Another factor that supports your claims is death of the Constitutional Amendment as a part of American politics. Up until the 1970s/80s (a time period you highlight) Constitutional Amendments were a regular part of the American political system and since there has only been one and it has an asterisk. When was the last time there was a sustained effort at an Amendment? I have never seen what a campaign for an amendment looks like - hell my parents were of an age that they got the right to vote in 1972 because of the 26th amendment. Just another point in your argument's favor is that we have given up on the idea that our institutions can and sometimes should change, but there was a time where it was normal.
Thanks for this and your analysis. Can you share your thoughts about mounting extremism in Europe and parts of Asia, where multiparty politics exists and is enshrined? I'm not sure why this is the answer given that...
Interesting read that got me to thinking that, in Canada with our parliamentary system, we have come to much the same end. While we enjoyed four federal parties only two attracted the type of following required to win an election outright. These two parties mirror the American parties. Our most socially liberal party is the Liberal party (identifying with the Democratic party) and our most right wing party is the Conservative party (identifying with the Republican party).
Trump's issuance of tariffs and his rhetoric around the "51'rst state" was viewed as a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty by most. Without any formal organization Canadians adopted the suggestion of a boycott of American goods in order to show our displeasure. One would think that based on the effectiveness of our boycott , the willingness of other countries to pile on and the disruptive global effects of Trump's presidency our election results would be more convincingly lopsided.
The election was narrowly won by the Liberal party based upon the qualifications of that party's leader. Mr. Carney is not what most Canadians would identify as a Liberal. He would be more properly classified as a Red Tory. One who is a fiscal and governmental conservative while protecting established socialist institutions (free national health care, Canada Pension, etc). He appeared to be the best man for the job at hand.
For my American cousins: Canada doesn't vote for a "leader". Canada votes for a "party". A party wins an election by having the most parliamentary representatives voted in. Whoever is leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister. You could vote for "Bob" because he is the incumbent MP for your riding and has represented you well but does not reflect your political points of view or vote for "Mary" because she represents the federal party you identify with and you really like that party's leader. You could also vote strategically to deny a party a majority. It is a 'First Past the Post' system meaning you pick one candidate in your riding (geographical area). If that candidate has the most votes he/she wins regardless as to whether he/she has more than 51% of the popular vote. We can have majority or minority governments. Any government can be replaced by losing a 'vote of confidence' thereby triggering a new election.
Since you linked to this in a recent post, and touched on my thing, here's the glaring issue that virtually every American political analyst has with properly applying complex systems analysis to the USA:
You all aim to "fix" what has always been inherently broken. America as an idea is a fiction held together by delusion. Today's political scientists operate from a perspective that assumes America to be some kind of fixed entity, with any evolution outside familiar bounds taboo to imagine.
Basically, too many scholars are underestimating regional cultural factors. What each partisan team truly constitutes is an alliance of states organized around the loose presumption that Red wins are good for all Red states. This only persists because of the infestation of all Constitutional processes by the two-party doom loop.
Where is this all headed? Federal dissolution - what always happens or nearly does when the US system heads into the autumn/winter loop of the Adaptive Cycle. Team Trump's policy is explicitly designed to damage the economic fortunes of the West Coast in particular. Nobody wants to admit that the USA is already five or six different countries. Those will have to be the foundation for any multi-party system that emerges. And it's only happening when groups of states start to coordinate reforms, political and economic, probably in conjuction with partners abroad.
The object "America" is lacking in substance. Fixation on it and not letting different regional cultures do with the Constitution what they will is one of the factors that might lead to a real civil war. Something I used to see as impossible. Then the Ukraine War changed what is possible to achieve with distributed, drone-based violence. The gates of hell are open.
Another factor that supports your claims is death of the Constitutional Amendment as a part of American politics. Up until the 1970s/80s (a time period you highlight) Constitutional Amendments were a regular part of the American political system and since there has only been one and it has an asterisk. When was the last time there was a sustained effort at an Amendment? I have never seen what a campaign for an amendment looks like - hell my parents were of an age that they got the right to vote in 1972 because of the 26th amendment. Just another point in your argument's favor is that we have given up on the idea that our institutions can and sometimes should change, but there was a time where it was normal.
Thanks for this and your analysis. Can you share your thoughts about mounting extremism in Europe and parts of Asia, where multiparty politics exists and is enshrined? I'm not sure why this is the answer given that...
Interesting read that got me to thinking that, in Canada with our parliamentary system, we have come to much the same end. While we enjoyed four federal parties only two attracted the type of following required to win an election outright. These two parties mirror the American parties. Our most socially liberal party is the Liberal party (identifying with the Democratic party) and our most right wing party is the Conservative party (identifying with the Republican party).
Trump's issuance of tariffs and his rhetoric around the "51'rst state" was viewed as a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty by most. Without any formal organization Canadians adopted the suggestion of a boycott of American goods in order to show our displeasure. One would think that based on the effectiveness of our boycott , the willingness of other countries to pile on and the disruptive global effects of Trump's presidency our election results would be more convincingly lopsided.
The election was narrowly won by the Liberal party based upon the qualifications of that party's leader. Mr. Carney is not what most Canadians would identify as a Liberal. He would be more properly classified as a Red Tory. One who is a fiscal and governmental conservative while protecting established socialist institutions (free national health care, Canada Pension, etc). He appeared to be the best man for the job at hand.
For my American cousins: Canada doesn't vote for a "leader". Canada votes for a "party". A party wins an election by having the most parliamentary representatives voted in. Whoever is leader of the winning party becomes Prime Minister. You could vote for "Bob" because he is the incumbent MP for your riding and has represented you well but does not reflect your political points of view or vote for "Mary" because she represents the federal party you identify with and you really like that party's leader. You could also vote strategically to deny a party a majority. It is a 'First Past the Post' system meaning you pick one candidate in your riding (geographical area). If that candidate has the most votes he/she wins regardless as to whether he/she has more than 51% of the popular vote. We can have majority or minority governments. Any government can be replaced by losing a 'vote of confidence' thereby triggering a new election.
Since you linked to this in a recent post, and touched on my thing, here's the glaring issue that virtually every American political analyst has with properly applying complex systems analysis to the USA:
You all aim to "fix" what has always been inherently broken. America as an idea is a fiction held together by delusion. Today's political scientists operate from a perspective that assumes America to be some kind of fixed entity, with any evolution outside familiar bounds taboo to imagine.
Hence the ongoing blindness to the obvious, something hinted at in the Great Sort and especially the American Nations project: https://www.nationhoodlab.org/tag/american-nations/
Basically, too many scholars are underestimating regional cultural factors. What each partisan team truly constitutes is an alliance of states organized around the loose presumption that Red wins are good for all Red states. This only persists because of the infestation of all Constitutional processes by the two-party doom loop.
Where is this all headed? Federal dissolution - what always happens or nearly does when the US system heads into the autumn/winter loop of the Adaptive Cycle. Team Trump's policy is explicitly designed to damage the economic fortunes of the West Coast in particular. Nobody wants to admit that the USA is already five or six different countries. Those will have to be the foundation for any multi-party system that emerges. And it's only happening when groups of states start to coordinate reforms, political and economic, probably in conjuction with partners abroad.
The object "America" is lacking in substance. Fixation on it and not letting different regional cultures do with the Constitution what they will is one of the factors that might lead to a real civil war. Something I used to see as impossible. Then the Ukraine War changed what is possible to achieve with distributed, drone-based violence. The gates of hell are open.
Montana has two initiatives on next month's ballot that may help with the current problem of extremists ending up on the general ballot. The initiatives could be bring moderation (and greater voter input) to the political process. https://montanafreepress.org/2024/10/04/twin-constitutional-initiatives-aim-to-make-montana-elections-more-competitive/
Great piece! Where did you get that picture of the two suns?