It's remarkable how performative cynicism always manages to be extremely aggravating AND profoundly boring all at the same time. https://twitter.com/drewfoundland/status/1264957411892383747

Just...every layer of this analysis is wrong. It's certainly wrong about *our* 2-party system, and I suspect it's wrong about every 2-party system.

Question 1: what has the GOP done in the last 50 years to protect the Democratic party and the 2-party system?

Oh, did you forget that ONE party systems were a thing? That they are, in fact, far more common and enduring historically than 2-party ones? How silly of you.

Okay, fine, so maybe the GOP is Jerry in this so-called analysis. So we have one party that is intent on destroying the other (definitely for real), and one dedicated for some reason to letting the murderous one persist. Checks out, right?

Sure, if you ignore intra-party dynamics in their entirety, and pretend that EVERY Democratic voter is at heart a leftist who has been forced by shadowy elites to vote for the lesser of two evils over and over again.

Like Trump assuming everyone is a crook because he's a crook, these frustrated leftists assume The Masses are made up of people like them.

They're not.

To put it bluntly, the reason you keep having to hold your nose and vote for a Clinton or a Biden is that a shit ton of Democratic voters prefer a Clinton or a Biden to a Sanders. It really is as simple as that.

You don't have to like it, but if you're not going to be able to change it if you don't first acknowledge it as fact.

Does the 2-party system end up serving elites? Sure! But allow me to introduce you to a multiparty system: Israel. I'll wait while you explain how the Knesset doesn't serve elites. After that, maybe you can explain how 1-party systems like the Russian one don't serve them.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but elites are, almost by definition, the people who have found ways to benefit the most from whatever system they find themselves in. I don't know if the poor will always be with us, but the rich sure will.

If you want the Democratic party to serve your needs, you're going to have to convert some more people to your cause. Actually, that's an understatement. You're going to have to convert A LOT more people to your cause.

And there are different camps on this! Some people, let's call them evangelists, think it's worthwhile to try to convert your enemies. Tempt Republican voters into the Democratic camp! Others, let's call them chabadniks, think it's better to convert Democrats into progressives.

The people I detest, though, are the ones who believe wholeheartedly in conversion by the sword. Let's call them inquisitors. These people believe that leftist politics are best served by issuing an escalating series of threats to destroy the country if their demands are not met.

They would rather throw the most vulnerable community members to the fucking lions than sit by while the evangelists and chabadniks do their patient work. If you don't all convert NOW, why, surely the rack will change your mind!

Inquisitors are the fucking worst. Don't be an inquisitor.

(Also, somehow The Rack always consists of putting fascists in charge. Weird how that works.)

There are times when I despise the evangelist-types, who think if they're just SUPER NICE to proto-fascists, they can show them the errors of their ways and lure them back out of fascism. Sometimes it works! Usually it doesn't. Often it involves making really bad choices.

These conciliatory Democrats are the ones the inquisitors hate most. They would literally rather have fascists IN CHARGE than settle for the guy who wants to invite the fascists to the picnic.

And look, I don't want fascists at my picnic either! But if you prefer them in charge of your country, you should really stop calling yourself a leftist.

You want a "Tom And Jerry Are Friends" analogy for American politics? If the Republican party is Jerry, then the inquisitors are Tom. They pretend to hate fascists, when in fact they keep protecting them from the competent left.