Hacker News Reader

Comment by imsofuture | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that the two parties capture huge swaths of people based on issues that are important to that person, not to the party. There is no real unified platform from either of the two major parties, just look at this (rough, off the cuff) list of things they care about enough to capture:

guns OR god OR small government OR military expansion OR anti-abortion OR anti-immigration

anti-guns OR (a)religious tolerance OR social service OR globalism via economy OR pro-choice OR pro-immigration

Both of those 'platforms' are internally inconsistent (i.e. how can you have a small government that also has a giant military and regulates trivial stuff like what happens in your bedroom) and are simply designed to cleave off people that give huge amounts of fucks about a single issue. What if you're pro-gun and pro-social services? Well, pick which one you care about more and vote for that party...

View on HN

The platforms aren't internally inconsistent, one person could genuinely hold all the views of either with logical consistency, based on core principles[1]. You're right they are meant to pick off single issue voters.

I don't know how we'll move back to the center, but as the article mentions I fear it will just be another war.

[1] For instance I prefer smaller government in general, but strongly support single payer healthcare (a compromise of govt size against equal opportunity).

They literally are inconsistent though. How do you have a small government that militarily intervenes across the world?

I don't disagree that it's a balancing act, but the platforms are utterly built around single issue zingers. Pro this, anti that, that's it.

By arguing what the role of government should be. If the role of government is to protect property rights, it needs to be able to defend the country from foreign invasion. Typically people in favor of "small government" mean small in scope. It is only meant for (and efficient at) solving a narrow scope of problems. So while it may be good as a means of upholding property rights, it isn't great at manufacturing cars, for instance.

A couple of those are a bit off.

Aside from party crashing outsiders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both parties support globalism. Both the Bushes and the Clintons are 100% globalist, along with Romney and Obama and McCain and Gore.

True religious tolerance would allow people to opt out of some things they find deeply offensive. It goes beyond just the right to wear a head covering or stop the production line for prayers. It includes the right to say "no" for pharmacists (birth control), bakers (LGBT wedding cake), gynecological residents (abortion), and business owners (insurance coverage for birth control). What we see isn't actually religious tolerance. It's more like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Right, I said it was off the cuff and rough. Point still stands, even if it's just within and order of magnitude of the actual idiotic half-assed platforms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com