Do we REALLY have a two-party system? #realitycheck #democrats #republicans #illusion

Ever noticed that the two political parties we have today don’t seem all that far apart on fundamentals? Why is that? And what's the alternative? In this video, Mark Pellegrino talks about two ways of organizing society, and how both the democrats and the republicans are essentially different takes on the same collectivist ideal.

0:00 The illusion of the two-party system
0:32 History of the two-party system
0:50 The collectivistic perspective
1:29 The individualistic perspective
2:00 What are political parties?
2:29 There is no middle ground
2:50 The illusion of choice
3:05 We can't live in a permanent state of compromise

'As no individual can live with two opposing moral codes guiding his behavior, no society can
either… and as no individual can compromise between two fundamentally opposing moral
codes without the bad one winning, no society can either. That’s why at various times in our own history, one party or moral organization was dominant for long stretches, and why the two parties today don’t seem all that far apart on fundamentals.'

Subscribe to this channel, like this video, and share your thoughts about the two-party system in the comments below.

Other videos you might like:

Political power vs economic power — do you know the difference?

Positive rights vs negative rights — what's the big difference?

Mark Pellegrino is a successful actor who appeared in Lost, Supernatural, Being Human, 13 Reasons Why, American Rust, The Closer, The Tomorrow People, Dexter, The Big Lebowski, Mulholland Drive, Capote and more. Mark teaches at the acting school he and his wife founded in Paris and is a co-founder of the American Capitalist Party, and a graduate of the Objectivist Academic Center.

#twoparty #explained #politicalparties #politicalparty #philosophy #philosophyshorts #political #realitycheck

[FiteLiberty]

In the beginning the two sides fought over whether they should grow the government or not, now they just fight over how to grow the government.

Another great one Mark!

[michellem]

Right on! If only this could be televised for all to see, however, I fear that it would be lost on most... Thank you, Mark, for sharing.

[sammyisboredagain]

Worth waiting for 😁 thank you Mark for yet another insightful video 😊

[unikeko]

It's interesting to follow USA's politics as someone who doesn't live in America. It just makes me sad that there is so much hate between political parties and voters and America is divided because of it 🙁 But hey, greetings from Finland and I hope that someday people will stop hating each other 🇫🇮👋🏻🇺🇲 I don't want to see America go to a Civil War 😬

[meganw]

Proudly registered Green Party. I vote all over the ballot due to lack of Green Party candidates. I know what my Representatives and Senators are up to and how they vote. I vote accordingly.

[doctorem]

You say there’s no compromising between the two, but that’s exactly what we’ve always done and what you’d better hope we continue to do. Indeed, the day we choose one or the other is the day we choose authoritarianism over democracy.

[KRhetor]

I was really hoping the Modern Whig Party would have grown into a legitimate challenger to both the major American parties.

[mrgoldstone]

And "individual" liberty for all.

[shannonmiller]

We shouldn't blame the forefathers for polarization. Many wanted a government in direct contrast to the one they fought a war to get away from. While others wanted Washington to be king. The belief and desire for individual rights and responsibilities, with respect for the common welfare, assent to the majority and a place for the minority is the most brilliant concept put into place with the Constitution. The question is, what practical approach can best put it into practice?
I blame the media for exaggerating and exacerbating.

[jwoodswce]

Lots of good and correct things said but the characterization of the two party system is incorrect. We have two parties because it is necessary to create a stable coalition of interests and factions in order to implement a political platform in the context of our constitution. In less complex systems of govt, without our checks & balances or with greater homogeneity, there can be more parties with a greater degree of ideological purity that can come together to form ephemeral coalitions to govern after the election.

In US since the Democrats & Socialists joined together in 1930s, the Republican party has been a tradition focused pragmatic stewardship coalition (conservatives are a whiny minority partner in that coalition) while the Democratic party has been an incoherent coalition of conflicting interests that actually oppose each other but are united in the idea that govt force is a practical way to create change. That leaves a lot of people as independents in the middle.

In US history, successful third parties organize to prioritize a single concept. Should they become successful in making that concept a policy priority then they will be absorbed into one of the two dominant coalitions.

The distinction between individualism & collectivism applies to how do we change or reform from where we are now. The prior question is whether we adhere to tradition for traditions sake or do we change to confront current/future problems. Republicans, especially their leadership, are criticized as being for doing nothing different; exactly the point as the vast majority of their coalition is for preserving tradition & even change must serve that higher purpose for them.

How do advocates for individualism breakthrough that racket? In order to secure positions and distribute political patronage, each party must appeal to the independents which they do by articulating policy priorities, which they do both poorly & ineffectively. By articulating individualism focused solutions to high impact problems that affect independents, we can infect both parties with better ideas. After all Republicans like Rumsfeld led the effort to end the draft and 70s congressional Democrats implemented substantial deregulation.