My own observation is that we saw major progress with the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment, the Constitution, and so on. Progress slowed around a hundred years ago. From around 1920-1970, we had progress on issues of representation, race, and gender, but otherwise, political behavior gradually drifted towards the Nash equilibrium.
1970-2020, progress mostly stopped, and we've pushed hard to optimizing to game theory. Politicians who now get elected play a near-optimal game, and playing this game is overt.
To make progress, we'd need significant reform of the system.
I would argue, though, that a statement like "money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history" is very reductionist.
For most of history, it wasn't so much money as military might. If I had money and you had military, soon you'd have both. Money was a component of buying military, but it was just one component (see Rome v Carthage for an example, or Athens v Sparta).
I'd much rather be controlled by someone corrupted by money than by a corrupt warlord where I'm a serf. Democracy is a big step up. We just need another step up right now... and pretending we don't is actively harmful.
Um if nothing else a LOT in the US happened with regards to women’s rights and feminism between 1970 and today. And LGBTQ rights.
Oh yeah - Obama! First black President. Kind of a big deal when it comes to race and social justice.
Also it’s just a hugely broad statement you are making. I’m not gonna speculate about the sweep of hisiory.
Also your point doesn’t really address the specific points I mentioned - real, actual differences between the parties.
[EDIT: For example if the Republican Party suddenly endorsed the Green New Deal (or other climate legislation) I don’t see the Democrats who already support such legislation flip-flopping.
Same with gun control laws.
And with more federal pandemic relief funds to individuals and states and cities.
And the Affordable Care Act.
And abortion.
And so on. ]
And it's exactly what game theory predicts.
To go with even your first example, Nixon created the EPA.
Flops happen when both parties go too far left or too far right. At that point, it makes sense for the "crowded" party to leapfrog and grab the coveted center.
Like, I don't think the Democrats became less invested in environmental regulation when Nixon created the EPA.
Or with healthcare. Or abortion.
You can't just point to a flop and use it to say "oh both parties are the same and don't really stand for anything."
I think what I said was that both parties try to be just at the 50 percentile mark of voters, since that wins elections, while candidates try to be at the 75th/25th percentile since that wins primaries (and then sprint to the center).
If both parties are at e.g. the 36th and 37th percentile, the 36th percentile party can jump to the 38th and be wildly successful. That's what happened with surveillance. After 9/11, the electorate shifted, and Republicans leapfrogged the Democrats, leading to a lot of success.
Both parties fundamentally want to win first.
Whether that's good or bad depends on what you compare it to. You can view it as lack of spine, or as a democratic check-and-balance.
And I appreciate your clarification that (if I’m understanding correctly) you do believe there are currently some meaningful differences between the two parties.
The percentages bit I didn’t really follow (where’s the data/evidence? Or is this a theory?), and, if I’m being honest, on a day like today with the attempted coup and all, I simply don’t have the motivation to parse and understand more of what you are trying to say.
But I appreciate your clarification and additional effort to explain your intended point.
Yes, there are meaningful differences. The differences behave just as game theory would predict, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you want 2nd amendment, vote Republican. If you want to control guns, vote Democrat.
You may be right that an individual politician might not flip on a stance because of those dynamics. Some optimize to dynamics and do flip and flop. Others happen to fit the current Nash equilibrium, and will generally eventually lose a primary or a general election once the equilibrium changes, and one with the aligned view will move in. It's a super-competitive system. The result is the same in the end.
But in terms of effort, given you're exhausted, perhaps I'll let you search for that when you have more mental capacity.
Good starting point is "Rules for Rulers," a short video on Youtube. But there's a lot of robust academic work behind it.
I’m sorry but that is way too reductive. For one thing, there’s a bipartisan consensus (for better or worse) on a lot of foreign policy, which is a pretty huge area.
And, your comment obscures the meaningful differences in ideology between the groups of people each party represents. And the different interests of those groups.
The Democrats are far from perfect. But it’s not a “both sides equally bad” situation.
Well, maybe it is when it comes to corporate money in politics. But even there you see bipartisan consensus on the fringes, I think, plus iirc the Republicans were basically all about Citizens United.
But yeah money in politics is a big problem on both sides. To be fair, it’s been a big problem in all of politics throughout all recorded history.
Which doesn’t mean we can’t (and haven’t) made some progress.