It's not a criticism, but a praise. Political stabilitiy is of immense value to everybody. US is doing it correctly as the track record shows. No revolutions while other countries had multiple in the same timespan.
I might sound a bit cynical but I prefer to think about this as non-idealistic. Because reality very rarely seems to align with any sort of idealism for me.
The framing is cynical, though I agree with you that stability is valuable.
I'd argue the reason the framing is cynical is because the two party system wasn't intentionally crafted as some sort of 'nothing changes' power structure, but is the outcome from the current incentives of our democratic system. The two parties bit is arguably a flaw the founders tried unsuccessfully to prevent (because it can lead to instability).
Your comment also implies that little changes as the parties switch power back and forth, but this isn't true. Policy is a large ship and things take time and arguing to change (which is what you want for stability, and the inevitable outcome in a democracy). But policy does change and decade over decade - things can change a lot as people struggle to improve the society.
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
I don't believe intentions matter all that much. Certainly not more than than the outcomes.
Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution. And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons witout any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it.
> But policy does change and decade over decade
That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well. China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution.
Washington quote shows that he had some awareness of what qualities parties should have to improve the stability. Basing them on geography would be a terrible idea. Also picking two too comabative ideologies to center the parties on would be bad. You want two halves but not in open war with one another. You want them to agree on everything that matters, like that the rich and ruling should stay rich and ruling, army should be funded as much as it wants, and business should proceed, and differ only on conceptual issues that don't really connect all that much with anything really important.
Just ask yourself how would you design a two party system for China.
> "China went from communism into capitalism with single party system, without revolution."
I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot of violence during the cultural revolution. Deng reversed a lot of this, but it was in a revolutionary context (right after the cultural revolution).
"And introducing a solution just for pragmatic reasons without any pretense of idealism doesn't vilify it."
I agree that it doesn't necessarily vilify it (pragmatism is good), but if it's done only as an illusion/lie to maintain authoritarian control by one group then that is villainous. This is also not what occurs in the USG (and the underlying suggestion that it is, is what I took issue with).
> "Stumbling upon a pragmatic solution while pursuing idealistic goals doesn't sanctify the solution."
No, but the thing I'm taking issue with is the 'pragmatic solution' being a dead locked two party system that exists only for stability. That's the cynical view I think is wrong. I think the US is a democratic system with rule of law where policy moves forward via arguing. Though recently, party risk and extremism has made this less effective and entrenched incentives make these issues hard to fix. This is a bug though and not by design. Parties form because it's an effective way to coordinate even though there are risks.
> "That's a very low bar. It happens in single party systems as well."
I'd argue that it's not as resilient in single party systems, both because unelected leaders that serve infinite terms gives some short term advantage at the increased risk of long term instability and because the amount of control used against the public leads to resentment. Wild swings in policy can cause problems, making year over year progress which culminates in big changes over decades is a stable way to improve things. Particularly if it happens in a context where new politicians are being elected all of the time and power is peacefully changing.
If you're not stress testing that system (even if you are) with peaceful changes of power, then you're unlikely to survive your first attempt. One party governments can be more efficient at doing things in the short-term, but long term they fail. Without elections the failures are violent.
> I'm not sure Deng Xiaoping would agree with this framing, though he was eventually able to shift things after Mao. There was a lot of violence during the cultural revolution. Deng reversed a lot of this, but it was in a revolutionary context (right after the cultural revolution).
Deng reforms came 12 years after cultural revolution. After the death of Mao. And his coming to power and his reforms were realized as internal party affair, without engaging Chinese population in any form of novel revolutionary activity. And the spirit of those reforms directly contradicted last revolution. To the point of admitting mistakes of this revolution and its leader.
> I agree that it doesn't necessarily vilify it (pragmatism is good), but if it's done only as an illusion/lie to maintain authoritarian control by one group then that is villainous.
Good and evil, heroes and villains. World really doesn't seem to work in this way. Creating two party system to solidify system of power and safeguard it against revolution is not an illusion. It's an action. If CCP right now split into two parties it would not be any more illusory two party system than the one in US. Sure it may vary in corruption levels or balance between local power centers and nationwide power but those are just parameters that would evolve to their optimum values. Optimum for the rulers of course.
> No, but the thing I'm taking issue with is the 'pragmatic solution' being a dead locked two party system that exists only for stability. That's the cynical view I think is wrong.
It's not a deadlock. It's carefully maintained to be exactly this. What do you think would happen if one party was winning all elections for decades? Would two party system survive?
Do you think people really neatly divide equally between the ones who want more progress and the ones that prefer things to stay as close as possible to the way they used to be? Democrats are winning popular votes for some time now and yet they are loosing elections occasionally. Gerrymandering is used to tip the balance back towards 50/50. Wouldn't you think that whenever democrats come to power it should be their utmost priority to deal with gerrymandering? So they can win every time? But they don't want to win every time, because stability of the system which is prerequisite of their wealth and power depends on them loosing from time to time. And gerrymandering is useful tool for ensuring that.
> I think the US is a democratic system with rule of law where policy moves forward via arguing.
It's true to some degree. The question remains how much of the policy moves forward via arguing and how much of it moves through mostly (publicly) silent agreement same way as it does in single party system. And also how fast the policy moves.
You noticed that two party system moves things slower than single party system because of the speed/stability trade off.
I'd argue that it also moves slower than the democracies with multiparty systems, that can allow themselves to loose a party or two completely if their reactions to changing environment were not sufficiently fast and adequate. Where parties have to join forces and compromise to rule.
Two party system can't loose a party. Can't even allow one party to fracture. Republicans had to accept Trump. Because if not, he'd fracture their voter base. Same way they still have to accept him because, he still could create his own party and steal significant portion of republican voters. And that would mean democrats winning all the time and we can't have that because that would ultimately lead to unrest.
Two party system is more stable (and stagnant) than both single party and multiparty system and I think China will pick it up as soon as it significantly overtakes US in economy and military. There's no point of doing it sooner because it would just slow them down. And there's no point in trying multi-party democracy because it's very risky even though, when it succeeds it combines decent speed with decent stability.
Until then China must be very careful about who their citizens hate and quench every spark.
Thanks for the thoughtful back and forth despite my provocative first comment. It's been flag-killed (possibly 50cent party? maybe just people disliking my abrasiveness) so this thread won't be seen, but I thought it was an interesting conversation.
> "Deng reforms came 12 years after cultural revolution."
I think this makes it seem less connected than it was and depends on what time you're talking about. The below excerpt suggests it was closer in time.
"Deng was publicly disgraced and criticized nationwide alongside then President Liu Shaoqi and was sent to work in a tractor factory in rural Jiangxi from 1969 to 1973. Deng briefly came back to power until the Tiananmen Incident in 1976, after which he was again stripped of all official titles and only kept his party membership.
Following Mao's death in September 1976, Deng outmaneuvered the late chairman's chosen successor Hua Guofeng and became the de facto leader of China in December 1978"
He also set term limits that were unfortunately removed by Xi.
> "Gerrymandering is used to tip the balance back towards 50/50. Wouldn't you think that whenever democrats come to power it should be their utmost priority to deal with gerrymandering? So they can win every time? But they don't want to win every time, because stability of the system which is prerequisite of their wealth and power depends on them loosing from time to time. And gerrymandering is useful tool for ensuring that."
I think this verges on conspiracy theory - democrats very much care about fixing gerrymandering (among other vote suppression tactics), it's just hard to fix. The recent failure in the Supreme Court makes it even harder. I think you buy too much into the idea that the current state is a preferred state that's quietly agreed on or seen as strategic, rather than a result of current incentives creating a local maximum.
> "Do you think people really neatly divide equally between the ones who want more progress and the ones that prefer things to stay as close as possible to the way they used to be?"
I actually wouldn't frame the right that way - I think they want different things (arguably even more revolutionary than the left in some cases), but I don't think they want things to stay the way they used to be. Given Trump's take over of the party it's not clear to me there's much consistent ideology there at all (at least among the voters)
> "Two party system can't loose a party. Can't even allow one party to fracture."
It's happened before with the Whigs and the 'know-nothing' party, but I generally agree that it leads to extremism and elevating people like Trump (which was the risk Washington was talking about).
> "And that would mean democrats winning all the time and we can't have that because that would ultimately lead to unrest."
Or it could lead to a center-right party that's more sane that can get a larger share of the population to vote for them. The Trump experiment was a risky one and resulted in a one-term presidential election and losing the house and senate. The margins were close, but the popular vote was not. Arguably gerry-pandering incentivizes this extremism and without it we'd have more moderate candidates that appeal to a larger amount of Americans.
I'd argue the risk isn't democrats winning all the time, but that currently a pretty small minority of people has disproportionate power in the USG - I think this can lead to instability over time too.
I agree with the Chinese concern of 'quenching every spark', but I'd be surprised if Chairman Xi gave up any power in the form of a 'second party' - it's very much against the CCP's rhetoric.
> It's been flag-killed (possibly 50cent party? maybe just people disliking my abrasiveness) so this thread won't be seen, but I thought it was an interesting conversation.
That's a shame. I'm not sure if the whole thread is hidden. I got 3 karma points (base 1 + 2 upvotes) for some comments in our thread below your flagged post.
> I think this verges on conspiracy theory - democrats very much care about fixing gerrymandering (among other vote suppression tactics), it's just hard to fix.
They keep very quiet and mild about it. This should be like the most important issue that affects their voters. Their voters were denied what should be theirs (democrats in power), for decades in total at this point.
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. Nobody conspires if it's a shared understanding that democrats should loose roughly 50% of the time for the good of everybody. It doesn't require any conspiratory action. Just inaction, which is way easier to implement even if not everybody understand that it should be implemented and why.
However, whether they are aware what they are doing or not, they are still doing it (tolerating Gerrymandering to a huge degree). And it has an effect of increased stability.
> I think they want different things (arguably even more revolutionary than the left in some cases), but I don't think they want things to stay the way they used to be.
At the root of republican vs democrat is this divide between orthodoxy and progress. Of course further details are built upon that. Especially since the country, economy and government can't stay in its orthodoxy.
Still, my observation was, why would that divide be roughly 50/50?
>> "And that would mean democrats winning all the time and we can't have that because that would ultimately lead to unrest."
> Or it could lead to a center-right party that's more sane that can get a larger share of the population to vote for them.
On last election a single win by democrats caused some unrest. I think democrats winning for few decades would just radicalize part of republicans and made the other part to withdraw from voting. I'm sure eventual peaceful return to some equilibrium would be possible like with Whigs. But I don't think it would be business as usual and economy likes to have business as usual.
Thank you for this discussion, but I don't want to speculate about future US too much, as I don't have a clear idea what will happen, apart from things staying pretty much the same and US really struggling to accept reality when China overtakes them.
I might sound a bit cynical but I prefer to think about this as non-idealistic. Because reality very rarely seems to align with any sort of idealism for me.