For example, I encounter the argument described above, that “other side are ignoring obvious facts, and so failing to behave rationally, because they’re blinded by their ideology” very rarely, even in political discussions. Politicians saying such things would find it hard to negotiate with other politicians to form a government, and are mostly smart enough to not say such things. They would have no difficulty admitting that other politicians/parties behave differently simply because they have different goals (they represent the interests of a different set of voters), while still acting on almost the same set of evidence.
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse each other of ideological blindness?
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous. But you must differ ideologically from other countries. Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small. This, in turn, means that, relative to a larger country, you probably have less control over the policies of other countries, but those policies have a greater effect on your country’s interests. Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies? (For example, I have seen some people in European countries blame some of their economic problems on a world-wide economic meltdown caused by the free-market ideology of the United States.)
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain
other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse
each other of ideological blindness?
There is a party that is shunned by most other parties because it is almost universally agreed upon to be a racist party (even by themselves in some cases). To a certain extent, the answer to your question is yes. Nevertheless, the present attempt to form a government involves negotiations between a somewhat right-wing separatist party in one part of the country (got almost 30% of the votes in that part) and a somewhat left-wing socialist (yes they call themselves socialists. It’s not an insult in Europe) party. The negotiations have been going on for many months, and many colourful analogies have been used (yesterday I heard the separatists compared to Hannibal, and the socialists to the Romans), but I have yet to hear either of them accuse the other of ideological blindness.
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous.
Perhaps the ideology here is closer to mono-modal than the ideology in the USA.
But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system? Politicians in a 2-party system have an incentive to polarize : it ensures they get a large amount of voters for their party, and then they just have to focus on the small amount of “swing voters” remaining in the center.
Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small.
True. I’m sure the Netherlands have a similar system. I don’t know what the largest country with a true many-party system is.
Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies?
But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system?
It’s a good question, and the polarizing effect of political parties certainly does work the way you describe.
That said, I do think the rural/urban divide in the US is a real split in terms of the kinds of public services and private contributions different communities value and expect, and the political parties have exacerbated that rather than created it.
Regardless, I agree with your main point about the polarizing effects of bicamerality.
I would expect that some parties know that they will never form a coalition with certain other parties. If so, do these “incompatible pairs” show more inclination to accuse each other of ideological blindness?
It sounds like people within your country are pretty ideologically homogeneous. But you must differ ideologically from other countries. Your homogeneity leads me to expect that your country is relatively small. This, in turn, means that, relative to a larger country, you probably have less control over the policies of other countries, but those policies have a greater effect on your country’s interests. Does the “ideological blindness” explanation sometimes get invoked when talking about why people in other countries chose those policies? (For example, I have seen some people in European countries blame some of their economic problems on a world-wide economic meltdown caused by the free-market ideology of the United States.)
There is a party that is shunned by most other parties because it is almost universally agreed upon to be a racist party (even by themselves in some cases). To a certain extent, the answer to your question is yes. Nevertheless, the present attempt to form a government involves negotiations between a somewhat right-wing separatist party in one part of the country (got almost 30% of the votes in that part) and a somewhat left-wing socialist (yes they call themselves socialists. It’s not an insult in Europe) party. The negotiations have been going on for many months, and many colourful analogies have been used (yesterday I heard the separatists compared to Hannibal, and the socialists to the Romans), but I have yet to hear either of them accuse the other of ideological blindness.
Perhaps the ideology here is closer to mono-modal than the ideology in the USA. But is this ideological inhomogeneity in the USA a cause or a consequence of the political system? Politicians in a 2-party system have an incentive to polarize : it ensures they get a large amount of voters for their party, and then they just have to focus on the small amount of “swing voters” remaining in the center.
True. I’m sure the Netherlands have a similar system. I don’t know what the largest country with a true many-party system is.
Yes.
Doesn’t India have a many-party system? And since they’re the largest democracy, I think we’re done :P
This is true. Last 5 governments have been coalition governments.
It’s a good question, and the polarizing effect of political parties certainly does work the way you describe.
That said, I do think the rural/urban divide in the US is a real split in terms of the kinds of public services and private contributions different communities value and expect, and the political parties have exacerbated that rather than created it.
Regardless, I agree with your main point about the polarizing effects of bicamerality.
Some people in this country are more inclined to criticize certain failures to implement the free-market ideology.