Jean-Paul Faguet

And what you see is that there's enormous overlap amongst the parties all through the 20th century. So there were many Republicans who were to the left of many Democrats. So you go back to the 50s and 60s, many Southern Democrats were actually fairly right-wing people. And many liberal Republicans from the Northeast were actually fairly left-wing people.

And what you see is that there's enormous overlap amongst the parties all through the 20th century. So there were many Republicans who were to the left of many Democrats. So you go back to the 50s and 60s, many Southern Democrats were actually fairly right-wing people. And many liberal Republicans from the Northeast were actually fairly left-wing people.

And they belonged to one another party almost for tribal reasons or historical reasons, not for strictly ideological reasons. And when you see this visualization through time, they just separate. And now there's no overlap. And that's also scary because that's how you get the sort of dynamics in the House today where, you know, they vote en masse in favor or against.

And they belonged to one another party almost for tribal reasons or historical reasons, not for strictly ideological reasons. And when you see this visualization through time, they just separate. And now there's no overlap. And that's also scary because that's how you get the sort of dynamics in the House today where, you know, they vote en masse in favor or against.

And so there's almost no point in even having a vote in the House because, you know, as according to how many congressmen there are, you know, you know which way it's going to go with almost 100 percent certitude.

And so there's almost no point in even having a vote in the House because, you know, as according to how many congressmen there are, you know, you know which way it's going to go with almost 100 percent certitude.

You can't imagine that now. There's another really scary result. This is from a brilliant political scientist, one of the great lights of his generation called Adam Baworski, who's now at NYU. He's emeritus now at NYU. And he's done a bunch of brilliant comparative political scientists.

You can't imagine that now. There's another really scary result. This is from a brilliant political scientist, one of the great lights of his generation called Adam Baworski, who's now at NYU. He's emeritus now at NYU. And he's done a bunch of brilliant comparative political scientists.

who studied democratic stability and instability across the world, but in particular across the well-established, highly institutionalized democracies. And what he finds is that the American-style system of presidentialism and separation of powers only really works in the United States of America. Many, many, many countries have copied this system. All of Latin America copied it.

who studied democratic stability and instability across the world, but in particular across the well-established, highly institutionalized democracies. And what he finds is that the American-style system of presidentialism and separation of powers only really works in the United States of America. Many, many, many countries have copied this system. All of Latin America copied it.

And it doesn't work anywhere except for the U.S. So again, American exceptionalism, except kind of in its dark form, because this system is only worked up to now in the U.S., everywhere else in the world, Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, where you have a really effective steam valve, sort of an escape valve.

And it doesn't work anywhere except for the U.S. So again, American exceptionalism, except kind of in its dark form, because this system is only worked up to now in the U.S., everywhere else in the world, Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, where you have a really effective steam valve, sort of an escape valve.

When conflict gets very high, you just have a vote of no confidence, you bring down the government, it triggers an election, and then you get a new constellation of parties, representatives, and

When conflict gets very high, you just have a vote of no confidence, you bring down the government, it triggers an election, and then you get a new constellation of parties, representatives, and

You know, either the same party comes back, but in a new form, or you get a coalition, or the other party, you know, Labour wins, as just happened now in the UK, thank God, because the old government was just a disaster.

You know, either the same party comes back, but in a new form, or you get a coalition, or the other party, you know, Labour wins, as just happened now in the UK, thank God, because the old government was just a disaster.

You don't have that in the American system, where, you know, a party that's hobbled, like, staggers on, and resentment builds up, and then finally you get an election, you know, after four years, and God only knows what happens then. And this is kind of scary, because... This is not necessarily what he argued. I'm kind of bringing his argument to the current day.

You don't have that in the American system, where, you know, a party that's hobbled, like, staggers on, and resentment builds up, and then finally you get an election, you know, after four years, and God only knows what happens then. And this is kind of scary, because... This is not necessarily what he argued. I'm kind of bringing his argument to the current day.

But this ideological overlap that we used to have that you mentioned between Republicans and Democrats is part of what made this exceptional American system work. And now they segregated. And I think now is an open question as to whether it can continue working. Especially when the ideological polarization hits the Supreme Court, right? Exactly, yeah. It's absolutely everywhere.

But this ideological overlap that we used to have that you mentioned between Republicans and Democrats is part of what made this exceptional American system work. And now they segregated. And I think now is an open question as to whether it can continue working. Especially when the ideological polarization hits the Supreme Court, right? Exactly, yeah. It's absolutely everywhere.