> spouts the exact same half dozen talking points while actual policy positions are deliberately obfuscated.

This is exactly what happens with both parties. It's a byproduct of the party system.

Republicans: small government, better business environment, etc

Democrats: strong social safety net, everyone pays their fair share, etc

I think it's interesting to think about this in the context of term limits.

Athenian offices were strictly term-limited, except for the position of general. People apparently felt that having military experience in that role was more valuable than the benefit of term limits would make up for, and it's hard to blame them for that.

But the general, able to serve for life, the only island of stability in the government, accumulated all the political power. This mostly defeated the purpose of having term limits on any office.

American presidents are term-limited, but American political parties aren't, and policy -- in terms of the solutions, but also in terms of the questions that get asked -- is set by the parties. I think this is more than just a coincidence.

On the other hand, Senators and Congressmen are not term-limited, but they don't seem to accumulate much in the way of political power.

A big part of the problem is that congresspeople can’t hire and retain good staffers long-term - the pay isn’t good enough and cost of living in DC has gone up drastically. This hamstrings Congress - they can’t really develop their own solutions and are forces to rely on outside sources for legislation. On a related note, did you know that more money is spent by businesses on lobbying than the federal government spends on all of Congress?

(Also, senators are congresspeople.)

> (Also, senators are congresspeople.)

Maybe so, but "Congressman" is the title for someone who sits in the House of Representatives, while someone who sits in the Senate is a "Senator".

At least a few of our Senators think they have all the power. Senator McConnell, for one immediate and obvious example.

I would say this is very much NOT the case for the Democrats. The Democrats have at least two factions (Bernie/AOC/etc vs. the established Democrats) that really don't agree with each other on a number of issues.

The Republicans are far more unified. It is both their strength and their weakness.

That really hasn't been the case for a while - Boehner couldn't get his party to come together for anything

>The Republicans are far more unified

Or not. What about the Trump faction vs. the RINO's.

I don't know of any RINOs in Congress. Locally the story might be different, but even so I stand by my assertion that Republicans are far more unified than the Democrats (as the Democrats are split federally as well as locally).

Romney, Collins, and Murkowski are RINOs. Previously, McCain and Flake were.

Republicans are split: libertarian, nationalist, religious

> What about the Trump faction vs. the RINO's.

There are factions in the Republican Party, but for various reasons they are much more prone to have the non-dominant faction submit meekly to the dominant faction in terms of most actions in government, and even most public statements outside of contested primary campaigns. And even there the actual policy disputes are often not front and center.

It's mostly true but there are definitely counterpoints. The late Senator John McCain is an example. He was the only reason the Affordable Care Act still stands, since it was his vote and his vote alone that rejected the attempt to wipe it out last year or the year before.

Well, he and the other two Republicans that voted against it. He got all the press as the deciding vote, but it required all 3.