If one’s politics steer firmly in the direction of “I support only those people/parties that support A, B & C, and who/which also stand steadfast against X, Y & Z” then it will ALWAYS be impossible to wholeheartedly support ANY MAJOR PARTY.
By their nature, in a duopoly a party can only be a major party if they can attract the votes of 40-55% of the population they seek to serve. In a slightly more fractured political environment, one might reasonably expect 10-25%. In a system where there are multiple small parties that seek to stop any majority vote do as to have minority power within a coalition, this might reasonably be single to low double digits.
None of these structures necessarily creates a better outcome, but they do ALL create a COMPROMISE from any rigid dogma or manifesto.
Therein lies the problem for those who seek absolutes in their politics, unless they like dictatorships in which they agree on every issue with the dictator him or her self.
In the absence of a dictator, compromise is needed to cobble together the votes of a somewhat disparate population with views that inhabit various positions on the spectrum of each issue under discussion. In the case of the Democrats, it’s cobbling together ENOUGH far left talking points and policies to appease that cohort. For the Republicans, it has traditional meant the same for the ultra conservative and evangelical voter. However, in recent years it has meant being the figurehead of the MAGA contingent of the party, as they seek to wield outsized power within the party and politicians fear reprisal from them and their leader. Accordingly, it has not been a population-wide compromise that’s been needed, but the compromise of your basic political beliefs to reflect the beliefs of their leader. This has led to the concerns that Trump might be the actual first coming of the wet dream of the American Bund from the 30’s, and thus our first dictatorial
leader.
Either way, compromise has to happen, and zealots, or those for whom absolute adherence to their ideas is required, will never be happy with their political environment or the outcome of most elections. It’s virtually impossible, unless you elect that dictator that either follows your beliefs, or whose beliefs you strictly follow.
Personally, there are many positions I would steal from both traditional parties in the American duopoly, and could easily vote for a Lincolnesque Republican who built a team of rivals, as Obama vainly attempted. Sadly, even that is seen as nakedly political and shouted down by BOTH sides.
This creates the conundrum of how to attract the idealistic voter with little to no room for compromise? You really can’t, other than pointing out how “the other guy” will be much worse for you than anything I would go, even if it’s not exactly what you want. To my mind, that’s the best we can do in a complex, multi-racial, financially disparate, and culturally broad population, while hoping you can appeal to enough of them to both win the election AND THEN ATTEMPT TO SERVE THEIR INTERESTS.
Unfortunately, in modern politics, the second (caps) part is the area where both political parties often fail miserably as the forces of unelected power (against which
@Bigga often rails) assert their undue, often overarching, influence.
Beyond human scale?
I hope not.
A Titanic-sized turn required to achieve?
Absolutely, even if the desire is both present and well-supported.
Imminent?
Not a chance today, but tomorrow is another day and we can only step into our collective futures with the hope of that more perfect union coming to fruition.
Now, back to beating up on that Orange Clown who is ruining my adopted country!!! NO COMPROMISE THERE!!
;-)
