Dec 8, 2010

Juan Cole: the Two-Party System at the Root of the Warfare State

From Juan Cole at Informed Comment:
I wrack my brains for why the US public seems decidedly uninterested in the Afghanistan War, and why they would deliver the ultimate insult to our troops of just not caring if they hear about it when 6 US warriors are shot down in a single day. . . .


I am sad to report that I have concluded that the relative silence on our Afghanistan war dead has to do with the workings of our two-party system. Americans are great followers of sports where two teams oppose one another. They become fierce partisans of one team over the other. They have the same approach to economic life (iPhone vs. Android, Kindle vs. Google ebooks, X-Box vs. Playstation, etc.) They join a “team” in their minds and grow absolutely scathing about the other side. Republicans and Democrats are teams for them. It may be the real reason a third party is so hard to mount; it does have to do with the first past the post electoral system, but it may be also that you can’t root for more than one team at a time, so it is more convenient to have just two parties if you have a binary mindset.
So here’s the reason the whole bloody Afghanistan war is off the radar: it isn’t a partisan issue. The Republican Party, except for a few Libertarians, is solidly in favor of the war and would apparently like to go on fighting it for decades if only they could. But the Democrats cannot oppose the war (as they eventually opposed the Iraq War) because their own president has implemented a surge and is dedicated to prosecuting the war. . . .

Since no advantage would at the moment accrue to either Team from opposing the Afghanistan War, there is little opposition to it. And since it isn’t a partisan debate, the television reporters in particular are mostly uninterested in it. Even most print editors don’t put it on the front page very often. . . .

1 comment:

DLW said...

And the reason the two parties tend to have the same military policy is the fear that failing to side with big money on such would help the other side too much, tilting the control of the US polity in their favor.

But if the US polity didn't tilt then we wouldn't have had LBJ fearing that he'd be accused of being soft on communism if he got us out of our armed conflict in Vietnam.

But the only way you can make the system not tilt to effective single party rule is by using both winner-doesn't-take-all and winner-take-all elections..., so the clarion call is not to push for an even playing field across all parties, but rather to incorporate more winner-doesn't-take-all elections into our existing system!!!!