Yes, it's a one-party system: the business party.

A real two-party system is kind of the wrong question, in my view. Ideally there would be either no parties or several parties, including a serious labor party and socialist party.

The question of political ideology between Republicans and Democrats does not necessarily entail a one party state even if such differences between the two are subtly becoming blurry.

As a European my knowledge of American politics is limited. I don’t know much about what your senate and congress do.

However I do know that there’s clearly competition between these two parties to have their chosen candidate elected to office and this election choice is clearly because it’s a two party system, otherwise we’d be dealing in conspiracy.

Yes, of course it's a one-party state – "the establishment" – with the two wings colluding to protect America's fundamentally rigged poltical-economic system (i.e. plutonomy).

After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. — Calvin Coolidge, 1925

i.e. "The Business Party" (Chomsky).

Presumably political parties exist because portions of the electorate -- society --have opposing as well as allied interests which a political party can pursue. If the Business Party is unconcerned or opposed to the interests of the working class, where does that class turn?

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that.

otherwise we’d be dealing in conspiracy — invicta

Which we seem to be doing, anyway.

Then don’t bother voting since whoever gets into office is the same guy :lol:

If there is but one party, why such polarization along such meaningless labels?

Is it really the case that people here would be willing to close their eyes and vote for whoever they randomly chose even if one of the candidates were Trump?

The two parties today are the Democrats and the Trumpists. With or without Trump they are on their way to becoming the Autocratic Party by some other name, perhaps Republican but perhaps a third party. In that case, there would be significant differences between the parties.

The two parties obviously have serious, substantive differences on policy. This is especially clear at the state level. Massachusetts, which has largely been run by Democrats for a century, some Republican governors winning on centrist campaigns notwithstanding, has a public health insurance plan that provides universal healthcare for its citizens, a needs based education funding scheme that makes it so that poor urban districts often have more funding per pupil, sometimes significantly more, than even wealthy districts, access to fire arms is extremely constricted (shockingly so, even having lived in New York before moving there), marijuana is sold over the counter, etc. These policies would be anathema in locales where the opposing party holds sway.

The two parties also have substantive differences vis-á-vis foreign policy. Clinton era multilateral idealism was not W. Bush's neoconservatism. Trump's isolationist agenda is radically different from either. Right now you have MTG and Tucker Carlson lauding the leaking of information that will benefit Russia in Ukraine, and Trump and Desantis talking about cutting off aid. That is, whatever you think about US involvement in that conflict or NATO, GOP leaders have recommend policy substantially different from the Democrats, who have to date been unified in voting for aid (yes, a small group of progressive Dems did float pushing back on aid, but that lasted all of 48 hours because their constituents blasted them). Obviously it isn't an area of polar opposites since a less vocal majority of Republicans still support aid, but it's a real difference on THE security issue of the day.

The parties also differ substantially on ongoing asylum claims and the status of undocumented immigrants. Given that this population makes up a quite meaningful share of the total population, and that close relatives of undocumented individuals make up an even larger share, this is a huge difference. Amnesty, which would entail access to benefits, and voting rights for this population has huge consequences for millions of residents of the country, as would a push for mass deportations or even just the continued denial of retirement benefits for people who have paid into Federal entitlement programs for decades.

The creation of a large, legally vulnerable underclass definitely effects labor markets in a big way, as does continual high rates of immigration by people with the equivalent of a high school degree or less in education and no trade skills, despite long term slumping demand for that segment of the labor market. Obviously, when migration is proportionately higher for below median and average earnings potential/net worth individuals and people move primarily into higher cost of living areas, it necessarily increases inequality. The parties differ a lot on how best to deal with these society shaping issues.

Really, Chomsky is just doing what demagogues always do, boiling down a complex problem filled with feedback loops, shifting alliances, histories of unintended consequences from reforms, etc. into a simple story of "bad, evil, greedy people make society bad. The truth is that everything is coordinated behind the scenes by a monolithic group. Thus, if we all unite we can replace the evil people with the righteous (us) and all shall be well forever."

It's the same sort of story the far-right spins. "Most of the 'other side' are useful idiots, but some elite clique actually coordinates everything. The scary nuance of the world can be reduced to a manichean struggle in which you are on the side of righteousness. Better still, you get to feel smart about having seen through the smoke screen of apparent nuance too!" They just disagree about who the "useful idiots," are.

He can spin a self-congratulatory narrative safe from having his policy recommendations ever having to deal with the nuances and difficulties of actually becoming reality. It's always easier to be the good guy when you don't need to get your policy voted on and then effectively implemented. You can claim the unpopularity of your positions is simply due to brainwashing, and you never have to deal with anything definite, which is good, since definiteness sullies purity

Gore Vidal made the same point decades ago -

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

I don't think this is just an American issue. Those 'small adjustments' for disadvantaged people keep some voters interested and make some differences to lives on the ground.

It seems a bit perverse to claim that groups of people which each call themselves a 'party' are nevertheless simply of the same party. The label of the party represents something profound, even if the core 'interests' they each pursue are, say, business 'interests'. So in my view it's a silly claim, even though as a lefty I agree with the emotion underlying the view - that business interests largely overwhelm the interests of others, even among parties that claim to be social democrats.

A secondary issue may be dwarfed in the USA by the Trumpian changes, but here in the UK there has grown a clear division between the interests of financial capital and of business capital. In this sense even the 'Business Party' would not be as monolithic as claimed.

:up:

Yeah, I suppose having a choice over carrying a child to term, or having universal access to child care versus spending about a third of your pre-tax income on it (how the math works out for someone making $40,000 a year even in a very low cost of living area) isn't that big of a difference in the long run.

I mean, the median cost for a family health plan (including what employers pony up) is only just over 50% of the median national household income. How much difference could a single-payer option have really meant in people's lives?

It is a two party state which suffers the ill effects that two party states are prone to.

One of these is capture. It is far easier to capture two parties than many. In a many partied system, more uncaptured parties can emerge, possibly in response to the capture itself. In a two party system, there is no alternative, and the populace must accept two pseudo alternatives, both of which serve a constituency which is not them.

Another is ideological narrowness. There is a dynamic with two parties that tends towards narrowness, and extremity on one side of the political spectrum. Suppose one party veers to the left or the right. This is seemingly a blunder: the logical response for the other party is to move along with them. After all, the constituents on "their" side of the spectrum have no alternative, while they may acquire new moderate voters who are turned of by the other side's extremity. But then, this moves the ideological spectrum of the whole country towards the direction of the more extreme party, including those contested moderate voters. This leads to ideological narrowness and a veering towards one ideological direction.

Note that nothing explicitly mandates that the US have two parties. It is emergent on the winner takes all electoral system, but that is another topic.

Then don’t bother voting since whoever gets into office is the same guy :lol: — invicta

A lot of people don't vote -- and my guess is that there is no barrier preventing them for doing so, EXCEPT they don't see any point to choosing between the party of Tweedledum and Tweedledee (go ask Alice).

Another is ideological narrowness. There is a dynamic with two parties that tends towards narrowness, and extremity on one side of the political spectrum. Suppose one party veers to the left or the right. This is seemingly a blunder: the logical response for the other party is to move along with them. After all, the constituents on "their" side of the spectrum have no alternative, while they may acquire new moderate voters who are turned of by the other side's extremity. But then, this moves the ideological spectrum of the whole country towards the direction of the more extreme party, including those contested moderate voters. This leads to ideological narrowness and a veering towards one ideological direction.

There is also the primary system that selects candidates. The primaries occur at different times of year in each state, and often there are multiple primary/preliminary elections in a single year, each for different types of posts. This results in very low turnout, especially when elections are scheduled for non-presidential election years. Many states also only allow official party members to vote in the primary.

The timing and restrictions on primary voting mean that a small share of voters gets to pick the candidates. These are more motivated voters and radicals tend to be more motivated. Primary voters also tend to be wealthier and older.

Then add in the antiquated signature system for getting on the ballot and the role of party horse trading in lower level elections which get almost no media coverage and you get a system where influence with a party (which money can buy) and money itself are huge in determining if you are a viable candidate for many races. There is also the issue of some state and local elected positions being paid too little to live on, so that only the independently wealthy can hold them.

The US primary system is designed in such a way that more radical members tend to get elected. If we did ranked choice voting with 2-4 candidates per party for Congress you'd get representation much closer to the median voter.

But it is this very radicalism that counter intuitively makes people think the parties are identical. Because you can block legislation from passing with a minority in most states and at the federal level, radicalism actually results in less being done. Basically, only stuff that isn't politically salient gets passed (i.e. the "Secret Congress hypothesis."). This isn't because all the legislators secretly agree, it's because anything seen as politically charged gets blocked by radicals and people scared of being challenged by radicals in a primary.

I suppose the other big things feeding into the illusion of a uniparty are:
-an independent civil service
-federalism with extremely strong regional government (really unlike any other modern liberal state)
-the common law system

The Civil Service: On a day to day basis, local, state, and federal government is managed by a relatively independent careerist civil service. Government employees have way more protections then private sector employees (look up "Loudermill Hearings") and are 33% unionized (more at the local level) with even high level supervisors, e.g. police captains and zone fire chiefs commonly being unionized.

This means that, regardless of who takes control, the same people end up enacting policy. This is the true "Deep State."

However, this isn't a bad thing. Political science has identified a professional, independent civil service as a pillar of successful states, right up there with rule of law and a state monopoly on use of force. The independent civil service, and in the US context the strong, independent non-government civil society organizations (e.g. the American Bar Association) are the reason that, contrary to partisan propaganda, the entire country doesn't radically change every time a new party takes the executive. Imagine if the President got to appoint almost all public employees based on ideology...

Such independence can be a barrier on reform, although an adequate level of independence and professionalism is also a prerequisite for effective reform. The civil service can act as a road block for reform when reforms challenge its prerogatives. A civil service that is too strong will actively torpedo the government to coerce it into paying out donatives and grow corrupt (e.g. some police unions).

However, it also acts as a curb on demagogues ripping down the foundations of the state overnight. I've worked in local, state, and federal government. There are plenty of very conservative people and very liberal people in both who buy into cable news narratives... for the most part. But in the area they have substantive policy expertise from their work, they virtually always have had much more nuanced opinions about how to go about reforming the system and the need to avoid super ideological nonsense. That's the plus side of the strong civil service; they know their issues. But you also need checks on them. Plus, a strong esprit de corps goes a long way in stopping corruption; norms matter.

Federalism also makes the parties seem more similar, since the Feds, what most people watch, have only an ancillary involvement in many of the areas of government people care about most. Take out entitlements and defense and state + local makes up a far larger share of government spending than the feds. For most citizens, their biggest involvement with the state is spending most days in a public school from age 3-5 to 18. But in most states schools are largely run at the district/county/municipal level. States have a bit more leverage, and the Feds not much at all. Same goes for police, fire, roads, business permits, and utilities.

The common law system can also act as a curb on change because you face the weight of historical precedent. Lifetime judicial appointments do the same thing because liberals norms tend to advance over time, leaving a liberal from decades ago more towards the center (although the reverse can be true as well).

But that just creates a mirage of lack of difference. It's extremely hard to imagine that if either party for 70 votes in the Senate, a large House majority, and the White House, we wouldn't see massive changes in legislation touching most aspects of life.

I mean, if Donald Trump or Joe Biden got to appoint all government employees (obviously delegating a lot), does anyone doubt the country would be radically different?

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that. — BC

People run for office, but without any party label. I know at the start of the US, there was a lot of debate about the usefulness of parties, whether they were good, etc.

If there is but one party, why such polarization along such meaningless labels? — Hanover

How better to extend tyranny than to provide the illusion of freedom?

Chomsky is just doing what demagogues always do, boiling down a complex problem filled with feedback loops, shifting alliances, histories of unintended consequences from reforms, etc. into a simple story of "bad, evil, greedy people make society bad. The truth is that everything is coordinated behind the scenes by a monolithic group. Thus, if we all unite we can replace the evil people with the righteous (us) and all shall be well forever." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know!

Imagine taking a really complex scenario like, say, border conflicts in a ex-Soviet region (just an example), and trying to just boil down all the "feedback loops, shifting alliances, histories of unintended consequences from reforms, etc" into one bad guy who's responsible for it all, and one set of good guys who can do no wrong and will win out in the end just because they're so righteous...

Who'd do such a thing?

... Oh, hang on... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12469/ukraine-crisis

No, the USA not a one-party state. If it were, dissidents like Chomsky would have to seek asylum away from the country. As it is, he, like anyone, is free to say whatever he likes. Yes, all political parties in America are beholden to big business, but there are real differences between the Republican Party, currently corrupted by various influences including but not only that of Donald Trump, and the Democrats. Only one of those parties favours as a potential candidate a demagogue who attempted to subvert a presidential election. Only one of them is engaged in large-scale book bans and the attempts to curtail civil and voting rights. It’s important that that party is soundly defeated at the polls rather than being able to game the system to create a real one-party state.

A one party state isn't of necessity repressive. For one thing, the two wingéd Party of Business is under no internal threat. Neither is the US at risk of attack--we are more threatening than threatened, well, except for nuclear weapons. The golden goose of the US economy is consumption by citizens who are free to consume as they wish. If you want to spend $5,000 on a hideous tattoo, fine. If you buy an absurdly oversized car, great. If you buy tickets to art films and art museums, super. If you want to pay a printer to publish a communist rag, no problem. Free enterprise provides a pretty large stage on which to play one's chosen role. After all, the theater is selling tickets and buying goods and services, so go ahead and proclaim. "You say you want a revolution / Well, you know / We all want to change the world..."

How does Noam Chomsky get away with saying all those dangerous things? He may deplore the system, but he does not make suggestions about how to blow it up, so to speak. (After a talk he gave I asked him why he did not propose actions that people could take? He said, quite firmly, that that was not his role.)

Opposition to the government of the United States is tolerable as long as one is not organizing its actual overthrow. My opposition to the flag and the republic for which it stands is causing no loss of sleep in Washington. But if I had organized the January 6 attack on Congress, I'd be in solitary confinement in a federal prison. Trump, being the president at the time, has been able to escape a similar fate, so far.

A lot of activities of which particular Republicans and Democrats may personally disapprove are perfectly compatible with business. Somebody's weird lifestyle may be objectionable, but hey -- they're working, paying taxes, paying rent, buying gas, groceries, sex change surgery, hormones, etc. All contributing to the grand bottom line

How better to extend tyranny than to provide the illusion of freedom? — Tzeentch

Exactly.

People run for office, but without any party label. — Mikie

If we elected an entirely new House, Senate, and President with no party affiliation it would not be long before some sort pf parties formed. Why? Because elected office holders, and the people they represent (assuming this was a system of representation) have interests that are not compatible with everyone else's interests. Eventually the several competing interests would clump together to better gain advantage. Before long, there would be parties.

How do we get around the problem of "interests" which are quite legitimate?

A one party state isn't of necessity repressive. — BC

Any examples come to mind? I can only think of China, Russia (and satellites) and Iran, but they’re definitely repressive.

if I had organized the January 6 attack on Congress, I'd be in solitary confinement in a federal prison. Trump, being the president at the time, has been able to escape a similar fate, so far — BC

So far.

When it comes to welfare, healthcare, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues, there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans, and so it’s overly simplistic to say that because they’re both pro-business that it’s a one party state.

Noam Chomsky maintains that the US is a one-party state. The Business Party rules, and maintains the illusion of a two party system through the continual jockeying between its two very similar wings. — BC

I don't think the USA is fundamentally, a one-party state, but I think the notion of a global 'business party,' is a valid one, although it is not, in REALITY, fully organised as such, imo. There are some business based bodies, that are globally organised, such as the world bank, that supports the notion of a global business party, and such a notional party(or REAL organisation such as the world bank,) does have very significant influence, in ALL countries, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc but only because of the existence of money, as the means of exchange and the fact that the nefarious few can still play the money trick via free 'stock market' based economies, with almost no significant restrictions whatsoever, despite previous global economic crashes/disasters.
I think the business party notion Noam refers to, is a notion that 'emerges' from the affects that national and international capitalism has on every human on this planet.

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that. — BC

I would love to discuss this in much more detail. I have many 'historically influenced' idea's on this, and many personal ones.
Yes, fundamentally, every elected person to governance would be an 'independent.' That is the starting point, BUT we then have to reform the basics.

ALL historical political systems and parties should be a main subject taught in schools and should be as high profile as mathematics, language ( I won't be Xenophobic and type English), and general science.

Every local area, would establish a local non-party political branch of a national organisation, dedicated to political debate. Any individual can join and bring their politics with them.
Local, interlocal, intercity, national and international debate 'competitions' would be encouraged and televised. There would also of course be continuous on-line political debate.

When local or national elections are due, the people who stand for election, would be taken from these local political branches, based on member votes.
I could now go into a lot of detail, as to how I think local, national and perhaps even global authority could be formed and how such might function, but that might come later, if there is any interest.
I think I will leave it there for now, and await for my expected dissenters to offer their main complaints against the notions I am suggesting here. If I can't defend my model of a future better way to do politics, against dissenters, then my model does not deserve any credibility.

When it comes to welfare, healthcare, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues, there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans, and so it’s overly simplistic to say that because they’re both pro-business that it’s a one party state. — Michael

It's obviously a simplification, but to support the idea that it's "overly" simplistic you'd have to put some measures to those differences. What exactly has been done to improve welfare (or worsen it), what exactly has been done to improve healthcare (or worsen it), etc... And by what margin have improvements been seen.

I think it would be childish to suggest that Chomsky literally meant that the two parties were identical in every way. He was obviously making the point that they weren't significantly different. So a counter-argument has to contain measures of significance, not merely the presence of differences.

I think it would be childish to suggest that Chomsky literally meant that the two parties were identical in every way. He was obviously making the point that they weren't significantly different. So a counter-argument has to contain measures of significance, not merely the presence of differences. — Isaac

They're significantly different on welfare, healthcare, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues.

They're significantly different on welfare, healthcare, guns, abortion, and LGBT issues. — Michael

So the measure of significance is "Michael says so"?

So the measure of significance is "Michael says so"? — Isaac

No, I say so because there is a significant difference.