What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Timsup2nothin]

Berzerker asserted that a narrow of ideological diversity will push a party towards "extremism". I disagreed, observing that we can very readily find examples of ideologically narrow parties resisting extremist influence, and ideologically broad parties proving susceptible to it.

I don't know what bearing the qualifications you're adding have on that.

Well, they indicate that your argument, based on reasoning and examples from a typical parliamentary system, are not an effective counter to Berzerker's claim regarding the US two party system.

 

[Patine]

Berzerker asserted that a narrow of ideological diversity will push a party towards "extremism". I disagreed, observing that we can very readily find examples of ideologically narrow parties resisting extremist influence, and ideologically broad parties proving susceptible to it.

I don't know what bearing the qualifications you're adding have on that.

Gnostic, exceptionalist, and sharp demographic thinking - by nationality, in this case, but a broad mentality - @Traitorfish, something I've chiding and criticizing several posters here for the flaw - including a few who also, ironically, claim to be the victim of such thinking on the other foot. Many people just can't seem to accept that we're all the SAME, somewhat polymorphic, species of very clever great apes. Everyone has to believe they belong to a band of special snowflakes. I don't believe in such sharp, absolutist demographic thinking, like many, both Social Conservatives and Progressives, do today - I actually in the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Dream." And, by the way, happy Martin Luther King Day, everyone, and I'd like to thank all the demographically-obsessed posters here, both Social Conservatives AND Progressives, who have contributed (or, at least the views they hold promoted by others have) to making his Dream about as far from reality as it was when he made his famous speech in the '60's.

 

[Berzerker]

Why? It's not self-evident.

How do you explain the polarization of Congress?

Most European social democratic parties do not contain a lot of what you would call "moderates", but they are also very far from "extreme". Likewise, European conservative parties contain less moderates, but are not extreme. Reducing ideological diversity within a party only means it will be less ideologically diverse, not that it will become suddenly radicalised.

We would just as easily cite the United States and United Kingdom as proof that parties with large moderate contingents are more vulnerable to extremism, because a hard-line faction can take control of the party apparatus, and the moderates and centrists are invested enough in that apparatus that they allow themselves, their resources, and their support base to be dragged along with the hard-liners, artificially inflating the unpopular fringe politics of the new leadership into the voice of half the country. Perhaps a Republican or Conservative Party that was more clearly committed to a specific and clearly-articulate vision of conservative politics, which did not have to moderate and compromise its principles chasing "centre" voters, would not have been so vulnerable to appropriation by a bunch of reactionary weirdos.

I think the biggest hurdle is putting aside all examples and reasoning drawn from European parliamentary systems when talking about US politics, because they do not and cannot apply. For better or worse, and it can be argued either way, the US is committed to the two party system rather than the standard system in which coalitions are formed after the election. It can't legitimately be analyzed the same way.

True, coalition building in multi-party systems imposes some moderation whereas gerrymandered safe seats in a 2 party system promotes extremism. The main check on that is the general election, but if both parties are increasingly nominating less moderate people we're still getting 2 candidates with more extreme views to pick from. Eventually a growing dis-satisfied middle will respond with independent minded candidates to challenge the 2 parties, but thats tough when the establishment favors the 2 parties.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eventually a growing dis-satisfied middle will respond with independent minded candidates to challenge the 2 parties, but thats tough when the establishment favors the 2 parties.

No, they actually won't, because the system is in fact designed as a two party system. What happens is that "the middle" forces the two parties, alternately, to wrest control from their particular extremists in order to gain actual power. Once the party has control the extremists within the party begin the long process of rebuilding their influence, while the extremists in the party that has lost power are slowly but surely subdued as a means for that party to be restored to contention, possibly sporting a new name. We are nearing the end of a typical length power cycle for the Republicans, where they have held power for several decades and their extremists who slowly but surely took complete control of the party are now riding it into the dustbin. The Democratic Party will be seizing power, which will start the process of their extremists taking over the party. And so it goes.

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you explain the polarization of Congress?

In what way is that an example of the phenomenon you're proposing? The United States congress has not seen a mass exodus of moderates, and the majority of its membership are fairly moderate in their politics. That many of those moderates are also highly partisan does not transfer them into "extremists", by any sober definition of the word.

Well, they indicate that your argument, based on reasoning and examples from a typical parliamentary system, are not an effective counter to Berzerker's claim regarding the US two party system.

What about United States politics implies that broadening ideological diversity moderates a party, and narrowing ideological diversity radicalises it?

How do we explain the radicalisation of the Republican Party in the absence of any recorded exodus of moderates among elected officials, party functionaries, or registered voters?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How do we explain the radicalisation of the Republican Party in the absence of any recorded exodus of moderates among elected officials, party functionaries, or registered voters?

We don't, because such an absence does not exist. Moderates have been bailing off the Republican wagon for decades, and those who wouldn't go have been branded RINO and kicked off.

 

[Berzerker]

In what way is that an example of the phenomenon you're proposing? The United States congress has not seen a mass exodus of moderates, and the majority of its membership are fairly moderate in their politics. That many of those moderates are also highly partisan does not transfer them into "extremists", by any sober definition of the word.

Gerrymandered safe seats produce primary battles increasingly in favor of 'purists' further from the center. I'm not sure how we can measure moderation or extremism in Congress without considering partisanship. Maybe the number and nature of laws passed by Congress would help but greater partisanship does indicate movement toward the extremes.

 

[Patine]

No, they actually won't, because the system is in fact designed as a two party system. What happens is that "the middle" forces the two parties, alternately, to wrest control from their particular extremists in order to gain actual power. Once the party has control the extremists within the party begin the long process of rebuilding their influence, while the extremists in the party that has lost power are slowly but surely subdued as a means for that party to be restored to contention, possibly sporting a new name. We are nearing the end of a typical length power cycle for the Republicans, where they have held power for several decades and their extremists who slowly but surely took complete control of the party are now riding it into the dustbin. The Democratic Party will be seizing power, which will start the process of their extremists taking over the party. And so it goes.

If you look at it from a Constitutional level, it's designed as system where political parties are superfluous, unnecessary, unaccounted for, have no intrinsic roles or parts, and their existence isn't mentioned once in text. Anything beyond in terms of the "rules of the system," are dubious, questionable, and theoretically challengeable in their Constitutionality, defensibility, integrity, and even legality. It is arguably possible that the whole electoral machine is an organized criminal cartel that should have it's "bosses, financiers, and enforcers," be dragged into the justice they probably deserve, and not have their highly dubious "rules," continue to run things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Gerrymandered safe seats produce primary battles increasingly in favor of 'purists' further from the center. I'm not sure how we can measure moderation or extremism in Congress without considering partisanship. Maybe the number and nature of laws passed by Congress would help but greater partisanship does indicate movement toward the extremes.

This may come as a shock, but gerrymandering actually has limits. I live in a district that was safely gerrymandered to the Republicans decades ago. My local Republicans haven't gotten any more or less dingbatty than they ever were, but as the party shifted further and further into the weeds that safe margin got narrower...and narrower...and in the last election it reversed. The local primary had nothing to do with it, since the same Republican incumbent, hand chosen successor to the Republican before him, won the primary basically unopposed. It's just that the party as a whole shifted too far into the weeds for any Republican to carry the weight.

And since that same result is happening all over the board the only way to gerrymander up genuinely safe seats is to target fewer of them.

 

[Patine]

We don't, because such an absence does not exist. Moderates have been bailing off the Republican wagon for decades, and those who wouldn't go have been branded RINO and kicked off.

So, why hasn't the biggest "RINO," the GOP has ever elected, from an ideological point of view - the one sitting in the White House - gotten that treatment?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you look at it from a Constitutional level, it's designed as system where political parties are superfluous, unnecessary, unaccounted for, have no intrinsic roles or parts, and their existence isn't mentioned once in text. Anything beyond in terms of the "rules of the system," are dubious, questionable, and theoretically challengeable in their Constitutionality, defensibility, integrity, and even legality. It is arguably possible that the whole electoral machine is an organized criminal cartel that should have it's "bosses, financiers, and enforcers," be dragged into the justice they probably deserve, and not have their highly dubious "rules," continue to run things.

LOL...sure man, we're running this country off a five page document.

Oh.

Wait.

Yeah, the United States Code comes in ninety-one volumes. But I'm sure it's all just 'highly dubious rules' and could be just ditched en masse out of hand.

 

[Patine]

LOL...sure man, we're running this country off a five page document.

Oh.

Wait.

Yeah, the United States Code comes in ninety-one volumes. But I'm sure it's all just 'highly dubious rules' and could be just ditched en masse out of hand.

I'm saying moreso that "dubious brickwork in the mid-floors above the foundations potentially make the spires wobbly." And, to be clear - because some people seem to respond in ways that show they don't fully take such posts as meant - that's a METAPHOR - and not to be viewed LITERALLY.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm saying moreso that "dubious brickwork in the mid-floors above the foundations potentially make the spires wobbly." And, to be clear - because some people seem to respond in ways that show they don't fully take such posts as meant - that's a METAPHOR - and not to be viewed LITERALLY.

Cool. So, who exactly do you want to put in charge of winnowing ninety-one volumes of US code down to the "not dubious brickwork"? Or should we all just ignore whatever parts we individually see fit?

 

[Patine]

Cool. So, who exactly do you want to put in charge of winnowing ninety-one volumes of US code down to the "not dubious brickwork"? Or should we all just ignore whatever parts we individually see fit?

A non-partisan board of legal experts not beholden directly to any of the three branches whose job is to adjudicate Constitutional abuse, electoral malfeasance, and corruption and graft in government. Something along similar thematic lines to these three bodies in other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Yuan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Comptroller_of_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Auditors

Although with much more independence from the influence and meddling of the sitting Administration, Congress, and Supreme Court than these bodies even have from their analogs. Their appointment would ideally be meritocratically from among lawyers and judges with a reputation for a NON-partisan, un-biased, and clarity-heavy view of the U.S. Constitution (as much as was humanly possible), which is usually the reverse of most Supreme Court nominees, de facto.

 

[Berzerker]

This may come as a shock, but gerrymandering actually has limits. I live in a district that was safely gerrymandered to the Republicans decades ago. My local Republicans haven't gotten any more or less dingbatty than they ever were, but as the party shifted further and further into the weeds that safe margin got narrower...and narrower...and in the last election it reversed. The local primary had nothing to do with it, since the same Republican incumbent, hand chosen successor to the Republican before him, won the primary basically unopposed. It's just that the party as a whole shifted too far into the weeds for any Republican to carry the weight.

And since that same result is happening all over the board the only way to gerrymander up genuinely safe seats is to target fewer of them.

If your district was a gerrymandered safe seat decades ago I'm not surprised your reps haven't gotten more moderate. Its true there are limits on how extreme they can get, but only if the other party goes for the middle ground rather than racing off into their own patch of weeds.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If your district was a gerrymandered safe seat decades ago I'm not surprised your reps haven't gotten more moderate. Its true there are limits on how extreme they can get, but only if the other party goes for the middle ground rather than racing off into their own patch of weeds.

My reps have been line toeing nonentities, meaning that as the party has gone off into the weeds, so have their actions. They personally haven't changed a bit, other than getting older. I think that the guy who the seat was gerrymandered to keep served at least ten terms, maybe fifteen. That's the point. This whole "a nut takes the primary" business doesn't really matter, because the nuts and the moderates once they arrive in Washington are straight party line voters anyway and always have been...and always will be.

What you are missing is that there is no "racing off" into the weeds. The Republicans have been headed for the weeds ever since they fully came to power in the eighties. That's the nature of the beast, the party in power will slowly slide into the control of their extremists because they can. The party that is out of power will slowly slide under the control of their moderates because they have to. Over the next decade or so the transition will play out. The GOP will be thoroughly gutted, in regards to how much power they actually have, and the Democrats will move to consolidate their hold. The banished GOP will 'soul search' and conclude that they have no shot at ever accomplishing anything with the party lead by a bunch of wild eyed fanatics chanting "into the weeds or bust" and slowly begin to slide control of the party into more moderate hands. At the same time, the Democrats holding the reins will start falling prey to "as long as we have the power we should toss a bone to our extremists...or two...or maybe a box full. And in a couple decades the extremists will be running the show and the party will be ripe for getting blasted out of power by the resurgent GOP...which will take another couple decades to get that done.

Bottom line:

Nobody races anywhere.

 

[Arwon]

A non-partisan board of legal experts not beholden directly to any of the three branches whose job is to adjudicate Constitutional abuse, electoral malfeasance, and corruption and graft in government. Something along similar thematic lines to these three bodies in other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Yuan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Comptroller_of_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Auditors

Although with much more independence from the influence and meddling of the sitting Administration, Congress, and Supreme Court than these bodies even have from their analogs. Their appointment would ideally be meritocratically from among lawyers and judges with a reputation for a NON-partisan, un-biased, and clarity-heavy view of the U.S. Constitution (as much as was humanly possible), which is usually the reverse of most Supreme Court nominees, de facto.

You have an audit body already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comptroller_General_of_the_United_States

 

[Patine]

You have an audit body already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comptroller_General_of_the_United_States

It seems pretty impotent and powerless to me, a real wet noodle and sinecure job, considering what's gotten away with day in and day out with no meaningful consequences all the time in U.S. Government.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems pretty impotent and powerless to me, a real wet noodle and sinecure job, considering what's gotten away with day in and day out with no meaningful consequences all the time in U.S. Government.

Maybe we should draft another volume of US code laying out how the job should be done.

 

[Arwon]

It seems pretty impotent and powerless to me, a real wet noodle and sinecure job, considering what's gotten away with day in and day out with no meaningful consequences all the time in U.S. Government.

Think that's kinda the case with most national audit agencies and ombudsmen.