The two-party system is failing.
I don't see either major party has having a unified vision or constituency. I think there are historical and, to a lesser extent, political reasons for that. However, I don't have confidence that meaningful third parties will arise in a way that requires coalition-style politics. The Republican Party should have split when the Tea Party arrived, but it didn't. It may not split into Trumpists and Traditionalists as things progress.
However, a big part of what I see as the problem is the U.S. political system. And it's not as if the ways to fix it aren't obvious: term limits, campaign finance reform, ethics reform. But none of that is going to take place within the current system. It's not something that can be easily addressed from within, when the people who would have to address it are those who benefit from the
status quo.
I think Gillianren accurately describes were Donald Trump fits into this. Ultimately you don't get power without the vote, so getting people to vote for you and not for your opponent is the key. Trump was someone the Republican Party acknowledged was getting the votes. Donald Trump was the useful idiot. And now some in the Republican Party seem to have at long last realized their miscalculation in failing to oppose him vigorously enough; Trump is now a
dangerous idiot who might not only drag the party down with him, but has been dragging the party down at the polls consistently since 2016.
The media is also to blame.
I think it's a lot to blame. Leave it to rampant capitalism to have truth-in-advertising laws but no truth-in-news laws. It sets up a situation where people can say essentially whatever they want as "news," regardless of actual truth. And anyone who believes it is on their own. The First Amendment framework is meant to forbid censorship, of course. But it's predicated on the ill-advised presumption that people will inform themselves soberly from all sides of an issue instead of latching onto "news" that reinforces (often with outright lies) what they've already determined to believe.
I see no way out without violence.
Historically speaking, the U.S. doesn't effect significant course changes without significant occurrences, many of which have been violent to some degree. I don't think violence is a
necessary source of suitable significance. But see what's happening. Now five deaths attributed to the actions of politicians, and finally we begin to see traction in the forces that actually matter: far-right extremist voices being de-platformed by fretful media companies, and major corporations announcing withdrawal of financial support for candidates. (Don't get me started on that one.) If you want change to happen in America, make it a business decision.
But America is violent by nature. I have to agree that we probably haven't seen the end of it, but I hope very much that cooler heads prevail quickly.
A parlimantary system where the fate of an entire nation doesn't rest on the whims of a single person. Multiple parties that need to form a coalition and work together instead of against each other.
Believe it or not, the Republicans and the Democrats used to be able to compromise and produce bipartisan efforts. The Tea Party effectively ended that. Its very existence was based on getting what they want, or no one gets anything. As long as that attitude prevails in American politics, it will be harder to build coalitions that simply allowing the major parties to break up and reform into different or smaller parties.
The USA splits up into 2, maybe 3 nations. Each having one side of the extreme.
Maybe also several completely independent states.
We already tried breaking into two nations, and there's talk of doing it again. But in practical terms, the Deep South and many other states that would form a socially conservative nation know they cannot survive without the tax base provided by the richer, more socially liberal states. As much as middle America complains about the effete coastal liberals, it is financially dependent upon them. All the South would have would be Texas. And while the Texas economy could probably sustain Texas as an independent country, I doubt it would be able to carry its neighbors for very long.
Federal government may be terribly slow and expensive but it doesn't **** around with infrastructure critical to tens of millions of people..
(Most of the time)
Meh, the national power grid has been shaky for years. And our highway infrastructure is literally crumbling. Previously these were things that the two major parties could agree to fund. Now it's all being held hostage for each party's new list of can't-do-withouts.
Fox News has been dumbing down their audience, making them more gullible, and feeding them conspiracy theories for almost 25 years.
All under the guise of legitimate news. There's no law specifically against telling a lie. You can't do it under oath, of course. And you can't do it to defraud someone. And you can't do it where certain specific reliances might arise. But the kinds of lies Fox News, talk radio, and other far-right outlets spew don't incur any responsibility. "Sources say a busload of Antifa thugs infiltrated the otherwise peaceful protesters." You don't actually report that infiltration as a fact. And your "source" might just be some random Tweet. You have zero responsibility for what someone might do with that "information."
Then there's the legal notion that a reasonable person wouldn't actually believe any of it. But if seventy-odd million people show that they
do believe it, what use is the "reasonable person" standard in assigning responsibility? If you aren't aware that millions of people have relied upon your lies -- and, in posturing yourself as a news outlet, you instead actually expect people to listen to you and react accordingly -- then how can we ever address the clearly undesirable results of a media-generated hysteria?
People who live outside of the United States understand that even the most left-leaning American politicians (ie. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) would be considered centrists in a lot of other countries. The only reason people fear them is because people on the right have been fearmongering. They aren't even remotely "radical".
Or even especially "socialist." Yes, I've lived outside the U.S. and I agree with your assessment. As we discussed months ago, Americans are still fed the notion that if they work hard in the traditional way, they can all be millionaires just like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Thus the best thing to do is uphold American-style capitalism, lest The Swamp hobble you in your efforts. When the average Joe can't make millions, he looks to other reasons for his failure. And the right is all too eager to hand him reasons why: he's being taxed by the liberals, who give his money to lazy people with brown skin who probably came here illegally. Or all those laws and regulations that make it harder for big business to trickle the wealth down to the little guy.
If you keep in mind that every American thinks he's a temporarily stunted millionaire, you understand why the Republicans have such a hold.
...for the people responsible for the failed coup to be severely punished
This has to happen. These calls for "unity" are bare pleas not to be punished for heinous acts deliberately committed. As I wrote some time before, the biggest problem in America is the preferential assignment of accountability according to privilege. Examples of that privilege are sex, skin color, sexual preference, immigration status, accumulated wealth, political dynasticism. I'm sure you all would be able to suggest additions to the list. There is little remaining functional equality among all people who are living in America, and this has pervaded every aspect of our society and government. Trump is a plain old racist, but in another way he's just an example of the institutional racism that many of us are still struggling to recognize and eradicate.
But back to privilege. As I said, I've observed many protests, demonstrations, and so forth in my city. The organizers accept the very real possibility, if not outright likelihood, that they will be arrested and charged with some crime incident to their protest. They prepare for it (i.e., they've made arrangements for bail and lawyers). They don't
want it, but they accept the risk of arrest and prosecution as a likely consequence of their intended behavior. As some of the viral videos have made evident, the participants in Wednesday's attempted coup apparently believed they were just going to be allowed to walk away from it with no consequences. This cannot be allowed to happen.
Now among the insurgents were obviously some truly horrible and disturbed people. But others were simply beguiled, well-intentioned people who are being used as pawns by the rich and powerful. They may not have understood what was likely to happen, and therefore not expecting it or prepared for it. But that can't be said for the Ted Cruzes and Donald Trumps and the Lauren Boeberts, who callously put ordinary people in real danger by stirring them up to action and having no intention of sharing responsibility for the results. They knew what they were doing, and are now trying to weasel out of responsibility for their miscalculation. That cannot be allowed to happen either.
...for the "checks & balances" to be fortified (no, the President is not above the law)...
That would be nice. The checks and balances are still there, but they've been completely overshadowed by partisan actions to an extent I think the Framers didn't consider possible or credible. And I agree that as soon as you allow a President to pardon himself, you no longer have a nation of laws instead of men.
I'm quite sure the President is preparing a list of new pardons, those "patriots" who bludgeoned a policeman to death, attempted to kill the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, and who paraded symbols of hate and racism through our most hallowed halls. And I'm sure he's doing it just to show he's still the Guy In Charge, with no more noble intent than to rile up his enemies. We need some additional checks on the pardon power.
But for the foreseeable future I think the Democratic Party is your only chance for a stable government.
I wish I could agree, but I don't see the Democratic Party as anything better than the lesser of two evils. Well, not as overtly evil as the Republicans. But I see them as trying to be everything to everyone and winding up being nothing to anybody. There are deep devisions among Democrats too, which defocuses their efforts. I see a Biden Presidency as having little else to do besides repairing the feces-smeared legacy of Donald J. Trump. I doubt they'll have time or political capital to do much that's affirmatively good.
