Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alti's avatar

Your main point is spot on, but I’d like to propose an alternative (or complementary) hypothesis on the mechanism that supports this equilibrium. That being - constantly winning breeds complacency and corruption while constantly losing forces parties into a higher standard of rigor and honesty. The example that comes to mind is the gilded age Republicans that nominated James Blaine, giving rise to the mugwumps and clearing the way for Cleveland’s three popular vote wins. Reminds me of the Mark Twain quote “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Regarding your example of during the Great Depression, wasn’t Alf Landon already in favor of some New Deal programs? Didn’t take long for republicans to more or less abandon laissez faire.

Expand full comment
Charles Wukasch's avatar

Pardon my clumsy syntax! As a retired professor of English, I should know better! Let me rephrase my final sentence: Is it just a coincidence that Scandinavian and western European countries are parliamentary democracies with several political parties?

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts