Living in a country with more than ten parties, most of which have a totally different vision on what our society should look like in it's entirety, I can't really imagine what it's like to live in a nation that only offers it's citizens two serious choices.
From a European point of view, both American parties situate themselves on the economical right wing (liberalism/capitalism) and only seem to distinguish themselves from one another one social matters and civil liberties. I'm thinking of pro-life/pro-choice, gay marriage rights, privatized health insurance etc.
When Obama was running against McCain, most leftist Europeans cheered Obama, not because of his supposed stance on civil liberties and such, but because they assumed he was comparable to European socialists. No matter how hard I tried explaining this to them, they did not understand the Dems would qualify as a right wing oriented centrist party (IF that).
Those discussions with my misguided socialist compatriots led me to be totally convinced of the fact there aren't really any huge ideological differences between the dems and the GOP, except on social matters. Americans don't really have a choice, do they? Who do pro-choicers who frown upon economic interventionism vote for?
I also get the impression that many Americans vote for the Party (cap intended). Simply because they have always done so. The tend to think in terms of the party line in stead of personal ideology. And that's something I find frightening.
Last point: the stale mate. Most GOP'ers won't work with dems and vice versa. And bingo, you get shutdowns.
First of all: am I in the wrong here? I realize I can't fully understand the internal discrepancies in and within parties of a nation the size of the US, or 'social tradition'. For instance, decent health care makes so much sense for me, so I never really understood the upheaval about obamacare.
Ok, that was hard to explain in english. Over to the next point.
Like I mentioned earlier, my country counts more than ten parties. Some very large, some tiny. None of the parties however, are large enough to rule by themselves. This is the same in most EU countries.
As you well know, this means the parties have to form coalitions in order to get a majority in parliament. It has some disadvantages (won't bother you with those), but it does mean more ideologies are actually represented (although everybody has to make some concessions).
People can make a choice between leftist or right wing liberals, greens, christian-democrats, centrist or right wing nationalist, communists or socialists..., each with their own agenda with pretty much unique priorities. There are many tangents of course, which makes certain coalitions more logical than others.
Could this work in America? Could Americans cope with more than two choices and a variety of ideologies? Or do you consider the two party system the best solution for the USA?
From a European point of view, both American parties situate themselves on the economical right wing (liberalism/capitalism) and only seem to distinguish themselves from one another one social matters and civil liberties. I'm thinking of pro-life/pro-choice, gay marriage rights, privatized health insurance etc.
When Obama was running against McCain, most leftist Europeans cheered Obama, not because of his supposed stance on civil liberties and such, but because they assumed he was comparable to European socialists. No matter how hard I tried explaining this to them, they did not understand the Dems would qualify as a right wing oriented centrist party (IF that).
Those discussions with my misguided socialist compatriots led me to be totally convinced of the fact there aren't really any huge ideological differences between the dems and the GOP, except on social matters. Americans don't really have a choice, do they? Who do pro-choicers who frown upon economic interventionism vote for?
I also get the impression that many Americans vote for the Party (cap intended). Simply because they have always done so. The tend to think in terms of the party line in stead of personal ideology. And that's something I find frightening.
Last point: the stale mate. Most GOP'ers won't work with dems and vice versa. And bingo, you get shutdowns.
First of all: am I in the wrong here? I realize I can't fully understand the internal discrepancies in and within parties of a nation the size of the US, or 'social tradition'. For instance, decent health care makes so much sense for me, so I never really understood the upheaval about obamacare.
Ok, that was hard to explain in english. Over to the next point.
Like I mentioned earlier, my country counts more than ten parties. Some very large, some tiny. None of the parties however, are large enough to rule by themselves. This is the same in most EU countries.
As you well know, this means the parties have to form coalitions in order to get a majority in parliament. It has some disadvantages (won't bother you with those), but it does mean more ideologies are actually represented (although everybody has to make some concessions).
People can make a choice between leftist or right wing liberals, greens, christian-democrats, centrist or right wing nationalist, communists or socialists..., each with their own agenda with pretty much unique priorities. There are many tangents of course, which makes certain coalitions more logical than others.
Could this work in America? Could Americans cope with more than two choices and a variety of ideologies? Or do you consider the two party system the best solution for the USA?
