sparky11point5
Sexy Member
My view is that the two-party system has ensured political stability for the US. Washington hated the notion of parties and party politics. Yet, by 1800 we had some of the most virulent, attack-driven politics imaginable, thanks to the Federalist/Republican (later Democratic) party rivalry.
We pass through very turbulent periods and the two major parties gradually shift to accommodate important changes. This can be painfully slow, but both parties historically tend to represent centrist views *in the long term*. From time to time, both parties have been dominated by 'extremists' (in the US context, not all that extreme, really). Republicans adopted many progressive policies during the muck-raking era of TR, for example, as most people supported these policies.
When people talk about a multi-party system, I think of post-war Italy - a revolving door of different prime ministers, a cacophony of parties, and political stagnation. (Hmmm, but maybe 2 hour lunches and getting to grab-ass beautiful women on the street, it might not be so bad ....)
We pass through very turbulent periods and the two major parties gradually shift to accommodate important changes. This can be painfully slow, but both parties historically tend to represent centrist views *in the long term*. From time to time, both parties have been dominated by 'extremists' (in the US context, not all that extreme, really). Republicans adopted many progressive policies during the muck-raking era of TR, for example, as most people supported these policies.
When people talk about a multi-party system, I think of post-war Italy - a revolving door of different prime ministers, a cacophony of parties, and political stagnation. (Hmmm, but maybe 2 hour lunches and getting to grab-ass beautiful women on the street, it might not be so bad ....)
