diefreien. good points, agree. I will say while the progressive wing do tend to side with moderate Dems, Biden's agenda out of the box in 2021 is far more progressive than what he might have proposed had he run and won four or eight years ago. The entire Democratic Party has moved left, what's considered moderate Dem now would have been progressive a decade ago.

Oh yeah for sure, I was surprised by Biden's overtures to the left, particularly w/ Yemen. Personally I think part of it may be Bernie liking Biden more than Clinton and being able to work out some compromises. It is definitely a sign where the party's headed that the under 45-vote overwhelmingly went for Sanders this past election season. Back in the early 2000s, the "progressive" choice would've been what - Howard Dean?

The question is whether the progressive-socialist wing will be able to grab any part of the party mechanisms before it's too late.

 

[sus]

I would appreciate a change of scene for sure. The current paradigm clearly isn't working, fresh ideas, fresh frames, fresh divisions of people, all for it.