[extropy-chat] 2-party-system = 1-dimensional politics (was polls again)

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

I have to take issue with most of what you said, Stuart. I think that
the current two party system is the result not so much of
one-dimensional thinking, or other causes you mention. It is better
explained by economies of scale in a form of marketing that strongly
relies on our tribal tendencies.

As the history of the two major parties shows, their policies and
image have been shifting over the landscape continuously, with the
Republicans occupying at times the role of Democrats and vice versa,
on questions of faith, foreign policy, and economy. The Democrats used
to be the hawks, who embroiled the US in world wars, and presided over
the greatest expansions of military spending ever. The Republicans are
now in the midst of the greatest expansion of state spending and state
power in the last 70 years, unrivaled since the Democratic takeover of
the Supreme Court in the 1930's. Both parties have marketed themselves
as champions of the poor, pacifists, hawks, small(er) government
advocates, champions of progress and defenders of the faith,
frequently at the same time.

The need for marketing is paramount in a democratic system: you have
to appeal to the largest number of voters and you do that by
identifying how large constituencies would vote, both for (which is
not really what they want but the analysis of the "irrational voter"
is another issue), or against. You have to carefully balance your
promises and image to attract the most and turn off the fewest at the
same time. There are few solutions to the problem since tradeoffs
abound and are quite multidimensional. A party has to balance the
appearances of toughness, charity, frugality, generosity, piety,
progressiveness, elitism, populism, all competing in various ways for
attention, and not surprisingly, the final marketable products, the
political platforms of mass-appeal parties, are likely to be
remarkably homogeneous over time: I fail to see any substantive
differences between the major parties on important issues, if averaged
over periods of twenty years or more. And, of course, there are
economies of scale in selling ideology: a large organization trying to
maximize their appeal has an advantage over smaller sellers of exactly
the same ideology. That's why there is only one party per large niche:
there is no small Democratic party, since this large supplier
outcompetes any comers.

Now this leads to the second element: tribalism. The most important
predictor of voting Rep vs. Dem is what your parents used to vote. It
is all about belonging, and signaling allegiance to your kin, in a
situation where nepotism is made difficult by institutions and
traditions. But then, children are not quite like parents either, and
the new members of a family have different opinions about specific
issues than the old folks. This imposes seemingly impossible demands
on political parties: being different while staying the same. The
young Republican cubs want to be Republican like daddy but they want
to be a different shade of Republican. Very importantly, for a tribe
to exist, there has to be at least one out-group to identify yourself
against. Without the outsider to rally against, the tribe is likely to
splinter on its own, making outsiders out of its own flesh.

Now combine the strictures of mass marketing in a democratic system
that existed for a few generations with tribalism, and you get a
solution: at least two, but not more than three major parties, that
differ in minor details and shift their image over periods of twenty
years or more. There are some countries with dozens of parties: this
is where tribal affiliation goes not to the party of your parents, but
to the extended family or clan. There are some countries with only one
party but they are less likely to be true democracies. The two party
system seems to be a common outcome in stable democracies due at least
in part to the mechanisms that I described.

Now, I admit that this is a rather boring explanation: there are no
cliques scheming to keep new political vendors out, there is no
connection between the two-party system and the fictional "decline of
the middle class" (which actually enjoyed the largest ever increase in
numbers and in political power in the last century), no relation to
the "growing inequality" (which is yet another marketing gimmick used
by every mass political party since time immemorial to appeal to the
common envy). There is no master plan by power wielders to destroy the
middle class and support the poor (in fact, no serious democratic
politician ever cares about the poor, because hardly any voters care
about the poor, and of course the middle class that votes does not
want to destroy themselves either). It's the outcome of hundreds of
millions of people making decisions, embedded in institutionalized
tradition and guided by various inborn propensities.

Rafal