I say it matters that Republicans are restricting abortion rights, and this policy is one area in which there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats — Michael

Thus a demonstration that the belief that the US is operating a one party system to be unfounded on reality and hence bullshit.

You can state your conviction in a few words not weird analogies, thanks. — invicta

I will try my best, Noble Cæsar. Oh wait... my quote in the previous post had zero analogies. Hmm, how about that? Well, I will delay you no longer. Fly onwards and upwards!

There's no "objective measure" for how many people must be affected by something for that thing to matter. — Michael

Exactly.

So Chomsky's not wrong to say that there's no significant difference is he? Since there's no objective measure of significance against which you could argue.

What is wrong would be taking Chomsky's really important point (about the lack of progress on some really important issues), expressed rhetorically as a homogeneity of parties, and undermine it with mediocritac pedantry about local abortion laws.

If you don’t want to clarify your position then why keep posting ?

So Chomsky's not wrong to say that there's no significant difference is he? — Isaac

He didn't say that. He said that there's no fundamental difference. And on that I think his recent remarks on the Republican party suggest that he's changed his mind.

Parties change, the measures I gave haven't. — Isaac

Sure, the democratic party supported slavery in the US before the American civil war.
Lincoln was a republican president. I would have voted for Lincoln and his republican party.
As far as monarchies are concerned, I AM a republican, but the current American republican party is a right wing horror. So yeah, political parties do change. I am for getting rid of all of them, BUT the money measures you gave DO conflict with the overall historical evidence highlighted on the Steven Pinker chart I posted.

Depends when the "days of the ancients" were, and how you wnat to measure poverty. — Isaac

The Greek/Roman/Mayan/Egyptian civilisations would suffice for my purposes.
The how, would be the economic power of your average citizen at the time and the level of governmental protection they had regarding their legal status, their educational opportunities and their personal well-being.

Sure. But that tells us nothing about which policies worked and which were entirely incidental, or even hampered progress. — Isaac

Depends who you are labelling 'us!'
I can tell you, with a very high personal credence level, what policies I think work and what efforts created the improvements many people NOW have in our world, that they did not have in earlier times. But you may not agree, perhaps because 'you' are part of the 'us' you refer to. Subjectivity, is forever present in threads such as this one.

Though businessman is highly represented in the former occupations of reps and senators, so are lawyers, veterans, and professional politicians. So it isn’t quite the party of business that Chomsky claims.

https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-congress/amp/#datatables

It’s a two-party system, the Ins and the Outs. Those who are in and want to stay in; those who are out but want to get in. Bipartisanship is the problem.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc.

He didn't say that. He said that there's no fundamental difference. — Michael

https://words.bighugelabs.com/significant Seventh synonym, first line.

Do you view the United States as a one-party system, or do you reject this view, in favor of some other description. What might a "real" two party system look like? — BC

I agree with the sentiment. We live underneath the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. And the ballot box won't change that.

What parties are good at is producing identities for people which motivate them to vote for the right side, and then pushing those identities they created aside when it comes to actually governing. They facilitate the democratic dance so that the government can continue to claim legitimacy even though it's clear to anyone whose looking that money, followed by a support for the military, is what matters when it comes to politics.

the money measures you gave DO conflict with the overall historical evidence highlighted on the Steven Pinker chart I posted. — universeness

They can't 'conflict'. They're both true.

The Greek/Roman/Mayan/Egyptian civilisations would suffice for my purposes.
The how, would be the economic power of your average citizen at the time and the level of governmental protection they had regarding their legal status, their educational opportunities and their personal well-being. — universeness

Well then no. I don't agree. The 'economic power' of your average citizen hasn't changed all that much, if anything it's probably got worse. Taking into account that the majority of the world's population are in the developing world, I don't think those people now have more 'economic power' than they had prior to colonialism. Legal status I'd agree with in the timescales you specify (though I've no idea why you've decided to start at some random point thousands of years after the beginnings of human civilisation). Educational opportunities I'd say were very mixed - popular modern curricula are easier to access for most, but traditional skills have become harder to train in. Personal well-being is mixed. suicide rates are rising, as are rates of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. Most subjective measures of well-being show a mixed picture at best.

I can tell you, with a very high personal credence level, what policies I think work and what efforts created the improvements many people NOW have in our world, that they did not have in earlier times. But you may not agree, perhaps because 'you' are part of the 'us' you refer to. Subjectivity, is forever present in threads such as this one. — universeness

Indeed.

America would be radically different if Democrats had large majorities in Congress. Compared to what the Republicans would do with large majorities, the country would be almost unrecognizable.

They can't 'conflict'. They're both true. — Isaac

Gravity is considered true, as is quantum physics but they do conflict.
Two truths can certainly conflict based on perspective.
An observer may experience a different, but equally valid truth but their reference frame may result in conflict when they are compared.

Well then no. I don't agree. The 'economic power' of your average citizen hasn't changed all that much, if anything it's probably got worse. — Isaac

Well, I have little interest (and I assume you feel the same,) in exchanging example and counter-example with you, which compares a historical 'day in the life of' with a modern 'day in the life of,' a typical Roman pleb (for example) and a current working class Scot, American, Russian etc.


Steven Pinker's 75 charts and graphs have been described as:
Pinkers book is stocked with seventy-five charts and graphs that provide incontrovertible evidence for centuries of progress on many fronts that should matter to all of us: an inexorable decline in violence of all sorts along with equally impressive increases in health, longevity, education, and human rights.

and:

In Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, published earlier this year, Steven Pinker argues that the human race has never had it so good as a result of values he attributes to the European Enlightenment of the 18th century. He berates those who focus on what is wrong with the world’s current condition as pessimists who only help to incite regressive reactionaries. Instead, he glorifies the dominant neoliberal, technocratic approach to solving the world’s problems as the only one that has worked in the past and will continue to lead humanity on its current triumphant path.

I don't think all is as good as Mr Pinker's graphs and charts would suggest, but I certainly disagree with the second quote I used above, from you.

there is a significant difference.
— Michael

No there isn't.

Great conversation... Really nailing this topic. I expect readers are riveted. — Isaac

more than :grin: but not quite :rofl:

Today the Republicans are the wicked ones. Some of us are old enough to remember when the Democrats were the party of segregation now and integration never. The southern wing of the Democratic Party forced rules into various areas of national policy that are on-going malignancies. The Republicans may be degrading voter access to the ballot, but they are following a well-trod path established by southern Democrats. Corrupt Republicans? What about the Democratic machine in Chicago and other cities?

The thing is, (to over-simplify) there are many Americans who have always disliked progressive politics, and have over time shifted to the more regressive party. Once it was the Democrats, now it is the Republicans. Yes, party propaganda has an effect on the electorate, but the electorate also has an effect on the parties.

It's also the case that the parties can be out of step with a diverse electorate.

Here is from a recent interview with Chomsky:

"It was observed long ago that the U.S. is basically a one-party state: the business party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Now there is one faction: the Democrats. The Republicans hardly qualify as an authentic parliamentary party. That’s fairly explicit under McConnell’s rule. When Obama took office, McConnell made it clear that his primary goal was to ensure that Obama could achieve virtually nothing, so that Republicans could return to power. When Biden was elected, McConnell reiterated that position even more strongly. And he’s lived up to it. On virtually every issue, the GOP is 100 percent opposed, even when they know that the legislation is popular and would be very valuable for the population. With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further."

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-maintaining-class-inequality-at-any-cost-is-gops-guiding-mission/

I'll stick with the idea that the US is a one-party state but I agree that the Republicans' behavior has been very destructive. To pick up a strand I touched on earlier, politicos respond to the electorate's opinions, just as the electorate is affected by party propaganda. It's reciprocal. So, some of the really nasty right-wing moves are received favorably by a really nasty portion of the electorate. There is a substantial population of hateful bastards out there. For example, protecting the unborn, as they claim, strikes me as an outright right-wing lie. Banning abortion is punitive.

There is a multi-generational stratum in American politics which never liked the passage of social security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage law, medicare, medicaid, civil rights legislation, fair housing, 1973 Roe vs Wade, gay rights, and so on down the line. They are basically a selfish lot that fear and loathe the idea of the downtrodden getting any kind of help from the government.

Some of these twisted bastards have in the past been democrats (dixie-crats particularly). sometimes they have been republicans, and sometimes they have been something else.

Gravity is considered true, as is quantum physics but they do conflict.
Two truths can certainly conflict based on perspective.
An observer may experience a different, but equally valid truth but their reference frame may result in conflict when they are compared. — universeness

These are just two sets of raw data, not theories. It's a fact that measures of wealth inequality and absolute poverty are largely unaffected by the changes in political persuasion in the executive and legislature. It's the same pattern seen throughout the rest of the world too.

Steven Pinker's 75 charts and graphs have been described as:... — universeness

Yes. It's also been described as “embarrassing” and “feeble” (John Gray), "a dogmatic book that offers an oversimplified, excessively optimistic vision of human history” (David Bell), “poor scholarship” and “motivated reasoning” that “insults the Enlightenment principles he claims to defend.” (George Monbiot), and "dangerously erroneous" (Jeremy Lent)

Survival's Stephen Corry said

The data presented ... is at least contentious, where it’s not plain wrong. ... twenty percent of the data Pinker uses to categorize the violence of the entire planet’s tribal peoples (excluding ‘hunter-gatherers’) is derived from a single anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon – whose data has been severely criticized for decades.

Notwithstanding which, I'm not sure what the fact that some people liked the book has to do with anything we're discussing.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc. — Tzeentch

No one?

If there are no examples of this, then the cynic in me is inclined to say US politics is little more than an inflammatory clownshow for the peasantry to squabble over, while the fat cats strike up the big bucks.

The thing is, (to over-simplify) there are many Americans who have always disliked progressive politics, and have over time shifted to the more regressive party. Once it was the Democrats, now it is the Republicans. Yes, party propaganda has an effect on the electorate, but the electorate also has an effect on the parties. — BC

That's true, but I think what's going on these days is not really progressivism. The reason why there's no movement on poverty is because there's no policies designed to address it, it's all identity politics and window dressing. As Norman Finkelstein put it...

Identity politics is an elite contrivance to divert attention from this class chasm.

Exactly.

:up:

We should be careful not to dismiss all electoral democracies - having the right to vote is preferable to no election at all. But, as we will see, democracy without constraining liberal institutions can be both chaotic and polarised. Majority rule without limits is dangerous. What is to stop a rogue leader from ignoring elections that vote them out? Recall that in politics there is no third party we can recall to enforce our promises - so shouldn’t this leader be able to close down any opposition? Such threats, after the 6 January 2021 insurrection in America, have become much realer to even citizens of wealthy democracies. It requires strong institutions to keep democracy alive.

Democracy is both ancient and modern. Some of the ideas about a true rule of the masses date to the classical era. But, around the world, actually existing democracy is not much older than the transistor radio. It has been a struggle of centuries to attain the right to rule ourselves, and the threat of backsliding is ever present. Even then, democracy is an imperfect system.

That was from a book I was just reading by Ben Ansell which seems relevant to what’s being debated here. The book is called Why Politics Fails, that was from page 35

It's fine and I am sure, for some, quite self-admonishing, to merely complain about the failure of party politics and politicians to deal effectively with the nefarious rich and create the 'better society,' we all (or mostly all) seem to favour on TPF.
So why not start to explain what initial steps YOU think are essential, towards creating a better political system. I am not suggesting that voicing dissent is pointless, it's still very important to voice dissent but what are YOUR suggestions for improving things. Are we just big wide empty vessels making loud noises?

It’s a two-party system, the Ins and the Outs. Those who are in and want to stay in; those who are out but want to get in. — NOS4A2

Yes, good one. Which in itself might not be a problem, trying to get traction or influence. It’s part of evolution. The flower turns toward the sun etc. The sticking point is what is required to get elected, stay elected, and have sway while in office. Money is the gas, the goal, and the god. Any problem with politics amplifies our problems with money.

America would be radically different if Democrats had large majorities in Congress. Compared to what the Republicans would do with large majorities, the country would be almost unrecognizable. — RogueAI

Radically different better? Or worse? Or... ?

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc.
— Tzeentch

No one? — Tzeentch

I think I could make a case for this:

Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in the United States. — Google

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc.
— Tzeentch

No one?

If there are no examples of this, then the cynic in me is inclined to say US politics is little more than an inflammatory clownshow for the peasantry to squabble over, while the fat cats strike up the big bucks. — Tzeentch

So why not start to explain what initial steps YOU think are essential, towards creating a better political system. I am not suggesting that voicing dissent is pointless, it's still very important to voice dissent but what are YOUR suggestions for improving things. Are we just big wide empty vessels making loud noises? — universeness

Assuming for the moment that the point @Tzeentch makes about the power structures remaining unchanged despite elections is generally accurate. And that the promises of “change” are mere adverts. And that the vilification of the opposition that is essential to polarized politics is like starting a fire in a dry California forest. (ie a step away from civil war and chaos).

Basically, anything that gets us citizens to stop wasting time, energy, and lives fighting against each other is a helpful and huge step. First things first. We have been divided and conquered. We each have our team colors (red or blue) and we are trained (ie brainwashed) to be fierce warriors to do battle with our foe. “Trumpers” and socialists have more in common with each other, than with the power brokers.

If a significant percentage of people (not even a majority perhaps) were united in the general vision of a “just and free” society (despite other differences and disagreements), then real change and improvement could be at least theoretically possible.

Maybe. Maybe not. But we have nothing to lose, and much to gain, from freeing ourselves from the toxic and pervasive propaganda.

Not sure what you're referring to. The last thing I wrote ITT was a rejection of the idea that one state somehow controls global economic production. I pointed out that global issues tend to be emergent phenomena with inherit collective action problems that reduce actors' degrees of freedom in action, see: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/801612 .

As Norman Finkelstein put it...

Identity politics is an elite contrivance to divert attention from this class chasm. — Isaac

Absolutely.

It's also the case that the elite effectively throttles any meaningful move toward income redistribution through progressive (rather than regressive) taxation or UBI.

Life in a Democrat America would be high-tax, high social safety net, high personal freedom, welcoming of immigrants. The major problem would be spending beyond our means. Life in a Republican America would be like Gilead.