As a non American, I don't think you can get back from this unless you get rid of the 2-parties system. Identity politics is a big component to what compelled individuals to operate against their own interests and those of their country. Good luck, though.

▲

nickff 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am not an American either, but there is a great deal of work on this subject, and the two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover. The reason is that multi-party systems are vulnerable to having a party in power 'promoting diversity' (or something similar), in order to disempower all their opponents, while making it look like they're allowing for more views. Examples of this include quotas for minority representation, and (strategically designed) multi-member voting districts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...

▲

anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I have that book and am a big fan of it, but I think it needs some expansion in the light of the last few decades - not just in the US, but considering Brexit and both major parties subsequently burning through strings of short-lived leaders, coalition politics in places like Europe and Japan etc.

▲

vincnetas 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

well this book was written in 2003 and current day events in USA clearly contradict this statement : "two-party system is actually one of the most resistant to single-individual or single-party takeover."

With lots of examples of contrary , where multi party system has not devolved in one man shit show.

▲

nickff 2 days ago | parent [-]

North Korea, China, Russia, Uganda, etc. are examples of one party taking over; the USA is just a country that has one party (you don't seem to like) with most (but not all) of the political power at the moment.

▲

anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent [-]

Japan occupied Korea from 1910 until 1945, at which point administration of the country was split between the USA in the South and the USSR in the north. Following an indecisive war lasted from 1950-53, the Korean peninsula ended up witht he situation we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea

China's history is more complicated, but is also the product of military conflict following colonial imposition by Japan. To suggest that either country's political system is the outcome of inherent structural weaknesses in multi-party democracy is absurd.

▲

nickff 2 days ago | parent [-]

I didn’t say that either of those two were the result of multi-party democracy; I was trying to give the GP a variety of examples of single-party government, with different origins.

Please note that the comment I replied to has been substantially modified since I posted.

	▲	anigbrowl a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sure I'm missing something from the GGP being edited, but when you said 'are examples of one party taking over' it's hard to read that outside of a parliamentary/electoral context.

▲

mandeepj 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In multi-party systems, the parties focus more on weakening their opponents and horse trading, as voters are divided and winning elections is dependent on an already razor-thin voting share. Look what's going on in India, for instance.

▲

burnt-resistor 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Parliamentary systems of other countries usually have the advantages of lessons learned since the American revolution. The necessary feature of the American system is countervailing powers, but as a uniparty for corporations or one weakened, it ceases to function and cannot be easily reformed or competed against with a new party. These are flaws addressed to some degree by parliamentary systems where new party(ies) can challenge incumbents more easily.

	▲	nickff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There are plenty of examples of democracies which began after the American Revolution, and subsequently devolved to single-party states.

▲

burnt-resistor 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Secondary to the extreme corruption. Corruption is the issue that must be resolved before everything else. The fashions of political parties or their structures are superficial by comparison.

▲

JKCalhoun 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Two-parties system naturally evolve.

Get rid of money, punish lying, decrease the power of the Executive branch…

Lots to do, but getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream.

▲

AngryData a day ago | parent | next [-]

They naturally evolve because we put them in an enviroment where they thrive. Changing voting systems to proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all would be a huge start.

▲

mmooss 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> naturally

It's not nature, it's the strategic actions of members of those parties to create and protect that system. For example, look at laws in states that make it very difficult for 3rd parties to get on ballots, participate in debates, and then the expensive lawfare against them if they show any signs of life.

> getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream

It certainly won't happen tomorrow, but the best time to start such things is today.

	▲	JKCalhoun 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The U.S. has a Green Party, a Libertarian Party. If they ever had a chance to take any serious votes from the other two, one of the two major parties would co-opt enough of their platform to make the threat go away. As we seem to be seeing, the Democratic Party in the U.S. is in fact, internally, two parties. As populations age out, we'll likely see the party itself evolve.

▲

lenerdenator 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Eh. People have come back from worse. You can walk over the border between France and Germany.

	▲	ezst 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure, and all it took was a systematic dismantling and building anew the whole government and a bunch of institutions, not exactly a "oh, the other party will figure something out over the course of the next term"
	▲	TitaRusell 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Very true. Daily reminder that by 1950 Germany was allowed an army again. Just don't mention the war.