I look forward to reading part two. However, I am slightly troubled by the assertion about the two party system in the US. I see no evidence of a viable two-party system, but rather a uniparty system that allows differences of opinion on non-core issues. THIS is the issue in the US — and while it is difficult to advance a coherent thesis of all that is wrong in the world and the US, no progress towards clarity can be made without wrestling this matter to the ground. Tax policy, energy policy, the Fed, the Court, military, industry, all the stuff that matters shows majority alignment. What is the commonality? Atheism, the rudderless worldview that seeks personal gain unhindered by selflessness, to a commitment to something bigger, that admits to the existence of right and wrong.
That’s an interesting point. I would say that, compared with European states (including Britain), the difference between the two US parties is far starker. I agree that there are a lot of commonalities, and both parties are deeply imperfect. But I think the problem in Europe is far worse: there have been liberal uni-parties dictating policy across the Europe. By contrast the Trump presidency now, for example, is starkly different to the Biden presidency, in a way that’s almost unimaginable in Britain or France.
Very true. The two-party system compels a movement to the center in national elections (not so in primary elections). This stands in stark contrast to the multi-party systems in continental europe where coalitions are built with edge parties to avoid the center.
That admitted, the Rs and Ds in the US don’t differ in any fundamental ways. Trump is not a ‘Republican’ in any way but the party name at the top of the ticket. (He could have run as a Donk, in fact.) This overlap in policy is highly concerning and means that there is meaningful opportunity to make perdurable change. Witness House Speaker Mike Johnson’s meaningless celebratory tweet at Trump’s 100 Day mark, remarking on the nimble use of the executive order — this from the guy who literally determines the form and flow of the legislative agenda. He hasn’t lifted a pen to enshrine a single thing in law, but takes every opportunity to posture.
I look forward to reading part two. However, I am slightly troubled by the assertion about the two party system in the US. I see no evidence of a viable two-party system, but rather a uniparty system that allows differences of opinion on non-core issues. THIS is the issue in the US — and while it is difficult to advance a coherent thesis of all that is wrong in the world and the US, no progress towards clarity can be made without wrestling this matter to the ground. Tax policy, energy policy, the Fed, the Court, military, industry, all the stuff that matters shows majority alignment. What is the commonality? Atheism, the rudderless worldview that seeks personal gain unhindered by selflessness, to a commitment to something bigger, that admits to the existence of right and wrong.
That’s an interesting point. I would say that, compared with European states (including Britain), the difference between the two US parties is far starker. I agree that there are a lot of commonalities, and both parties are deeply imperfect. But I think the problem in Europe is far worse: there have been liberal uni-parties dictating policy across the Europe. By contrast the Trump presidency now, for example, is starkly different to the Biden presidency, in a way that’s almost unimaginable in Britain or France.
Very true. The two-party system compels a movement to the center in national elections (not so in primary elections). This stands in stark contrast to the multi-party systems in continental europe where coalitions are built with edge parties to avoid the center.
That admitted, the Rs and Ds in the US don’t differ in any fundamental ways. Trump is not a ‘Republican’ in any way but the party name at the top of the ticket. (He could have run as a Donk, in fact.) This overlap in policy is highly concerning and means that there is meaningful opportunity to make perdurable change. Witness House Speaker Mike Johnson’s meaningless celebratory tweet at Trump’s 100 Day mark, remarking on the nimble use of the executive order — this from the guy who literally determines the form and flow of the legislative agenda. He hasn’t lifted a pen to enshrine a single thing in law, but takes every opportunity to posture.