https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/09/anti-trump-judge-conservative-republican-party
J Michael Luttig, who advised Mike Pence not to try to overturn 2020 election, says former president has destroyed GOP
“American democracy simply cannot function without two equally healthy and equally strong political parties,” J Michael Luttig told CNN on Wednesday. “So today, in my view, there is no Republican party to counter the Democratic party in the country.
“And for that reason, American democracy is in grave peril.”
For that reason?
That's the reason?
I think the real reason is that the people in power keep touting this idea of only two distinct parties. Having only two parties means you have only two directions to go. Which is destined for extremism.
The FPTP voting system reinforces that. Any third party is just going to be a spoiler for one of the majors without voting system reform.
This is the correct answer. Third parties are rarely viable in first-past-the-post systems. More info on Duverger's Law here.
If we had more viable parties it would be much harder to do regulatory capture and corrupt every party, and even if that happened new viable ones could spring up at any time. We might actually get candidates that represent diverse political opinions. With more parties one party would be unlikely to have a majority or supermajority, and our representatives would have to work together and form coalitions to get anything done. Politics wouldn't be a team sport about defeating the other side, it would be about shared goals and constructive legislation. Candidates would want to appeal to voters who they might be the second or third choice for, meaning scapegoating, vilifying and othering segments of society would be a losing strategy. Ranked choice voting has few downsides for anyone but those who want a corrupt system they can capture and a society they can divide.
doesn't "duverger's law" only exist in the US? I think there's credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the "two party effect" in the US.
The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it's only used for presidential elections. If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress - especially the House - given the relatively small constituency of each representative and the large number of representatives.
The electoral college has hardly anything to do with the party system in the US because it’s only used for presidential elections.
Said parties literally choose the electors in the electoral college.
If a third party was viable in FPTP then we should see a much larger share of them in Congress
If a third party becomes viable and starts winning elections what typically happens is it will replace one of the other 2 parties, like when Whigs were replaced by Republicans.
I should have been more clear - I meant that since the electoral college is only used for presidential elections, its existence does not (meaningfully) affect the viability of a third party since the vast majority of elections are not decided by it. 100% agree with what you're saying.
doesn’t “duverger’s law” only exist in the US?
No, Duverger’s law refers to the tendency of places that use first-past-the-post voting to result in a 2-party system. This is not unique to the US. More info is in the above link, it's worth your time.
I think there’s credible evidence that just reforming the electoral college to a proportional vote system would reduce the “two party effect” in the US.
My understanding is that the electoral college distorts the voting power of individuals by giving empty states more voting power than they should have (electors are based on number of house and senate members), and also because those state elections are usually first-past the post winner-take-all, 51% wins all the electors, (except for Nebraska and Maine, which have multiple districts with multiple electors that can be split, but are still first-past-the-post.)
If you mean that replacing first-past-the-post winner-take-all elections with a different voting system that can yield proportional representation will lead to more viable candidates/parties, then that's exactly the same thing Duverger's law is saying. You can't have proportional representation with first-past-the-post elections.
Lots of things reinforce it, the parties having a stranglehold on primaries and the media buyouts are also a major factor.
Except the two party system pits two opposing sides against each other, inevitably leading to them pointing fingers at each other to rile their base and get votes. The extremism comes from frustration, yes, but it is stoked by the "us vs them" mentality that politicians abuse to trick their constituents into voting for them instead of "the other guy".
Right wing extremism is a global problem and is manifesting even in parliamentary multi-party systems, though. All they need is a scapegoat to rally around and they're good to go. Look at anti-immigrant movements in Europe as an example.
Fighting about things is going to happen in any political system.
Just because something exists doesn't mean it exists in the same way. Yes, there is finger pointing and extremism, but not in the same way as the US. And in many situations they've devolved into two parties bickering, while any other parties are just coalition bait. The UK is a prime example of that.
America could of easily slipped into a fascist Nazi style state. Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.
That reads a little funny, doesn't it...
Thankfully we got the greatest president the country has ever seen instead.
I hope not. FDR did a lot of great things, but he was also a racist who didn't give the same benefits to non-white people as white people and, of course, was responsible for the shameful Japanese-American concentration camps.
If that's the greatest president, we have never had any hope.
Objectively, almost every president is a piece of shit and you need to judge them by the merits of their time. Almost every white dude alive in America was a racist shit bag by today's standards. FDR accomplished a ton, and it was all for the common man. Please, tell me who you think was a better president?
I don't know, any number of the ones who didn't commit genocide? Or do I need to ignore that because of the antiquated time period of... *checks notes* 80 years ago?
FDR didn't commit genocide. The Japanese internments were a national shame but were not genocidal in nature.
He is only guilty of it you count segregation itself, which he didn't start and couldn't stop, though the New Deal coalition he assembled would evolve and become key to the growing Civil Rights movement even if the New Deal itself wasn't as fair to black people as it should have been, like everything else in America.
I personally would choose Lincoln as number one but FDR is definitely a contender for best. Certainly better than you should have expected from a segregation-era liberal.
They asked for a specific example and you failed to provide one. You had 45 choices and couldn't even pick one?
I didn't really want to get into an argument about another president when we were talking about this one, but if you agree not to argue with me about that president, I'll name one. Otherwise, forget it. I don't want to get into two arguments in the same thread.
So, you think be cause 80 years doesn't sound like long enough people weren't that bad? That's a really silly argument. 80 years ago they strung black people up from trees for looking at a white woman too long in half the country. This kind of mentality is why we gloss over the huge portion of the country that is still seriously racist. There's plenty of people alive TODAY that protested integration.
That. And when he caught fascists scheming in the Republican party. Instead of investigating and rooting them out. He merely threatened to do it if they blocked his legislation. So in the short term he got his legislation through. And in the long term got it gutted and neutered, saddling us with a now fully fascist Republican party. Thanks FDR.
He did some short sighted good. But that posturing and playing fast and loose screwed us all over.
Go back a few years. Circa 1960, the two parties had both Liberal and Conservative wings. There was no shame in a pol voting with the other party.
You need a multi party system like a lot of countries round the world. No clear winner = who can quickly form the larges coalition. It usually boils down to two main parties with a lot of also-ran's.
Over here we even have The Monster Raving Loony pary!
Both the democratic and republican party are several smaller parties tied together into two disgusting rat king. If one of them disappear today there will be an instant split of the surviving party into two new rat kings. The collapse isn't what they fear. They fear that the Overton window would move left.
I think it’s very clear that the republicans in government are moving far right, but the electorate in general is steadily moving left.
Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.
Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.
Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.
And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.
And according to voter data. Gen z is very progressive especially on policy:
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Exit-Polls.pdf?x91208
In 15-20 years nearly half of all boomers will be dead. The current gop can’t win a single national popular vote. Without half these boomers, they will collapse or move left. And the Overton window will shift considerably left. And with Europe moving right in a lot of counties, I’d say it wouldn’t be surprising to see the US as left as Europe in a shot time.
Also: Europe is not as left leaning as people tend to think. Aside from trains and healthcare they’re not all the left wing. And it is moving right. I’m an Italian citizen and I see it happening in Italy, and many other counties.
Italy didn't really grapple with the fascist movement and cultural ties to religious dogma very well. It's a pretty conservative, traditionalist society. Like the American South, except Catholic.
As an outsider, when we think of "Europe" as left-wing it's because of the Nordic countries and major cities like Paris and London and Berlin, not Southern or Eastern Europe.
Both our parties are pretty far right talking about economics. Republicans are going full authoritarian/fascist. While Democrats grip on social democracy are becoming tenuous.
This analysis comforts me, but I heard a conflicting anecdote that suggested gen z was starting to lean more right (culturally right). I have no data to back that up, but thinking about that risk makes me not want to be complacent. 2016 still looms large in my head
I think the electoral college is a good thing . The problem is you should be voting for the electors, who then get together in a room for a week go decide on a president. Well they can take up to a month, but we pay only for a week and they have to cover all expenses out of that so if they need more than two weeks they sleep outside and only get water, no food. (That is they are not allowed any money other than their one week pay no matter how rich they are)
Voting for someone because they win a popularity contest is wrong .
In a lot of parliamentary systems still have very effective splitting into three branches. Thats because when you have an effective multi-party system, the government often consists of the "largest minority" coalition in the parliament. For example: After an election, the parliament consists of
They get together and discuss who will form a government. A, B, and F agree on enough topics to form a government together, but only have 40 % of the votes. Unless some other coalition, with a larger number of votes, forms, the government will consist of A, B, and F.
Now comes the fun part: A, B and F are at the mercy of the parliament. If they pull some stuff that makes parliament mad enough, C, D and E might put aside their differences, vote out the government and form a new government, so the government has to compromise with e.g. D, to get enough votes to stay in power. This can give small parties a large amount of swing power.
Also: Once A, B and F are in government together, they agree on a platform. That means that even though B is the largest party in government, they have to give in to some requirements from F. This effectively means that the government functions as its own body, enacting the agreed upon political platform of A, B and F.
Because they have pre-agreed-upon compromises, A, B, and F effectively enhance their power in parliament. Even if a representative from A disagrees with some policy the government is trying to pass, they will likely vote for it, because they know that at a later stage, B and F will vote for some policy that they propose. However, if the government goes too far, a party in parliament might decide to pull support, and leave the government they are a part of, effecting a change of government.
This system also incentivises wide compromises and stability. If, after some later election, the government consists of A, D and E, they are unlikely to undo a lot of the work by the previous government, because A will oppose that.
I don't. They are terrible systems. However.every other system.ends up far worse so I begrudgingly recommend it.
Yes, but the framing of it reads like the Democratic party being too powerful is the worst possible outcome, rather than the Republican party destroying society.
Ding ding ding
It's honestly impressive how accurate and succinct that part of his analysis is. I actually do agree that the long-term viability of the establishment GOP could be in serious trouble, and that the outcome a few years hence, of the Democrats as the only viable political party in Washington, would be a big problem for several different reasons. And, I think this is literally the first time I've heard that fairly serious topic being raised anywhere in the media.
But, our democracy is facing another slightly more pressing and short-term problem at the moment...
Nonsense. It's very unlikely that a party with members as diverse politically as Joe Manchin and AOC would form a monolithic power block in the absence of the GOP. It's far more likely that the Democratic party would fragment.
They could. Actually having the party fragment would be among the best options; the AOC wing is pretty tiny right now, and either switching to a non-ridiculous non-FPTP voting system, or fragmenting the party, would position it to actually be able to gain some traction.
One worse way it could shake out is the Democratic primaries become the main event (loosely divided between a progressive wing and an establishment wing). A lot of the establishment people who run the system would actually like that better, because the primaries don't have to operate as democratically as the general elections, and a lot of people would still "have to" vote for the Democrats, so in practice it would be a small minority progressive wing within a largely-establishment party. Pretty similar to now except with more corruption. Like I say, I think there are a lot of problems with that outcome.
For now. What will the Democratic party look like in ten years without a decent opposition party?
Either the Republican party will change its ways or a new party will take their place. Or they won't change their ways and enough will (stupidly) give them the benefit of a doubt because they are tired of the Democrats.
It'll be the latter. The US hasn't had a legitimate 3rd party since the Whigs in the 1850s
It wouldn't be a third party, it would be a replacement party. It's happened many times, and not always with a name change.
Any one party becoming too powerful is the worst possible outcome, especially in what is effectively a two party system.
Sure it might start off good, but as soon as they're comfortable with the fact that people will vote them in regardless, they will eventually stop following the will of the people.
party systems come and go. ours is almost over, and the republican party's death will be the cause
Bullshit. Institutionalized racism, misogyny, homophobia, and white Christian separatism as party platform. No matter how "conservative" Republicans claimed to be, The Southern Strategy was the core value and singular driving force for the past 60 years. MAGA isn't a symptom, it's result
Yup, he isn't original he's just a immoral guy who wants Daddy to be proud, ironically he wouldn't be done he worked very hard to remove the stain of pimping and racism from their fortune only to have dumb dumb here make the trump name an international joke.
Nah motherfucker, all republicans own this shit. Suck it up, traitors. Worthless fucking filth.
As an old guy, I'd have to agree, though as a leftist turned anarchist, I don't give much of a fuck.
I think back though on the Republicans of my youth, and it really was a notably different party.
It's sort of weird to phrase it like this, but they were assholes with principles. I mean - they were shallow, bigoted assholes then too, but it was more common then for them to still be like the old '50s All-American cliche - patriotic, proud, moral, hard-working, honest... conservative in the old sense of the word. I didn't agree with them at all but at least they had a relatively coherent, if shallow and ignorant, ideology that they generally actually lived by.
Somehow though, especially over the last 20 years or so, they've morphed into this bizarre and startlingly toxic mix of psychopaths, hypocrites and grifters. They have no principles at all really - just things and people that they hate - and it's not even vaguely about trying to accomplish things that they sincerely (if mistakenly) think will make the world a better place, but just about fucking over everyone else. And even themselves, if they can colorably believe that by doing so they'll manage to fuck someone else over even more.
I sincerely believe it's a sort of collective mental illness, and truth be told, I think it can only lead to the collapse of western civilization, and the US in particular. There's nothing really that can stop it. It's effectively a closed loop in which greedy psychopaths fuck things up for their own profit and privilege, ignorant psychopaths look for someone to blame for the fact that things are fucked up, power-hungry psychopaths point them at some vulnerable fringe group and tell them that it's all their fault, then while everyone's distracted, the greedy psychopaths fuck things up even more. And 'round and 'round it goes, like a turd circling a toilet bowl. And there's only one way that can end.
There's nothing really that can stop it.
Things that can stop it:
What does the opposite of stopping it:
- Fatalism that makes the good people who outnumber the bad not show up to vote
It’s the same as the “all politicians are the same” moan.
No, they’re not. It’s the crooked ones that want you to believe that they’re all the same, because that’s what keeps the crooked ones from being voted out.
It should be noted that the last three of those things require the exercise of authority to enact, and that authority is vested in people and institutions that flatly will not exercise it in pursuit of things that will in any way undermine their privilege or that of their wealthy cronies and patrons, and all of those things would do just that.
This is where it becomes relevant that the Democrats are only relatively less corrupt than the Republicans. They feed at the same corporate trough as the Republicans - they just have to, and do, play a somewhat different game to stay in office and maintain their privilege.
The Democrats have already demonstrated that when they have uncontested power - the presidency and congressional majorities - they will still find a way to fail to actually deliver. That's not just supposition - it's established fact. It's what they've already done. There's certainly no reason to believe that they're going to do any differently in the future.
Now that's not to say or imply that I disagree with you fundamentally. The first half of your list would at least slow the decline and putting Democrats in office would be broadly better than putting Republicans in office.
But the Democrat establishment, and the DNC in particular, is too corrupt and too compromised to provide more than token opposition to the oligarchy.
Elsewhere in this thread, a poster wrote of the possibility of the Republicans self-destructing snd the Democrats fragmenting. I don't think that's particularly likely, but it is attractive, since it would serve not only to eliminate the most overtly corrupt and destructive party but to provide a rallying point for those who call for genuine reform - the handful of actually decent politicians of the AOC/Sanders type could potentially have some real influence instead of just being lone voices made ineffectual by their subservience to a well-established and thoroughly corrupt party hierarchy.
Again though, I don't think it's at all likely.
Election reform that doesn't give outsized power to rural states
I completely agree with you about voter apathy, but this one in particular I don't know how you get past. You need 2/3rds just to get an amendment for it up for a vote that you then need 3/4 of each state to pass. As long as a quarter or more of states are rural we're kind of screwed on that one. I don't see it happening in my lifetime at least.
The rest are spot on. Also, Jack Fucking Smith. It's not just the news that needs consequences.
I’m an old guy who also turned anarchist. I unfortunately agree with you. But I’m gonna fight the fascism as long as I can. These kids deserve better.
Well… maybe so. This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it—that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes and all his imprecise talk about “new politics” and “honesty in government,” is one of the few men who’ve run for President of the United States in this century who really understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon. McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose, as a matter of policy and a perfect expression of everything he stands for. Jesus! Where will it end?
-Hunter Thompson, "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"
I think it's the way a lot of empires end. Everything gets easy, and without the survival element to keep people honest, over generations the people just lose touch with reality. They think migrant caravans are coming. They think all they need to do is half-ass their way through college and they deserve to get out make six figures still half-assing it. they think Trump is a genius, they think their adult kids are off the pills. The adult kids don't really grasp what the pills are really going to do to them and everyone around them, because everything's been mostly fine so far. Et cetera.
Speaking as another old guy, I wish I could disagree with you on your conclusion. 🥲
Yeah - it is more or less the way that old and previously healthy civilizations generally die. The details differ, but the overall dynsmic is fairly consistent.
As a civilization ages, the broad focus shifts from working to contribute to its well-being to living comfortably off of its established well-being to scrambling to grab as much of its diminishing well-being as possible as quickly as possible. And the US is well into that last phase.
There are only a few ways it can play out from there. The common people can force the civilization into a sort of reset, as the French did in the late 18th century, or the civilization can just go into a long, slow decline like Egypt did or it can collapse under some combination of rebellion from within and attack from without, as Rome did.
The third scenario is far and away the most likely for the US.
I love the saying : “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” because it is true.
I have a theory that societies can go into a circular loop and pivot into 3 different states, any which can serve as the starting point.
At one point you have a society that collectively take care of the issues, and being selfish is frowned upon. In this environment everyone sort of make small sacrifices for the greater good, and everyone is better for it. The problem though, is that the more honest everyone is, and the more you can gain by being devious and two-faced. Eventually some assholes will game the honest system, and more assholes will follow.
This lead to being dishonest and selfish being the norm, as if you're not you will simply have nothing since people will be taking advantage of you. The meta is changed and society is now two-faced.
This lead to the last possible state, where the mask has completely fallen off and people are being genuine dick to each others. There is no honour and everything you can get away with openly, you do. Being two-faced is shunned and seen as weak, you also don't have to worry about the appearance so you can go full selfish mode. This lead to a miserable existence for everyone, and suddenly people might wonder what's the point.
To close the loop, people starts to realize what they have lost. Some people will make themselves vulnerable and show integrity, to try and make things better. Nobody trusts.nobody anymore, and making yourself vulnerable is the only way to gain influence, since nothing else can be trusted. After the big era of con men, selflessness is trending and respectable again, and those without are shunned.
To put in simply, in 1 state being honourable get you further in life, in another one being two-faced gets you farther, and in the last one being openly selfish and hostile will get your farther.
I think we might be somewhere in the peak(hopefully) of the openly hostile state, where you're better off min/maxing society without pretending to be a good person. I think it might turn as the younger generation gets older and people get tired of the division and realize they can have a lot of success by doing what is right.
Anyway, this is just a theory. To me it make sense in game theory sort of way.
It absolutely makes sense and yes - game theory specifically addresses it and explains it.
At this point, the American political and corporate systems are effectively rewarding and thus selecting for psychopathy. The gloves are off, and success goes to those who are willing and able to do absolutely whatever it takes to succeed, no matter how much harm it does. Those who are constrained by morals, principles and empathy are at a disadvantage.
Trump and Musk and DeSantis and the like aren't aberrations - they're simply the leading edge of a broad dynamic - the most obvious extreme examples of the personality most suited to success in this corrupted era.
Unfortunately.
A political party is a collection and assemblage of individuals who share a set of beliefs and principles and policy views about the United States of America.
Remember when the Republican party simply didn't put out a party platform running up to the 2020 election? They released a one page document that just said "We stand for whatever Donald Trump wants." That was weird, huh?
That was the point where the Republicans ceased even pretending to be a normal political party and embraced their new identity as a fascist death cult. They don’t even have a platform. They literally stand for nothing.
Former judge. Regardless, at this point, if you're still holding on to the label "Republican" for yourself, you're complicit.
This guy actively attacks the LQBTQ+ community, all the while being one himself, if the rumors are to believed.
If it weren't for NDAsI think the world would be a better place. The rich and powerful get to hide their embarrassing and or criminal behavior with the help of the judicial system. As designed I suppose, but wish it were different
There's a reason why an extremely anti-lgbt republican who's actually just in the closet is almost a cliche nowadays
It seems the loudest anti-LGBTQ+ are just full of externalized self loathing and hate. Sad that they deny themselves and hurt their own community.
I know it's a fake story but I can't but help laugh and feel absolutely disgusted at the thought of Lindsey Graham's "ladybugs"
I couldn't remember what "they" were called. Thanks! It's sad, really. The need to hide who you really are to do what you'd like to do. Lindsey is a piece of shit, but maybe he didn't start of that way? Just imagine, we could have openly gay Republican that want to repress others based solely on race and religion, regardless of orientation. We can dream
This is the best summary I could come up with:
American democracy has by most measures been in grave peril since 6 January 2021, the day Pence, as vice-president, took Luttig’s advice and refused to attempt to block congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win.
Trump, 77, pleaded not guilty, as he has to 74 other criminal counts, in New York over hush-money payments to a porn star and federally regarding his retention of classified information.
In New York this week, regarding a civil suit in which Trump was found liable for defamation and sexual assault, a judge said it was not defamatory to call the former president a rapist.
Nonetheless, Trump leads Ron DeSantis of Florida, Pence and the rest of the field by more than 30 points, firmly on course to face Biden again.
Luttig told CNN: “A political party is a collection and assemblage of individuals who share a set of beliefs and principles and policy views about the United States of America.
A respected conservative judge who was considered for the supreme court under George W Bush, Luttig made a tremendous impact with his January 6 testimony.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!