• 520
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    He’s got a point. The Republican party is fundamentally not healthy at all.

    • @vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      28
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • mo_ztt ✅
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        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…

        • @OldFartPhil@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          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.

          • mo_ztt ✅
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            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.

      • @Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        For now. What will the Democratic party look like in ten years without a decent opposition party?

        • @vividspecter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          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.

          • mrbubblesort
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            It’ll be the latter. The US hasn’t had a legitimate 3rd party since the Whigs in the 1850s

            • @hypelightfly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              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.

      • 520
        link
        fedilink
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.