Party discipline contributes to the decline of democracy. It reduces the representation of opinions down to whomever sets the party line.

Better than party discipline would be more effective intra-party debate, discussion, consensus processes etc. It's probably slower than line enforcement tho'.

I agree in most other times. But in current dire times of this constitutional crisis, a bit of discipline is necessary. We gotta resist wherever we can and slow down process until the people can speak.

There is no constitutional crisis, stop gaslighting as if the dems do not stop attempting to force their ideals then you will see more of this “constitutional crisis” as you call it.

> Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately expelled

Why? If we had a couple more Manchins and Sinemas right now, you know what we'd have? A majority.

The question is whether you have more of them in addition to the rest of the party, or instead of some members of the rest of the party. 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything.

> 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything

One, we did a lot with one Manchin and one Sinema. (To the degree the former had concerns, it was well-founded ones over the inflationary effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.)

Two, not doing anything beats the status quo. A weak majority would be a check on the executive. We’re paying the price for ideological purism.

You would think so, and that would be a reading of the American Legislative machinery which is incorrect.

Simplifying: Congress was never meant to be deadlocked on simple party lines. It was always meant to have people figuring out ways to work together, even at the expense of the party, but in favor of their constituents.

That dynamic is essential to any stable democracy.

This would drive partisanship, probably the most immediate problem in the US and beyond. I am not from the US but the impacts of similar perspectives are sadly more and more widely spread.

If you cannot accept an idea because it was brought forward by a political competitor, you lack the necessary detachment to make good decisions.

Sometimes party discipline is sensible for political pragmatism, but in all other cases democracy is the better solution. It should be handled with care.

Rejecting this philosophy wholesale and labeling it as explicitly anti-American is the sensible political pragmatism at this point.

Partisanship is only something to be concerned with when you're dealing with functioning political parties. In America, I think the bare minimum for a political party should be that it believes in the ideals of America: a government by and for the people.

MAGA is not that, it's an explicit rejection of the ideals of the American revolution. Fundamentally they have a vision for America run by a king who has absolute authority over state, congress, and the judicial system.

There's no meeting of the minds that can be had with such a perspective, our forefathers figured that out and started the American Revolution over it.

I accept this philosophy, as this is the correct way a functioning democracy operates. Independents and Republicans are tired of the riots, the attempts at forcing ideals (such as forcing the use of pronouns, forcing deviation from one’s religion). Maybe get rid of the crazy ideas, stop spending so much money and focus on american citizens before foreign citizens and you’d have more people on your side.

Your rights to practice your religion are not eroded. But guess what, your rights to practice your religion end where they impinge on other people's rights.

Nothing makes your rights more important than theirs. I'm sorry that is a bitter pill for you to swallow.