← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

Who knew Bret Stephens was capable of such great zingers?

I mean, okay, yes, you could argue there’s a whopper of a mixed metaphor lurking in there (shellacking/colonoscopy?). Who cares.

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=64362

6 Responses to ““[T]he most important thing is for the G.O.P. to take such a shellacking in November that they will remember it as the political equivalent of an unsedated colonoscopy.””

  1. superdestroyer Says:

    But if the shellacking results in the U.S. being a one party state (much like Maryland or the District of Columbia operates today) is that any better. Can the U.S. really call itself a democracy if no incumbent ever risks losing a re-election rate and there are almost no competitive elections?

  2. UD Says:

    superdestroyer: In regard to Maryland, do you mean a Republican-run state? We’re governed here by a wildly popular Republican.

  3. superdestroyer Says:

    The Maryland State House is so overwhelmingly Democratic, that they can override any veto of Gov. Hogan. Hogan is popular because he knows to stay within the boundaries that are set for him by the Democrats. As Stuart Stevens points out, Hogan has no coat tails and when he leaves office, it will be as if he never served.

  4. UD Says:

    superdestroyer: True. All good points.

  5. TAFKAU Says:

    There have been one-party states forever. The southern states used to be one-party Democratic. Now they’re one-party Republican. (Same wine, different bottle.) Try running as a Democrat in Wyoming or a Republican in Rhode Island. Smaller polities often result in majorities steamrolling minorities. That was more or less Madison’s argument in Federalist #10.

    On the other hand, there is absolutely no chance that the U.S. itself will become a one-party state. Too big. Too diverse. We actually tried that once, during the “Era of Good Feelings” in the early 1800s when the Federalist Party dissolved, but schisms soon emerged and we were soon back to our two-party norm.

    So, sure, it’s possible that the November election will result in one-party control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. But that’s hardly been rare in our country–it last happened all the way back in (checks notes) 2018–nor does it mean that we’ll have a one-party state in the sense of D.C. or Maryland (or South Carolina or Tennessee or Idaho). There’s still the small matter of the Supreme Court.

  6. superdestroyer Says:

    The southern states are not one party states because everyone one of them has a district represented by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Considering that less than half of the children in public schools are non-Hispanic whites and considering that more than 50% of public school children are on free lunch program, there is no chance that any form of conservative party will survive in the U.S. Thus, the only way that the two party system survives is with two liberal parties that do not disagree on policy.

    Another way to look at politics is that UD teaches in a jurisdiction that votes 94% for the Democratic candidate for president in 2016. The only Republican jurisdiction that voted 94% for the Republican candidate is Miami,Tx, population 1000.

    The current two political parties are not equivalent and demographic change in the U.S. will increase the differences.

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories