Is it the Time for Empathy Politics? Nudging the US to a Multiparty Political System
Updated: Dec 30, 2021
… Split the “The Party” off from the GOP on the way to Empathy Politics
Note: New format here. A brief “Essence of the Story” is followed by the more detailed “Now, Here is the Rest of the Story” section. So, read short, or go long and deep: Your choice. And, please leave a Comment, and point friends and colleagues to the Blog!
The Essence of the Story About “The Party”
AS the image suggests, politics is fundamentally about conflict resolution, really about the resolution of conflict between the ego driven arrogance of self-interest in each party. The 2-party system in the US is failing in said resolution. What is going on, and how do we fix it? Metaeconomics suggests: Introduce empathy to temper the ego. How? Build an Empathy Politics to temper the current Ego Politics.
The overall frame of this Blog is provided by Drutman (2020) who makes the convincing case that the US political structure with only a 2-party political system --- Republicans vs Democrats, Right vs Left --- is causing the dysfunction in the US political economy. It needs to be replaced with a multiparty system, with 4-6 parties (as Drutman, 2020, makes very clear), because it nudges the system away from Ego Politics to Empathy Politics (as Metaeconomics makes clear, after Lynne, 2020). With 4-6 parties, no one party would represent more than 15-30% of the vote, so each would have to empathize --- walk-in-the-shoes-of-the-other --- in order to form a coalition that could actually get something done.
The political economic chaos of the past few years? Well, the chaos is simply a culmination of a now decades long, evolving dysfunction between the 2-parties, especially in Congress. It has become especially visible since the mid-1990s. And, in the extreme of extremes: Congress was attacked on January 6, reflecting extreme discontent with the extreme dysfunction. Extremes --- the excesses --- need to be tempered, as argued in Lynne (2020).
So, overall, the Democrats need to form at least 2-parties. Other heretofore smaller US political parties (Libertarians, Greens) might also be brought to the table. The Blog looks specifically at splitting the Republican Party into at least 2-parties. It is likely that the split would lead to the Conservatives (perhaps Center Right Party) and “The Party” with a more descriptive name (perhaps Nativists? Nationalists?) for the latter suggested at the end of the Blog --- after we go through the main features of it.
The Blog works through the reasons for the evolution of The Party, the main driver being the extreme inequality in income and wealth arising from far too few higher paying jobs for the working class in the middle and lower income rungs of the wealth ladder. The result has been the destruction of the American Dream, replaced by a kind of Tyranny of Merit practiced by the elite, with lots of resentment, a major driver in “The Party.” With resentment, there has also been a predictable rise of Authoritarianism and Securitarianism. Authoritarianism brings intolerance for racial, gender (including sexual orientation), and moral diversity. Securitarianism favors the insiders and keeps the outsiders away. And, all of it is confounded by conspiracy and Fantasyland frames of thinking.
So, read on, if you want to go deeper into what would be the content, the main themes of a new political party, "The Party" (as you will see, if you read The Rest of the Story, in effect a Nativist, Nationalist Party) that has been evolving on the Right in the US, especially in the past 4-5 years. Traditional Conservatives do not fit. And, the Democrats, too, need to take note of just what The Party is all about. And, in the process, all former Republicans and Democrats need to be looking to the future need to develop a 4-6 party system. Forming The Party is a good first step.
And, Now, the Rest of the Story on the Way to “The Party”
The US has evolved into a situation where it is always about Republicans vs Democrats, with each working to win at all costs. Neither party has regard for actually getting much if anything done which always requires working together, as in Republicans&Democrats, Right&Left, the “&” carrying a heavy load here. And, as Metaeconomics makes clear, moving to extremes on either end in a “vs” frame of reference ensures not only chaos and unhappiness, but also economic inefficiency and lower economic performance: The balance scale tipped too far one way or the other crashes. It has crashed in the US.
The US economy is performing badly, especially lacking in contributive justice: Only a few at top are enjoying the fruits. The US Republic historically running on principles of Democracy is on the verge of collapse. Both the economy&democracy need to be fixed, seeking balance in a joint Right&Left, each seeing the essential need for the other, in forming something that everyone can go along with. And, an important aside: The US is the only Democracy on the Spaceship still trying to make-do with a 2-party system; for a quick look at the variety of political parties in other democracies, see the Australian website https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/Politicalparties .
Drutman (2020) makes the case, based on empirical studies of other Democracies as well as political science theories and empirical simulations, there is the need to form at least 4-parties, with 4-6 parties generally found the best. The key is to split the larger parties into smaller parts such that no one party ever represents more than about 15-30% of the electorate. Reason? In simplest terms: To ensure that coalitions have to be formed, as that would become the only way to get anything done.
The Drutman (2020) contention makes Metaeconomic sense, in that building coalitions takes empathy --- walking in the shoes of several parties --- and searching for something that the other can go along with, going every direction. Building coalitions with empathy tempers the egoistic drive --- the excesses --- within a party and ensures less chaos (peace, even!), more happiness, and, extremely important to the economy: economic efficiency and higher economic performance, especially contributive justice. And, if a party only has 15-30% of the electorate, empathy is induced, even though ego is still primal, as Metaeconomics (again, see Lynne, 2020) makes clear. A multiparty system ensures better balance in ego&empathy.
This Blog will not go deeply into the Drutman (2020) framework and how to achieve it (that is for another Blog! Stay tuned). Instead, this Blog focuses strictly on the current US Republican Party, and especially the evolution away from the traditional Conservative positioning of the Republican Party. It is about forming a substantively smaller other party, perhaps less than half the size of the current Republican Party, referred to herein as The Party.
GOP (Grand Old Party) is in Transition: “The Party” is Separating Out
One thing is abundantly clear: “The Party” is not mainly the Conservatives, and, while some Conservatives have been enabling, and perhaps a few even identify with, “The Party” it is clearly not the Grand Old Party (GOP). In fact, and as a result, many Republicans (mainly old line Conservatives, we might surmise) did not vote for The Party in 2020: The Lincoln Project comes to mind. The fact is represented in a substantive rejection of The Party candidate by many Conservatives, while many still filled out the down ballot for more traditional Republicans. So, just who and what is The Party? What is going on, especially given The Party is also displaying and acting on Anti-Democracy sentiments, signaling a move on the way to an Autocracy, perhaps even with a Fascist twist?
To help make more specific sense of The Party, consider the following characterizations of the political spectrum as outlined in Lynne (2020, p. 173) by regarding the alternative political other-interest frames at play (the place-holder in Metaeconomics for the political party is the other-interest construct) in the US, using the three-axes model suggested by Kling (2019, p. 22), and, in Metaeconomic framing, think of these as alternative sets of other (internalized, but shared with others) - interest on the political spectrum:
Libertarian (Both Left and Right Isle): Coercion…Liberty
Conservative (Right Isle): Barbarism…Civilization
Progressive (Left Isle): Oppressed…Oppressor
And, then, there is the new axes showing a major feature of The Party leading up to the 2016 election, and continuing into the 2020 election. Kling (2019) does not name it, in Lynne (2020) it is labeled as:
4. Resentment : Cosmopolitan…Nationalist
It seems Resentment is likely the main driver in The Party. It is in large part about Resentment regarding the Cosmopolitan Elite. As characterized in Lynne (2020, p. 173):
… (the Cosmopolitan elite) person … is open minded to an array of cultures, races, sexual preferences, seeing the essential role of science, just simply more willing to being open to and engaging with every Traveler anywhere on the Spaceship.
Resentment is especially high if that Elite is both university educated and having higher income. Intriguingly, the Resentment is not in large measure mainly about the income/wealth part: The MyPillow Guy is not a problem to most in The Party, although as we will see, it perhaps should also be a major consideration as often it registers excessive greed. In contrast, someone with an advanced degree who also achieves a substantively higher income, and/or is in some substantive role in government, well, that is a problem for The Party. And, Resentment actually has many more dimensions, with perhaps the most important driver represented for many in The Party from falling behind the Elite on the economic front. American Labor has not fared well since the the Friedman Doctrine was brought to the fore in the early-1970s as exacerbated by the Reagan Revolution introduced in the early-1980s.
The Economic Narrative Since 1970 as the Main Driver of “The Party”
Ironically, it is mainly the ideology of the GOP that has led to the economic problem, albeit many on the Left have also been passive (or is it naive?) if not active enablers. The Evil Genius (Andersen, 2020) on the Right has come to dominate in the economic realm, resulting in extreme concentration of income and wealth, with the American Dream now a myth for most. The middle class white male, like labor in historically well-paid factory jobs --- who have become a major supporter of The Party --- especially has been slipping behind for decades. What happened?
Well, in brief (and see Lynne, 2020 for more details), both the Friedman Doctrine (1970) and the early-1980s Reagan Revolution have together driven the matter, applying a flawed Economic Narrative which holds lots of Zombie Economic Ideas (especially trickle down, but also that somehow labor unions are bad), and resulted in a great deal of Resentment (and, in more recent years, Rage). In particular, it has not produced enough higher paying jobs for the blue collar middle class --- for labor in general. The Economic Narrative representing a mix of the Doctrine&Revolution has led to extreme inequality, especially in opportunity and loss of the dignity of work. As Metaeconomics makes clear, that Economic Narrative needs to be changed to framing the task as finding optimal inequality (see Chapter 14, Income and Wealth Policy, in Lynne, 2020) shorn up by opportunity and returning dignity to the workplace: Metaeconomic Narrative, anyone? The Party would likely not exist if this had been done decades ago. But, back to the details.
Friedman (1970) got it wrong in the sense that operating a corporation or other form of company is actually about far more than the price P of the stocks, serving the shareholder and a CEO paid in stock options, in a kind of implicit claim that the market can only do good (which was also the Reagan claim). It is also about a wide-array of other shared interests --- value V in Metaeconomics --- that the CEO and management shares with employees (like decent pay to live at least a middle-class lifestyle); input suppliers treated well; empathy with customers, ensuring good quality products; seeing the company embedded in a community of shared interest; and, overall, having empathy with Spaceship systems (like taking care of the natural system; stopping the damage and destruction of the natural system for excessive profit, like over- filling the atmosphere with too much carbon dioxide comes to mind) within which the producing economy is embedded.
Reagan got it wrong in the false claim that the government can only do bad while the market can only do good. The result was opening the gate to excessive greed, while the helping hand of government was set aside, with government dismantled, as was demonstrated empirically during the Corona Pandemic. As Metaeconomics makes clear (see other Blogs on this site), what works is good balance in a joint effort involving market&government. Both the Friedman Doctrine and the Reagan Revolution tipped the balance so far to the market that the balance scale of justice --- injustice due to losses in Contributive Justice and Distributive Justice --- increased dramatically, with the middle class white male, as noted, especially hard hit (see Vance, 2016, for a case in point). The crash was also driven by a shift in US culture toward the Tyranny of Merit, as in denigrating those without college educations, and labeling same as somehow not meritorious as those who worked in white-collar jobs.
So, the irony is huge: Elements within the GOP who became and still are excessively greedy have attracted the people that were hurt most by the excessive greed to join the Republican Party, enticed by an Authoritarian who has worked to take over that party, attempting to turn it into The Party. As Schmidt (2020), the founder of the Lincoln Project, a group of Conservative Republicans wanting to distance themselves from The Party, said it in an interview on MSNBC on December 9, this element represents:
… an organized conspiracy for the purposes of maintaining power for self-interest, and the self-interest of its donor class. There is no fidelity to the American ideal... "
Schmidt (2020) goes on to also claim that what has come to be enablers of The Party have abandoned all the principles of classical liberalism, the humane liberalism envisioned by the Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith. It seems the GOP has become Greed on Parade, rather than support of humane liberalism like some on the Right claim they stand for (go to the Hoover Institution, and other Conservative Think Tank sites sometime for the “words” about it, but, then go look at the actions, the revealed preferences, well Greed On Parade is a better descriptor). The willingness to abandon classical liberalism also explains the shift to enabling an autocracy, even an authoritarian with a fascist twist, as democracy, too, is abandoned in order to retain power, the other manifestation of greed.
The Enlightenment vision was always underlying the notion of an American Ideal, which is also akin to the original American Dream, as in all --- everyone, not just those favored in The Party --- “… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (US Declaration of Independence).” And, as part of the American Dream there would be no Tyranny of Merit, no Culture of Cruelty, and, most importantly, everyone would be enjoying the fruits of a humane liberalism based economy, which Metaeconomics makes clear requires balance in ego&empathy, self&other-interest.
One can only wonder as to when elements of The Party who have been damaged by the excessive greed --- especially the exported factory jobs, and killing of the labor unions --- in the Evil Genius of the extreme right going back to Friedman and Reagan, will grasp they are not being served by it. There is extreme cruelty at work, in a kind “cruel Ayn Rand-ism (phrase used by Michelle Goldberg on the podcast The Argument in a January, 2021 session; let’s just call it Randism as an extreme brand of Scroogism).” And, perhaps they are: Senator Cruz said recently the Republican Party was moving away from the wine and cheese group to the beer and pretzel group. Perhaps, albeit that sounds more like the fare of The Party than the Republican Party, with many former Republicans as Conservatives likely preferring wine and cheese.
Tyranny of Merit as a Driver of “The Party”
Sandel (2020) points to a substantive contributor to the Resentment in The Tyranny of Merit. More highly educated people are favored, not only with the opportunity for dignified work, but higher pay. University education is respected, and Trade Schools, or even some trades in high school programs, or, just high school (and the dropouts are even less respected) not so much. Sandel (2020) points to the need to bring Contributive Justice (higher pay in the middle to bottom of the income ladder; lower pay at the top) to the fore, even more than Distributive Justice (i.e. tax policy is important, but perhaps pay scales and compensation leading to contributive justice even moreso), as every person in every job contributes.
This is to say, an essential worker like someone loading and hauling garbage; janitors and other personnel cleaning everything from hotel rooms to factory floors; workers on meat packing lines; people on automobile assembly lines; elementary school and high school teachers; day care workers; clergy and social workers; staff and nurses in hospitals; and, the list is long, all deserve to be recognized for their contribution to the economy and society. The real contribution of said kinds of jobs and occupations are generally not recognized in pay and compensation packages sufficient to ensuring people can actually make a decent living.
As Sandel (2020) claims, which is also a theme in Wise (2015), it has resulted in loss of dignity of work, and, it has made it virtually impossible for many lower and historically middle income people to ever attain a decent standard of living, and an adequate retirement, say nothing of ever moving ahead in the system. The American Dream is a myth (a theme in Putnam and Garrett, 2020, too), except for the meritorious elite.
Sandel (2020) calls for building a sense of Common Good back into the economy, once seeing the Common Man (and, we are in this together, all Travelers --- in Common --- on the same Spaceship), along with the Private Good, in the frame of Contributive Justice. And, the Common Good means recognizing the need for dignity and a decent living for everyone, whether you aspire to, or can, move “up” or not. The need to pay more attention to providing for the dignity of work for everyone, no matter how meritorious one might be, no matter how defined, is very real in contemporary America (see Kristof, 2021).
Wise (2015) takes it even a step further, arguing that the Culture of Meritocracy (similar in content to the Sandel, 2020, notion of the Tyranny of Merit) has taken an extreme turn leading to a Culture of Cruelty for the lower income people in jobs that are considered somehow less important and otherwise below that which the Meritorious elite are engaged in doing. Also, the Culture of Cruelty has led to and fed myths about how lower income, less successful as judged by the elite, people are vile, stupid, undisciplined, and, yes corrupt, as in the myth of the welfare queen promulgated especially by Republicans, a myth started by Reagan in the early-1980s. Intriguingly, there was never any evidence of massive fraud in the welfare system, just like there is no evidence of massive fraud in the 2020 election, either: Myths tend to be brought together within The Party. Ironically, while many in The Party are concerned with the elite, they have actually been encouraged to act like elitists in looking further down toward the bottom of the income ladder.
The Myth of the Welfare Queen as a Driver of “The Party”
The Reagan story about the welfare queen was a huge force in claiming massive fraud in the welfare system, which in turn now plays a huge role in The Party. The corrupt welfare recipient --- which turns out is a myth --- actually has been further promulgated by the Scroogists, as Scroogism has grown in the US, and, even worse, it often manifests itself, as noted earlier, in Randism. Scroogists in the upper end of the income ladder benefit --- building a Scroogism which is not quite as cruel as Randism, but cruel enough --- have been misinforming middle income people that there are welfare queens (and immigrants) running on their check, such that said people support Scroogist demands to pay little or no taxes to support a helping hand.
And, Scroogists also use The Socialist Scare, too, that helps push people into The Party. Ironically, there is really little in the true spirit of Socialism in the US, and, ironically, the only large scale organization built absolutely on grounds like a true Socialism --- public property of very piece of the organization --- is, ironically, the US Military, which is supported heavily within The Party! Every piece of land, building, tank, airplane, gun is public property. Veterans are given medical care for life, and help with educational retooling when they move back into civilian life. Even Scroogist politicians get free medical care (like in the 2020 Covid Hospitalization of the leader of The Party in a military hospital with military doctors, all on the public dime). Sounds like Socialism, right (or is that left)?
Ironically, the Scroogists do not tell these stories because they want The Party to help keep them in power, and, it has been working. Scroogists do it because of excessive and extreme greed, and, the more people the Scroogists can convince to join that view, the fewer turkeys they have to buy for the Cratchits at Christmas, including many in The Party who are the Cratchits. It is not in the shared other-interest of the Cratchits (labor) to join The Party, as only the Scroogists win in that framing of the matter, but a bit of con can go a long way.
Authoritarianism Also Drives “The Party”
Another aspect of The Party grew out of drivers related to personality types. As Stenner (2005) points out, the population has always had a certain proportion of critical parent styled people, the strongman (usually a man) as disciplinarian in charge. Ironically, said people are often the least disciplined in their own lives, as in lacking in self-discipline (as in hedonism and narcissism). Such people --- the critical parent frame --- can easily develop what psychologists characterize as an authoritarian personality, the strongman in charge, do as I say, and, they are the bully. The bully requires complete submission, complete devotion, loyalty, and, if the person somehow resists, the bully denigrates and otherwise disenfranchises, works to destroy the person who challenged and otherwise resisted the bully. The result is such things as misogyny, homophobia, and a dominant role for heterosexual white men, as represented in fascist tendencies in both politics and religion (see Hedges, 2007; 2018).
Intriguingly, a main feature of said personality type is the intolerance of diversity (Stenner, 2005), as in being intolerant of racial, gender, and moral differences. So, especially when economic stress hits a system (such as caused by the flawed Doctrine&Revolution, the flawed Economic Narrative of the last 3-4 decades) people look around for someone to blame for the situation. Diversity becomes the scapegoat, as in “our group has been hurt because of them, it is us vs them” --- perhaps pointing at immigrants of different race and culture arriving at the border and/or people claiming that sexuality is not just heterosexual but rather is a continuum (which also challenges the authoritarian sense of what is moral). That is, the mere appearance of diversity in any of the three dimensions --- racial, gender, moral --- stirs the critical parent oriented person into an authoritarian state of mind and action.
Dean and Altmeyer (2020), Applebaum (2020), and Stenner (2005) all point to the rise of authoritarianism on the Spaceship, in several of the heretofore diverse democracies (diversity is in some ways the main feature of a true democracy). Dean and Altmeyer (2020) make a quite convincing case that the Authoritarian playing the role of a Strongman who became the Head of The Party in the US in 2016, and almost maintained that position in 2020, has clear authoritarian tendencies. It is claimed it goes back to a very strict --- critical father --- up bringing. That is not uncommon: Children raised by critical parents often grow-up to be critical parents, disciplinarians, and, yes, can be bullies, too.
Authoritarians also can become quite loyal with and to other authoritarians. Loyalty within said shared other-interest, narrowly confined to share with other authoritarians (and those being willing to be dominated, another kind of authoritarian personality) can become quite prominent, perhaps stirring even cult-like loyalty, like being willing to stand-by with an AR-15 slung over the shoulder, acting on command by the Authoritarian. Rage is a big part of Authoritarianism, like in inciting a march on the Capital, and especially in actually attacking the Congress of the US and destroying institutions of Democracy.
Also, it needs to be kept in mind that Authoritarians can also be found on the Left. Yet, research suggests over 70% of Authoritarians favor the Right (Stenner, 2005).
Securitarians Also Drive “The Party”
Another aspect of The Party is the Securitarian Personality, as characterized by Hibbing (2020). The Securitarian wants to keep a very narrowly defined focus on a shared other-interest with an insider-group, keeping others --- the outsider-group(s) --- away from it. While Hibbing (2020) argues against authoritarianism as being a main feature of The Party, claiming instead The Party is a place for the Securitarian, it seems the Securitarian is primarily another version of an Authoritarian who cannot stand diversity.
The Hibbing (2020) argument against that view goes as follows: The empirical evidence is that considerable diversity --- racial, gender, even moral --- might be present within the insider-group, which perhaps formed over many years, perhaps decades. It is just when someone comes along that does not fit the current mix within the insider-group that issues arise. So, perhaps an insider group including American Indians; Mexican migrant workers; descendants of the former American slave population; and, a wide array of people with northern European ancestry, together have formed an insider-group. Then, along comes a group from Somalia: No way, they say. These are outsiders. So, The Party digs in: The Party is not willing to expand their shared other-interest to include the Somalians.
Fantasyland and Conspiracy Also Find a Home in “The Party”
And, we are almost to the end, there is also the matter of Fantasyland, a feature of the American experience going back to the very beginning (see Andersen, 2017). Conspiracy and fantasy have always been a part of American politics, and, has been especially prominent in recent years on the Right, and, specifically, in The Party. Why? Andersen (2017) speculates the Right in generally is more prone to conspiracy because the belief in the supernatural is more common on the Right, especially as represented in the large number of off-shoot, Protestant religions.
In fact, as Hedges (2007) makes clear, many of said religious offshoots also have a Fascist flavor, so it can be very problematic, conspiracy and Fascism being a dangerous mix. We might suppose that if one believes in angels, miracles, and ghosts it is easier to believe in QAnon and other bizarre conspiracy theories. Believing in the supernatural can also lead to believing that Dominion voting machines internally shift the votes --- perhaps even manipulated by some imagined foreign power --- away for the favored candidate of The Party, especially when that candidate gives credence to conspiracy theories.
Fantasyland framing also ensures that science is in the main ignored, like in touting the claim that the Pandemic was a hoax; that somehow Dr. Fauci was involved in spreading the disease; and even claiming that common sense wearing of masks actually did more harm than good. Unfortunately, upwards of 200,000 people died unnecessarily because of it, a legacy for The Party, with documented cases of people in their death bed dying from Covid claiming it could not be, as The Party told them it was a hoax, and, they believed.
Most of the Drivers Get Captured in the Overall Notion of Nationalism
Nationalism, the Make America First and/or Make America Great framing, in many ways brings all of the drivers together under one umbrella. Such nativism --- more generally, Nationalism --- is a prime, perhaps the overriding feature, of The Party. And, by itself, it perhaps is not all bad (e.g. paying more attention to keeping high paying factory jobs in America, and the need for the dignity of work, as in Made in America), unless it turns into the Fascist version of it. In the Fascist version, only the favored few are to be represented in the notion of Make America Great Again.
Fascist Politics and Fascist Religion are both emerging in many realms of American Government and Society, as documented by Goldberg (2018); Hedges (2007, 2018); and Stanley (2018), to list a few. Also, see Saving Capitalism in Lynne (2020, Chapter 15). The Metaeconomics Blog on America’s Nationalist Awakening highlights how it does not fit the meaning of America, but, perhaps it could be tolerated --- and perhaps even helpful --- if limited to one smaller political party, like in The Party.
So, use Nationalists as the name for The Party? Split the Republican Party into the Conservatives (perhaps even tempering the excessive greed, moving away from Randism and Scroogism, and bringing humane liberalism back into play) and the Nationalists? Achieve the goal by moving about one-half of the current Republican party into each, hitting withing the range, with perhaps 20% for the electorate of Conservatives and 20% for the electorate of Nationalists?
And, it is not that far fetched. A group of 120 Conservatives in the Republican Party had a meeting in early-February, 2021 (Reid, 2021) to explore the possibility of moving away from the Nativist views represented in what could become the Nationalists. Names like the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party were suggested. A new party just now being formed in New Zealand could also be considered, as in the New Conservative Party. Said party would field their own candidates. It was suggested that such a party would work to represent around 20% of the electorate, a good number with 5-parties in place.
Multiparty Systems Also Work Best With Rank Choice Voting
Drutman (2020) also explores alternative voting systems. Using Rank Choice Voting works better than Single Choice Voting, where a vote is for a 1-2-3 choice. Drutman (2020) draws on empirical evidence, showing how it has been used in many Democracies (e.g. Australia, Ireland) for decades, with great success --- people really like it, demonstrated by much higher voter turnout. Empathy Politics needs both a multiparty system and rank choice voting
As indicated, Drutman (2020) makes a cogent, convincing argument for the need to develop 4-6 political parties --- splitting out the parts from both the current Democratic and Republican Parties, and perhaps bringing in elements of the some of the other really small American parties that have historically played little to no role (like the Libertarian party that sometimes fields a candidate). The plan makes Metaeconomic sense in that ensuring no one party represents more than 15-30% of the electorate brings empathy onto the scene: An empathy based ethical approach would ensure productive coalitions between and among the now much smaller and more representative multiple parties, in a multiparty system. It seems the move to form The Party is a good first step.
And, forming The Party will also serve to calm down the chaos that The Party has wrought. We might name it the Nationalist Party. In terms of the Grand Old Party, it is likely about one-half of it would remain in what we might name the Conservative Party. The Democrats would then also need to proceed to split that party into at least two parts, perhaps the Progressive Party and the Labor Party, or some such. So, how about parties 5 and 6? Well, perhaps it could be the Libertarians, and, the Greens, the latter could even be called the Sustainability (as in sustaining Spaceship Earth Systems) Party. If the larger Republican and Democrat parties were split into smaller parts, it is likely many would join the smaller parties that have been around for some time, with the possibility that now they could have some influence as part of a coalition.
It is time to start moving forward to a multiparty system. Enough with the dysfunction and chaos, unhappiness, and economic inefficiency. It is time to fix it. Empathy Politics, anyone? References
Andersen, Kurt. Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America, a Recent History. New York: Random House, Kindle Ed., 2020.
Andersen, Kurt. Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History. New York: Random House, 2017.
Applebaum, A. Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Allure of Authoritarianism. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2020.
Dean, J. W. and Altemeyer, B. Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing, 2020.
Drutman, L. Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Kindle ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York: The New York Times Magazine. VOX Media.
Goldberg, Jonah. Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy. New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2018.
Hedges, Chris. America: The Farewell Tour. Kindle ed.: Simon and Schuster, 2018.
Hedges, C. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press, 2007.
Hibbing, John R. The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump's Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Kling, Arnold. The Three Languages of Politics: Talking across the Political Divides. Third ed. Washington, D. C.: Cato Institute, August 2019.
Kristof, N. Can Biden Save Americans Like My Old Pal Mike? New York Times, February 13, 2021. https://tinyurl.com/qx8a6nuw
Lynne, G.D. Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed. In: Palgrave Series in Behavioral Economics (John Tomer, Ed). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Kindle Ed., 2020.
Putnam, R. D. and Garrett, S. R. The Upswing: How American Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2020.
Sandel, M. J. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? Kindle ed. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2020.
Schmidt, S. New Republican Party as an Organized Conspiracy in Self-interest, 2020. https://youtu.be/J7QByn_TfCA
Stanley, Jason. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House, 2018.
Stenner, K. The Authoritarian Dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Vance, J. D. Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. New York: Harper, 2016 (Kindle Ed. 2018).
Wise, T. Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich, and Sacrificing the Future of America. Kindle ed. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Publishers, 2015.