NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to determining which broken party will prevail.
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >>> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >>> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >>> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with--
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >>> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >>> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >>> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with--
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds Efnu)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >>> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >>> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >>> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?
Lock them up and allow them no access to media?
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
working pretty well in switzerland
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
working pretty well in switzerland
--
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/24/2026 9:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let's try to make sense out of this, since Nick insists on interjecting
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first.a So far it has not worked well.
working pretty well in switzerland
his one-liners in a top-post about oligarchs.
Then, reading back down to David French, he says nothing about oligarchs >running the country. So, in comes Noah changing the topic to the Roman >Empire. Then, here comes Nick back, posting in a reply at the bottom
about Switzerland.
So, what we have here is a total vindication of what Wilson has been
saying here for years!
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and >cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >democracy." - Wikipedia
--The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?a Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
--
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/24/2026 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?
What would you do with someone like Elon Musk? YMMV.
Lock them up and allow them no access to media?
That's one solution. Another solution you might like is assassination. \
Look what they did to Julius Caesar! So far there have been two or three >attempts.
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchsYes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word >"oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that >confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s
an oligarchy.
--
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in
switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making
decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in
their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
This is pertinent. Rome conquered more territory than it could
reasonably administer. It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue. And for them, likely not a
long term solution. Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once. What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
--
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:21:18 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 9:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Let's try to make sense out of this, since Nick insists on interjecting
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
working pretty well in switzerland
his one-liners in a top-post about oligarchs.
Then, reading back down to David French, he says nothing about oligarchs
running the country. So, in comes Noah changing the topic to the Roman
Empire. Then, here comes Nick back, posting in a reply at the bottom
about Switzerland.
So, what we have here is a total vindication of what Wilson has been
saying here for years!
That following a thought can require various diversions to reach an understanding?
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and
cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>> to media?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
"oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that
confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s
an oligarchy.
Very good point. You have actually forfeited any right to call that
article propaganda. Are you ok with that?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans
or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead?
And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House
members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that
merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total
of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well,
weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But
perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps
from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can
vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in
switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making
decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in
their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
This is pertinent.-a Rome conquered more territory than it could
reasonably administer.-a It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.-a And for them, likely not a
long term solution.-a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once.-a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>> to media?
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the >>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt >>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>> otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>> develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each >>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand >>>>>> that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs >>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>> oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>> what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>> many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the >>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>> Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall. >>>>>>
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party >>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried
it first. So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in
switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making
decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in
their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
This is pertinent. Rome conquered more territory than it could
reasonably administer. It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue. And for them, likely not a
long term solution. Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once. What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the >requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the--
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it >requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent.a Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the >>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt >>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>> theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>> otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House
members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA >>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>> develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each >>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand >>>>>>> that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs >>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>> oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>> what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and >>>>>>> often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the >>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But
perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real >>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>> Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall. >>>>>>>
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party >>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>> it first.a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in
switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>
reasonably administer.a It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.a And for them, likely not a
long term solution.a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once.a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the
requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it
requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the >burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again
to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so
Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a >Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with
strong economic and political liberalism.
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting--
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>> to media?
On 6/25/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Nick is the informant that called the article propaganda by inserting
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word >>> "oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s >>> an oligarchy.
Very good point. You have actually forfeited any right to call that
article propaganda. Are you ok with that?
the word "oligarch" in a top post. I'm not OK with that. YMMV.\
--
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to determining which broken party will prevail.
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying >uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That
or maybe civil war.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent.-a Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>> perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>> it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>>
reasonably administer.-a It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.-a And for them, likely not a
long term solution.-a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys >>>> once.-a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the
requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it
requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again
to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so
Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't
care guys make it whatever you like.
--Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with
strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>>> to media?
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That
or maybe civil war.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >>> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >>> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >>> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you
as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense
of how that might work.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That
or maybe civil war.
There is nothing revolutionary about a 3rd party. Canada has one. It
does better than such efforts in the US because it does not entirely
go away, but it remains mostly irrelevant.
Civil war? It is not even apparent, at this point, that himbo will
retain control of congress after nov 2026.
On 6/26/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were >>> a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the >>> governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY >>> reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other.
That or maybe civil war.
what even are we to go to war over???
honestly if a significant majority wanted to deal with oligarchs...
first we stop using their tech platforms
second we stop consuming their media
third we start consensus making ourselves
fourth expand these initial steps globally and build a trans-cultural movement far beyond what any oligarch could even dream of...
war is sooooo last century
#god
consumers really just need to wake the fuck up. how are guns going to accomplish anything if we can't even take these non-violent steps? like we're going to replace all of society if we can't even replace our basic tech platforms???
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent.-a Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>> perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>> it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>>
reasonably administer.-a It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.-a And for them, likely not a
long term solution.-a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys >>>> once.-a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the
requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it
requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again
to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so
Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't
care guys make it whatever you like.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with
strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>>> to media?
On 6/26/2026 1:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/26/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve >>>> proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other.
That or maybe civil war.
what even are we to go to war over???
honestly if a significant majority wanted to deal with oligarchs...
first we stop using their tech platforms
second we stop consuming their media
third we start consensus making ourselves
fourth expand these initial steps globally and build a trans-cultural
movement far beyond what any oligarch could even dream of...
-a-a> war is sooooo last century
-a-a>
-a-a> #god
consumers really just need to wake the fuck up. how are guns going to
accomplish anything if we can't even take these non-violent steps?
like we're going to replace all of society if we can't even replace
our basic tech platforms???
Guns won't accomplish anything good. Except maybe clearing the field of opponents.
Don't recommend.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:56:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Nick is the informant that called the article propaganda by inserting
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word >>>> "oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s >>>> an oligarchy.
Very good point. You have actually forfeited any right to call that
article propaganda. Are you ok with that?
the word "oligarch" in a top post. I'm not OK with that. YMMV.\
Tough. Mommies are good for consoling such ouchies.
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Wait! What?
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent.a Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are. >>>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the >>>>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>>>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>>
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt >>>>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>>> theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>>> otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>>>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the >>>>>>>>> population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA >>>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their >>>>>>>>> ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each >>>>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand >>>>>>>>> that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>>>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs >>>>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>>> oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>>> swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>>> what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and >>>>>>>>> often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at >>>>>>>>> punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>>> perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>>>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real >>>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>>>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need >>>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall. >>>>>>>>>
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party >>>>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>>> it first.a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>>>
reasonably administer.a It also helps that switz is a small country. >>>>> Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions >>>> with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.a And for them, likely not a
long term solution.a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys >>>>> once.a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the >>>> requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it
requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again
to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so
Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't
care guys make it whatever you like.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with
strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
So, I'm agreeing with both Nick and David, but I'm not explaining Nick's >assertion?
Why can't Nick explain why Switzerland is a good example of consensus >governing?
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and >cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >democracy." - Wikipedia
--"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with >>>>>>> people with towering ambition?a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>>>> to media?
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:56:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:David said nothing about Russian oligarchs. Why is that?
On 6/25/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Nick is the informant that called the article propaganda by inserting
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word >>>>> "oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that >>>>> confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s >>>>> an oligarchy.
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
Very good point. You have actually forfeited any right to call that
article propaganda. Are you ok with that?
the word "oligarch" in a top post. I'm not OK with that. YMMV.\
Tough. Mommies are good for consoling such ouchies.
--
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the >>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs, >>>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>> his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were >>>>>>> a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt >>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>> the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>> theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>> otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the >>>>>>> governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>> Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA >>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>> As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>> develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each >>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand >>>>>>> that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso >>>>>>> reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs >>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>> oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>> what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>>>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the >>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve >>>>>>> proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real >>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt >>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>> more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>> and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head >>>>>>> cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>> found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt >>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>> Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall. >>>>>>>
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party >>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>> Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>> in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>> they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often >>>> despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>> Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>> u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you
as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense
of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree >with you.
--
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That
or maybe civil war.
There is nothing revolutionary about a 3rd party. Canada has one. It
does better than such efforts in the US because it does not entirely
go away, but it remains mostly irrelevant.
Parliamentary systems are friendlier to third parties.
Civil war? It is not even apparent, at this point, that himbo will
retain control of congress after nov 2026.
Retention of the majority in congress is irrelevant to the likelihood of >armed conflict. Unless you're saying that the Left will be starting one
if they're not in control.
Actually that's probably accurate. Never mind.
On 6/26/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are.
Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant).
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand
that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall.
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That
or maybe civil war.
what even are we to go to war over???
honestly if a significant majority wanted to deal with oligarchs...
first we stop using their tech platforms
second we stop consuming their media
third we start consensus making ourselves
fourth expand these initial steps globally and build a trans-cultural >movement far beyond what any oligarch could even dream of...
--war is sooooo last century
#god
consumers really just need to wake the fuck up. how are guns going to >accomplish anything if we can't even take these non-violent steps? like >we're going to replace all of society if we can't even replace our basic >tech platforms???
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:05:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Wait! What?
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the >>>> burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again >>>> to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so >>>> Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent.-a Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about. >>>>>>>>>>
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other >>>>>>>>>> alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule. >>>>>>>>>>
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the >>>>>>>>>> population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme >>>>>>>>>> challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives. >>>>>>>>>>
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their >>>>>>>>>> ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, >>>>>>>>>> generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with >>>>>>>>>> everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at >>>>>>>>>> punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the >>>>>>>>>> disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>>>> perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to >>>>>>>>>> Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>>>> it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>>>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>>>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>>>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>>>>
reasonably administer.-a It also helps that switz is a small country. >>>>>> Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions >>>>> with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.-a And for them, likely not a >>>>>> long term solution.-a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys >>>>>> once.-a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how >>>>> this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the >>>>> requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the >>>>> run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it >>>>> requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't
care guys make it whatever you like.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with
strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
So, I'm agreeing with both Nick and David, but I'm not explaining Nick's
assertion?
Why can't Nick explain why Switzerland is a good example of consensus
governing?
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and
cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
Sorry, that is not an explanation. It is however a bias confirmation
if you were looking for one, which you were, right?
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >>>> democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with >>>>>>>> people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>>>>> to media?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:44:04 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:This is pertinent. Rome conquered more territory than it could
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3 >>>>>> parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>> it first. So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in
switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making >>>> decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in >>>> their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with >>>> each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely. >>>
reasonably administer. It also helps that switz is a small country.
Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions
with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern
tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
Still they do know they are all swiss.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have
avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue. And for them, likely not a
long term solution. Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once. What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a
third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how
this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the
requirements to pass policy
Historically the many will devolve to 1. I suspect, in the absence of deliberate blockage, some 1 will emerge. So far nobody, as far as I
know, has succeeded in devising such a deliberate unbreachable
blockage, which means, so far this arrangement has never succeeded for
long.
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the
run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it
requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with
people with towering ambition? Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>> to media?
On 6/26/2026 3:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:05:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Wait! What?
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the >>>>> burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again >>>>> to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so >>>>> Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThereAs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about. >>>>>>>>>>>
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
oI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,o Massey said. oWe are. >>>>>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yAall.o
IAm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldAs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldAs had decisively won the >>>>>>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyAs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. oI have mixed feelings,o he said. oWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.o
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>>>>
So why isnAt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donAt >>>>>>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itAs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenAt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyAre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnAt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other >>>>>>>>>>> alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>>>>> theyAre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldAs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donAt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule. >>>>>>>>>>>
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>>>>> otrifectas.o ThatAs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorAs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the >>>>>>>>>>> population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: oAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme >>>>>>>>>>> challenger
in the primary.o
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives. >>>>>>>>>>>
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesA >>>>>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their >>>>>>>>>>> ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, >>>>>>>>>>> generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IAve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItAs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures u to the extent that each >>>>>>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donAt fully understand >>>>>>>>>>> that theyAre radical because everyone they know agrees with >>>>>>>>>>> everything
they say.
IAve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same oStar Warso
reference to describe the other side. TheyAll say the other sideAs >>>>>>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>>>>> oStar Warso filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>>>>> swing-state politicians u even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>>>>> what it means to be a orealo Republican or a orealo Democrat and >>>>>>>>>>> often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyAre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at >>>>>>>>>>> punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenAt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), heAs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canAt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the >>>>>>>>>>> disaffected
Republican, then weAre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>>>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
u just perhaps u we can start by turning to those politicians whoAve
proven that theyAre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>>>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyAre weak, that theyAre not real >>>>>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnAt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to >>>>>>>>>>> Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church u that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>>>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and othe eye cannot say to the hand, aI donAt need you!A And the head
cannot say to the feet, aI donAt need you!Ao The parties need >>>>>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IAd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnAt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnAt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyAs blue wall. >>>>>>>>>>>
It might take time u far too much time u but when the single party >>>>>>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>>>>> it first.a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making
decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in
their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
This is pertinent.a Rome conquered more territory than it could
reasonably administer.a It also helps that switz is a small country. >>>>>>> Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions >>>>>> with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern >>>>>> tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have >>>>>>> avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.a And for them, likely not a >>>>>>> long term solution.a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys >>>>>>> once.a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a >>>>>> third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how >>>>>> this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the >>>>>> requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the >>>>>> run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it >>>>>> requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't >>>> care guys make it whatever you like.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with >>>>> strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
So, I'm agreeing with both Nick and David, but I'm not explaining Nick's >>> assertion?
Why can't Nick explain why Switzerland is a good example of consensus
governing?
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and
cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct
democracy." - Wikipedia
Sorry, that is not an explanation. It is however a bias confirmation
if you were looking for one, which you were, right?
Nick said Switzerland was a good example of consensus governing. Is he
right and in agreement with David French, or not?
--
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting >>>>> rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >>>>> democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with >>>>>>>>> people with towering ambition?a Lock them up and allow them no access >>>>>>>>> to media?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you
as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense
of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree
with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
On 6/26/2026 6:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here. >>>>You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you
as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense >>>> of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree >>> with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
Both? Only two? I thought you believed in lots of sides.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:58:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here. >>>>>You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you >>>>> as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense >>>>> of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree >>>> with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
Both? Only two? I thought you believed in lots of sides.
Choices, not sides. There might even be more than two sides, but if
you could somehow bring yourself to show even two sides it would be so impressive.
On 6/27/2026 2:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:58:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here. >>>>>>You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you >>>>>> as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense >>>>>> of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree >>>>> with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
Both? Only two? I thought you believed in lots of sides.
Choices, not sides. There might even be more than two sides, but if
you could somehow bring yourself to show even two sides it would be so
impressive.
I do it all the time.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:40:49 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 3:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:05:52 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Nick said Switzerland was a good example of consensus governing. Is he
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:36:51 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Wait! What?
On 6/25/2026 3:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/25/26 9:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It kind of looks like Nick top-posted and changed the subject from the >>>>>> burger war, to the oligarchs in Russia, then changed the subject again >>>>>> to Switzerland following Noah's assertion that the Romans did it and so >>>>>> Nick cross-posted to alt.messianic.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:40:10 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 9:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:39:28 -0700, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans >>>>>>>>>>>> or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other >>>>>>>>>>>> alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system?
What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>>>>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>>>>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of
this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>>>>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the >>>>>>>>>>>> population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>>>>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme >>>>>>>>>>>> challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>>>>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total >>>>>>>>>>>> of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their >>>>>>>>>>>> ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, >>>>>>>>>>>> generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also
develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with >>>>>>>>>>>> everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy.
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>>>>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at >>>>>>>>>>>> punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>>>>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the
language of the swing voter, much less the language of the >>>>>>>>>>>> disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch
back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can
win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real
Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to >>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican,
but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need
ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall.
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps >>>>>>>>>>> from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can >>>>>>>>>>> vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
Shared power has been tried a number of times since the romans tried >>>>>>>>>> it first.-a So far it has not worked well.
i'm literally just recommending what is currently working out well in >>>>>>>>> switzerland
and there no division of territory here, they are not ruling and making
decrees from different locations like the romans tried several times in
their later stages. they deliberating as a council until consensus with
each other is reached, and any one of them can block a policy entirely.
This is pertinent.-a Rome conquered more territory than it could >>>>>>>> reasonably administer.-a It also helps that switz is a small country. >>>>>>>> Small countries tend to enjoy greater social cohesion.
switzerland has 3 official languages because it's split into 3 regions >>>>>>> with different dominate languages, even today. and up until modern >>>>>>> tunnel boring the country was rather difficult to traverse.
So, rather than solving the towering ambition problem, they have >>>>>>>> avoided it by having leaders that lack that characteristic.
Not a solution to the underlying issue.-a And for them, likely not a >>>>>>>> long term solution.-a Sure you might beat the odds and find 3 good guys
once.-a What are the odds then, of doing that again next time?
it's 5: 2 from the top party, 2 from the second party, and 1 from a >>>>>>> third. and they can only pass policy with consensus. i don't know how >>>>>>> this remove the problem of ambition ... it's a structural shift in the >>>>>>> requirements to pass policy
u can't just elect one dumbfuck into power and give everyone else the >>>>>>> run around, u have five from three different voting blocks, and so it >>>>>>> requires putting in people who can actually deliberate
I see no such manipulations. The subject remains burger war. I don't >>>>> care guys make it whatever you like.
Since they both ignored my post, I'm interjecting it again:
Apparently the reason Switzerland is so successful because it's a
Libertarian free market mix of social and cultural conservatism with >>>>>> strong economic and political liberalism.
And I asserted and still assert that:
That must make you feel good. But it does not explain dart's
assertion.
Which you have ignored.
So, I'm agreeing with both Nick and David, but I'm not explaining Nick's >>>> assertion?
Why can't Nick explain why Switzerland is a good example of consensus
governing?
Apparently Switzerland is a Libertarian free market mix of social and
cultural conservatism with strong economic and political liberalism.
Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting
rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics,
robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >>>> democracy." - Wikipedia
Sorry, that is not an explanation. It is however a bias confirmation
if you were looking for one, which you were, right?
right and in agreement with David French, or not?
I don't think Dave said anything about consensus.
"Swiss conservatism is generally cautious and traditional (resisting >>>>>> rapid changes), while its liberalism favors free-market economics, >>>>>> robust civil liberties, and the world's most extensive system of direct >>>>>> democracy." - Wikipedia
The problem that govt's mostly fail to address is what to do with >>>>>>>>>> people with towering ambition?-a Lock them up and allow them no access
to media?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:15:47 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:56:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:David said nothing about Russian oligarchs. Why is that?
On 6/25/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Nick is the informant that called the article propaganda by inserting
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out the word >>>>>> "oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions that >>>>>> confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties - it"s >>>>>> an oligarchy.
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
Very good point. You have actually forfeited any right to call that >>>>> article propaganda. Are you ok with that?
the word "oligarch" in a top post. I'm not OK with that. YMMV.\
Tough. Mommies are good for consoling such ouchies.
Because stars are round and not square?
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>>>
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual democracy >>>>>>>
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5 reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each can vote >>>>>>> pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much
stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority
leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>> When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation.
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the
public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans or as >>>>> Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? And if >>>>> the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that each >>>>> way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation and >>>>> corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government
rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in red >>>>> trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House members >>>>> run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the only >>>>> threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme challenger >>>>> in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so many >>>>> states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat.
There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that merely >>>>> lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total of 38 >>>>> competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO
bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all, generations >>>>> of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country
where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition
might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, weird. >>>>> Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with everything >>>>> they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are
indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us
what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule can >>>>> be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that
institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves.
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party rule >>>>> in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic
foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the disaffected >>>>> Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch back >>>>> to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But perhaps >>>>> rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can win >>>>> on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, but >>>>> not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if
Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing state, >>>>> or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here.
You mean the first thing you have agreed with. I recommend it to you
as a lesson in telling both sides. You seem to have very little sense
of how that might work.
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree
with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other. That >>>> or maybe civil war.
There is nothing revolutionary about a 3rd party. Canada has one. It
does better than such efforts in the US because it does not entirely
go away, but it remains mostly irrelevant.
Parliamentary systems are friendlier to third parties.
Civil war? It is not even apparent, at this point, that himbo will
retain control of congress after nov 2026.
Retention of the majority in congress is irrelevant to the likelihood of
armed conflict. Unless you're saying that the Left will be starting one
if they're not in control.
Actually that's probably accurate. Never mind.
On 6/26/2026 3:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:15:47 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Not exactly. Nick said the US could not have consensus governing
On 6/25/2026 9:18 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:56:10 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>David said nothing about Russian oligarchs. Why is that?
On 6/25/2026 9:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:58:42 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>Nick is the informant that called the article propaganda by inserting >>>>> the word "oligarch" in a top post. I'm not OK with that. YMMV.\
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 8:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/24/26 7:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:A top-poster now, eh?
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so >>>>>>>>> much
stagnation and corruption?
because a duopoly isn't competition,
Yes. I think that's what David French wrote, except he left out >>>>>>> the word
and because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs
"oligarchs" - probably because he does not write biased opinions >>>>>>> that
confuse his readers. Oligarchs are in Russia - there's no parties >>>>>>> - it"s
an oligarchy.
Very good point.-a You have actually forfeited any right to call that >>>>>> article propaganda.-a Are you ok with that?
Tough.-a Mommies are good for consoling such ouchies.
Because stars are round and not square?
"because it's actually one club of people: oligarchs".
We don't have oligarchs in the US. Nick trashed you and David. Good work!
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump- >>>>>>>>> inspired
plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger >>>>>>>>> when the
Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are. >>>>>>>>> Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a >>>>>>>>> friend who
was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite
restaurant).
(imagine ur favorite restaurant being mcdonalds ?)
When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won >>>>>>>>> the
burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and >>>>>>>>> WendyrCOs,
were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the >>>>>>>>> Throne of
Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the
company, and
his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. >>>>>>>>> rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was >>>>>>>>> invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation >>>>>>>>> has two
parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. >>>>>>>>> Control
of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and >>>>>>>>> even
when one side wins full control its margins of victory are
extremely
narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political >>>>>>>>> competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I >>>>>>>>> donrCOt
believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both >>>>>>>>> sides of
the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the
Democratic
Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to >>>>>>>>> Donald
Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a >>>>>>>>> different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans >>>>>>>>> identify
as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in >>>>>>>>> 1988.
Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as
Republicans or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is >>>>>>>>> disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than >>>>>>>>> theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us >>>>>>>>> tastier
fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and
Democrats is
giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead? >>>>>>>>> And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means >>>>>>>>> that each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance,
stagnation and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party >>>>>>>>> controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic >>>>>>>>> ones.
That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend >>>>>>>>> to be
more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of
Americans
live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of >>>>>>>>> Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived >>>>>>>>> in red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the >>>>>>>>> population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan
gerrymanders,
and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my
colleague Tom
Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House >>>>>>>>> members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where >>>>>>>>> the only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme >>>>>>>>> challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in >>>>>>>>> so many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build >>>>>>>>> entire
careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of >>>>>>>>> the
aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in >>>>>>>>> which
the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of >>>>>>>>> Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186 >>>>>>>>> districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that >>>>>>>>> merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand
total of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their >>>>>>>>> ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach >>>>>>>>> out to
the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided >>>>>>>>> compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are >>>>>>>>> internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often
radicalize.
As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization
suggests that
when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more >>>>>>>>> extreme.
Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that >>>>>>>>> each
side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well, >>>>>>>>> weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully
understand
that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with >>>>>>>>> everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar >>>>>>>>> WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs
convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the >>>>>>>>> bar in
rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue >>>>>>>>> trifectas
mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not >>>>>>>>> swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat >>>>>>>>> and often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on >>>>>>>>> hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party >>>>>>>>> rule can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and >>>>>>>>> when one
party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at >>>>>>>>> punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party >>>>>>>>> rule.
The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one- >>>>>>>>> party rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself >>>>>>>>> (as
many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful >>>>>>>>> to the
other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft. >>>>>>>>>
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their >>>>>>>>> own
one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another >>>>>>>>> lurch back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But >>>>>>>>> perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians >>>>>>>>> whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They >>>>>>>>> can win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the >>>>>>>>> governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of
Pennsylvania.
On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie
Baker, as
governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular >>>>>>>>> governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent >>>>>>>>> approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same
vulnerability.
The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party
shouldnrCOt
be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a
progressive in
Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic >>>>>>>>> Party
than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own >>>>>>>>> or the
more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of
Republican, but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and >>>>>>>>> which
real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as >>>>>>>>> the
model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many >>>>>>>>> parts,
and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And >>>>>>>>> the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where >>>>>>>>> it is
found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of
optimism. As
the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue
forever. If
the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of >>>>>>>>> partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more >>>>>>>>> unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be >>>>>>>>> able to
hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It >>>>>>>>> wasnrCOt
that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of >>>>>>>>> one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from
Democratic to
Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party
fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam >>>>>>>>> breaks
and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is >>>>>>>>> undermining our two-party system, and our competition is
reduced to
determining which broken party will prevail.
dissolve the senate, it was just a needless check on actual
democracy
reform the executive presidency into an executive council (5
reps from 3
parties: 2,2,1) requiring consensus decision making where each >>>>>>>> can vote
pass/neg/block - majority to pass, no blocking votes
On 6/26/2026 3:15 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Nick claimed over on alt.messianic that Switzerland was a good example
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:51:00 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You appear to be having a difficult time choosing sides in the burger war.
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:30:57 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 10:51 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You mean the first thing you have agreed with.-a I recommend it to you >>>> as a lesson in telling both sides.-a You seem to have very little sense >>>> of how that might work.
NY Times,
June 24, 2026
Why does our seemingly competitive two-party system produce so much >>>>>> stagnation and corruption?
By David French
ThererCOs a line from a speech that I keep thinking about.
I wrote about it last month. Shane Massey, the Republican majority >>>>>> leader in the South Carolina Senate, spoke against a Trump-inspired >>>>>> plan to redistrict the state.
rCLI will tell my Republican friends: Republicans are stronger when the >>>>>> Democrat Party is vibrant and viable,rCY Massey said. rCLWe are.
Competition makes you better, yrCOall.rCY
IrCOm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend who >>>>>> was then a senior executive at McDonaldrCOs (my favorite restaurant). >>>>>> When we spoke it was obvious that McDonaldrCOs had decisively won the >>>>>> burger wars, and that its chief competitors, Burger King and WendyrCOs, >>>>>> were no longer threats to dislodge Ronald McDonald from the Throne of >>>>>> Fries.
I asked him if there was a sense of satisfaction at the company, and >>>>>> his response surprised me. rCLI have mixed feelings,rCY he said. rCLWe were
a great company when the competition was intense.rCY
The innovation and energy required to stave off a challenger was
invigorating and perhaps most crucially, it staved off stagnation. >>>>>>
So why isnrCOt this happening in American politics? Our nation has two >>>>>> parties of near-identical size and power, at least in theory. Control >>>>>> of the national government routinely flips back and forth, and even >>>>>> when one side wins full control its margins of victory are extremely >>>>>> narrow.
And yet, instead of creating innovation and energy, our political
competition seems to be yielding stagnation and corruption. I donrCOt >>>>>> believe that stagnation and corruption exist equally on both sides of >>>>>> the aisle, but itrCOs hard to find anyone who believes the Democratic >>>>>> Party is healthy and vibrant, especially after two losses to Donald >>>>>> Trump.
Even if the two parties arenrCOt equally corrupt, they do share a
different common characteristic: TheyrCOre equally repulsive to the >>>>>> public.
A Gallup poll in January found that 45 percent of Americans identify >>>>>> as independents, a record since Gallup began regular polling in 1988. >>>>>> Equal percentages of adults, 27 percent, identify as Republicans
or as
Democrats.
This doesnrCOt mean that neither side can win. When the public is
disgusted with the current leadership, it has but one other
alternative. Many voters are voting against incumbents more than
theyrCOre endorsing their challengers.
If the competition between McDonaldrCOs and Burger King gave us tastier >>>>>> fries, somehow the competition between Republicans and Democrats is >>>>>> giving us rotten politics.
But what if we donrCOt actually have a competitive two-party system? >>>>>> What if our nation actually has two one-party systems, instead?
And if
the United States has two one-party systems, then that means that >>>>>> each
way they turn voters are confronted with the arrogance, stagnation >>>>>> and
corruption that almost always disfigures single-party rule.
The best illustration of this reality is found in state government >>>>>> rCLtrifectas.rCY ThatrCOs the term for a state where one party controls the
governorrCOs mansion and both houses of the state legislature. As of >>>>>> this month, there are 23 Republican trifectas and 16 Democratic ones. >>>>>> That leaves 11 states with divided governments.
Republicans may govern more states, but Democratic states tend to be >>>>>> more populous. As a result, a roughly equal percentage of Americans >>>>>> live under total red or blue rule. As of January, 39.1 percent of
Americans lived in blue trifecta states, and 41.5 percent lived in >>>>>> red
trifecta states, which means that less than 20 percent of the
population lives in a divided state.
Combine trifecta state control with aggressive partisan gerrymanders, >>>>>> and you have exactly the situation in Congress that my colleague Tom >>>>>> Edsall described this week: rCLAn overwhelming majority of House
members
run in districts that are safe in the general election, where the >>>>>> only
threat to an incumbent is from a more ideologically extreme
challenger
in the primary.rCY
Another way of putting it is that the other side is so weak in so >>>>>> many
states and congressional districts that politicians can build entire >>>>>> careers without having to appeal to voters on the other side of the >>>>>> aisle.
For example, even in a year of remarkable public discontent, in which >>>>>> the House may well change hands, the vast majority of members of
Congress are completely safe. The Cook Political Report lists 186
districts as solid Republican and 182 districts as solid Democrat. >>>>>> There are only 18 tossup races. If you add in the 20 races that
merely
lean in one direction or the other, that gives you a grand total
of 38
competitive races in a 435-member House of Representatives.
As a result, one-party politicians are often born in the partiesrCO >>>>>> bases and inept at reaching anyone even a few inches to their
ideological right or left. In fact, the very effort to reach out to >>>>>> the opposition is usually interpreted as weakness, a misguided
compromise against an uncompromising foe.
The art of compromise vanishes before our eyes. After all,
generations
of politicians now come from the roughly 80 percent of the country >>>>>> where compromise is almost always unnecessary. Compromises are
internal only, as the party negotiates with itself. The opposition >>>>>> might as well not exist.
The partisan majority in a single-party state will often radicalize. >>>>>> As IrCOve explained before, the law of group polarization suggests that >>>>>> when like-minded people deliberate, they tend to become more extreme. >>>>>> Red bubbles get redder, Blue bubbles get bluer.
ItrCOs not just that the two sides separate ideologically. They also >>>>>> develop very different political cultures rCo to the extent that each >>>>>> side is completely convinced that the other side is just, well,
weird.
Our nation is full of radicalized people who donrCOt fully understand >>>>>> that theyrCOre radical because everyone they know agrees with
everything
they say.
IrCOve heard Republicans and Democrats use exactly the same rCLStar WarsrCY
reference to describe the other side. TheyrCOll say the other siderCOs >>>>>> convention, for example, is like the Mos Eisley Cantina, the bar in >>>>>> rCLStar WarsrCY filled with bizarre creatures from across the galaxy. >>>>>>
Compounding the problem, the sheer size of the red and blue trifectas >>>>>> mean that they define the nature of the respective parties, not
swing-state politicians rCo even though swing-state politicians are >>>>>> indispensable to party control. The single-party partisans tell us >>>>>> what it means to be a rCLrealrCY Republican or a rCLrealrCY Democrat and
often
despise the rare politicians from their own party who can win on
hostile ground. TheyrCOre the squishes, after all.
Politics is always vulnerable to corruption, but single-party rule >>>>>> can
be a virtual petri dish for favoritism and graft. We all know that >>>>>> institutions tend to be terrible at policing themselves, and when one >>>>>> party possesses complete control, it is rarely as vigilant at
punishing its own as it is at pummeling the other side.
Even swing states arenrCOt immune from the maladies of one-party rule. >>>>>> The states themselves are often carved up into one-party enclaves. >>>>>>
President Trump is perhaps the ultimate example of what one-party >>>>>> rule
in a two-party nation can produce. While he governs for himself (as >>>>>> many one-party politicians do), herCOs also vicious and vengeful to the >>>>>> other side, and so long as he keeps attacking the hated Democratic >>>>>> foe, his party will gladly cover for his corruption and graft.
But if the Democrats challenge Trump with the products of their own >>>>>> one-party rule, with a candidate who canrCOt even begin to speak the >>>>>> language of the swing voter, much less the language of the
disaffected
Republican, then werCOre setting ourselves up for yet another lurch >>>>>> back
to the competing extreme.
There is no easy way for Americans to change this dynamic. But
perhaps
rCo just perhaps rCo we can start by turning to those politicians whorCOve
proven that theyrCOre culturally and politically bilingual. They can >>>>>> win
on hostile (or purple) ground. One can think of Andy Beshear, the
governor of Kentucky, or Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania. >>>>>> On the Republican side, I can still remember when Charlie Baker, as >>>>>> governor of Massachusetts, was by some counts the most popular
governor in America. In 2022, he recorded a stunning 74 percent
approval rating.
All of these politicians, though, suffer from the same vulnerability. >>>>>> The partisan base can believe theyrCOre weak, that theyrCOre not real >>>>>> Democrats or Republicans, mere DINOs or RINOs. But a party shouldnrCOt >>>>>> be defined by its most zealous ideologues. Why would a progressive in >>>>>> Brooklyn be a more authentic representative of the Democratic Party >>>>>> than a moderate in Tennessee? The same analysis applies to
Republicans. You are not more Republican the more guns you own or the >>>>>> more often you go to church rCo that makes you a type of Republican, >>>>>> but
not the ideal form.
There are many, many Republicans, for example, who will rejoice if >>>>>> Susan Collins loses in Maine. She voted to convict Trump, and which >>>>>> real Republican would do that? There should be no such thing as the >>>>>> model ideological candidate.
To quote the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians, one body has many parts, >>>>>> and rCLthe eye cannot say to the hand, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCO And the head
cannot say to the feet, rCyI donrCOt need you!rCOrCY The parties need >>>>>> ideological diversity. Groupthink is dangerous, no matter where it is >>>>>> found.
IrCOd like to end a rather bleak newsletter with a dash of optimism. As >>>>>> the Gallup poll indicates, present trends cannot continue forever. If >>>>>> the number of independents continues to grow, and the share of
partisans continues to shrink, the present system will grow more
unstable. A diminishing percentage of Americans will not be able to >>>>>> hold the same amount of power.
One-party rule can look imposing, but it is often fragile. It wasnrCOt >>>>>> that long ago, for example, when there was a different kind of
one-party rule in the South, and then it shifted from Democratic to >>>>>> Republican. It wasnrCOt that long ago that California was a swing >>>>>> state,
or that Iowa was briefly part of the Democratic PartyrCOs blue wall. >>>>>>
It might take time rCo far too much time rCo but when the single party >>>>>> fails, eventually the dormant second party revives, the logjam breaks >>>>>> and the system resets. But until then our one-party politics is
undermining our two-party system, and our competition is reduced to >>>>>> determining which broken party will prevail.
That's the first decent thing by French that you've ever posted here. >>>>
Ironic. You apparently can't help but denigrating people who don't agree >>> with you.
I denigrate people who appear having trouble with telling both sides.
As noted he didn't use the word oligarch and he also avoided saying
uniparty, although both are implied.
I think a new third party is going to happen one way or the other.
That
or maybe civil war.
There is nothing revolutionary about a 3rd party.-a Canada has one.-a It >>>> does better than such efforts in the US because it does not entirely
go away, but it remains mostly irrelevant.
Parliamentary systems are friendlier to third parties.
Civil war?-a It is not even apparent, at this point, that himbo will
retain control of congress after nov 2026.
Retention of the majority in congress is irrelevant to the likelihood of >>> armed conflict. Unless you're saying that the Left will be starting one
if they're not in control.
Actually that's probably accurate. Never mind.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:38:55 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |