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.
Exactly. You've identified the way the comfortably majority party goes awry - through corruption. From Gilded Age America to Richard Daley's Chicago to Putin's Russia: without an effective opposition to keep it in check, the ruling party falls victim to the baser instincts of its members.
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?
It is true that the dynamic I describe here depends on binary choices: progressive v. conservative, Democrat v. Republican. And most voting schemes are that way, at least in part. In referendums, yes or no. Even in parliamentary systems, elections come down to this candidate or that. Proportional representation, which gives rise to the multiparty systems you describe, deliberately blunts the sharp edge of binary choice. Yet even there, when a bill is proposed in parliament, the choice finally comes down to yes or no. And in parliamentary systems, to form a government, parties join coalitions, yielding a government and an opposition. I think there are other reasons the Scandinavians are well governed, starting with the fact that they are small, as countries go, and culturally pretty cohesive.
As I mentioned once before, many if not most historical anecdotes are apocryphal, and maybe this one is, too. JFK and Khrushchev were at a summit conference. JFK asked Khrushchev why the USSR just had one political party. He answered: "We just have one less party than you Americans do."
Thank you for a well thought and written essay. I don't have the gift of words and analytics you have but I have been saying this for decades as the only person in my family who wanted change so as a species we could move forward. Even though my family encouraged debates they were always for the status quo. I always felt that so shortsighted and pedantic.
As usual, another great piece by Brands. However, I feel that until we have a viable multiparty system in this country, we can't call ourselves a true democracy. I recently had an article in a national magazine titled "The Morality of Third-Party Voting." I discussed the pros and cons of a multiparty system. I like to make an analogy with ice cream shops. Would you patronize an ice cream shop which just offered a choice between chocolate and vanilla? Each year the UN votes on the "best" country, and the winner is always one of the Scandinavian countries. Is it just a coincidence that in Scandinavia and Western Europe, they are parliamentary democracies and have several political parties?
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.
Exactly. You've identified the way the comfortably majority party goes awry - through corruption. From Gilded Age America to Richard Daley's Chicago to Putin's Russia: without an effective opposition to keep it in check, the ruling party falls victim to the baser instincts of its members.
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?
It is true that the dynamic I describe here depends on binary choices: progressive v. conservative, Democrat v. Republican. And most voting schemes are that way, at least in part. In referendums, yes or no. Even in parliamentary systems, elections come down to this candidate or that. Proportional representation, which gives rise to the multiparty systems you describe, deliberately blunts the sharp edge of binary choice. Yet even there, when a bill is proposed in parliament, the choice finally comes down to yes or no. And in parliamentary systems, to form a government, parties join coalitions, yielding a government and an opposition. I think there are other reasons the Scandinavians are well governed, starting with the fact that they are small, as countries go, and culturally pretty cohesive.
As I mentioned once before, many if not most historical anecdotes are apocryphal, and maybe this one is, too. JFK and Khrushchev were at a summit conference. JFK asked Khrushchev why the USSR just had one political party. He answered: "We just have one less party than you Americans do."
Thank you for a well thought and written essay. I don't have the gift of words and analytics you have but I have been saying this for decades as the only person in my family who wanted change so as a species we could move forward. Even though my family encouraged debates they were always for the status quo. I always felt that so shortsighted and pedantic.
As usual, another great piece by Brands. However, I feel that until we have a viable multiparty system in this country, we can't call ourselves a true democracy. I recently had an article in a national magazine titled "The Morality of Third-Party Voting." I discussed the pros and cons of a multiparty system. I like to make an analogy with ice cream shops. Would you patronize an ice cream shop which just offered a choice between chocolate and vanilla? Each year the UN votes on the "best" country, and the winner is always one of the Scandinavian countries. Is it just a coincidence that in Scandinavia and Western Europe, they are parliamentary democracies and have several political parties?
Sound advice. Bit of perspective:
Back in the prior century, President Reagan and Tip O'Neill, could knock down a few after work.
That's when we were conservative or liberal, D or R. And politics ended at the water's edge.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That first cracked in late sixties. By the time barry soetoro waltzed across stage, it was all about the implacable, totalitarian "progressives."
Sad truth is for far too long, there have been far too many RINOs. There are NO matching DINOs.
So it's hard-left, or very-hard-left. No hope.
------------------------------------------------------------
First we ecrasez the ."progressives" as Voltaire suggested.
Then maybe we can talk again, when no one hates America.