Now, that’s not fair. The GOP of the 1860s believed in civil rights, infrastructure improvements, a strong federal authority to protect ALL citizens, etc., and were thus hated throughout the South. The only thing the GOP of today shares with the GOP of the 1860s is a belief that Democrats are traitors and unAmerican. After all, the Democrats of the 1860s questioned the Illinois president’s legitimacy, supported states’ rights to oppress minorities (among other things), were the only party white southerners would support, etc. I am not making this up, though I am exaggerating. Change your partners, do-se-do. And this is as it should be. With a two-party system, the parties should NOT have principles. They should have inclinations and preferences, which make co-operation possible, rather than cast-iron principles to that make them incapable of the negotiations and compromises actually necessary to govern. In a system of proportional representation, such as you find in just about every other democratic republic, the parties are numerous, and principles make more sense. The more ideologically rigid a party, the fewer people it actually represents, but in a two-party everyone is compelled to either (a) make their vote irrelevant, or (b) vote for a party that only partly represents their values. This is why so many of us think we are voting for the lesser of two evils. Would we still feel that way if there were ten parties, and one of them was a more exact fit for us? I know lots of folks who would vote for a Libertarian party but feel obliged to vote (holding their noses) Republican. Just as I know many folks. who vote Democratic with equal reluctance. Anyway, would it not be better if the two parties were both broadly centrist, and acted a rival teams rather than like a pair of opposed religious sects.
Now, that’s not fair. The GOP of the 1860s believed in civil rights, infrastructure improvements, a strong federal authority to protect ALL citizens, etc., and were thus hated throughout the South. The only thing the GOP of today shares with the GOP of the 1860s is a belief that Democrats are traitors and unAmerican. After all, the Democrats of the 1860s questioned the Illinois president’s legitimacy, supported states’ rights to oppress minorities (among other things), were the only party white southerners would support, etc. I am not making this up, though I am exaggerating. Change your partners, do-se-do. And this is as it should be. With a two-party system, the parties should NOT have principles. They should have inclinations and preferences, which make co-operation possible, rather than cast-iron principles to that make them incapable of the negotiations and compromises actually necessary to govern. In a system of proportional representation, such as you find in just about every other democratic republic, the parties are numerous, and principles make more sense. The more ideologically rigid a party, the fewer people it actually represents, but in a two-party everyone is compelled to either (a) make their vote irrelevant, or (b) vote for a party that only partly represents their values. This is why so many of us think we are voting for the lesser of two evils. Would we still feel that way if there were ten parties, and one of them was a more exact fit for us? I know lots of folks who would vote for a Libertarian party but feel obliged to vote (holding their noses) Republican. Just as I know many folks. who vote Democratic with equal reluctance. Anyway, would it not be better if the two parties were both broadly centrist, and acted a rival teams rather than like a pair of opposed religious sects.