Despite the sometimes intense instability of coalition governments, I generally have a view that the more political parties there are in a system the better. While it is true that there are often broad and predictable coalitions, the mere possibility of surprise single-issue or bloc based re-alignments can do a lot to combat complacency. To imagine how this would work in the current American system picture a world where the Greens and Libertarians have enough pull in Congress to sway close votes. They might side with one big party or another in a predictable fashion on economic or regulatory policy, sure, but both would likely throw their weight behind whoever was the opposition when issues related to foreign policy or surveillance came up. Trump’s current attack on Due Process would be opposed by both, for example, tipping the scales away from the Republican government. Likewise, Democratic efforts to sabotage diplomacy (a la Cuck Schemer on Iran or Adam Schiff on Russia) would also see both Greens and Libertarians ally with Republicans to overturn such knee jerk platitudes.

This does not mean, however, that more is always better. I can think of one arrangement where less parties is better than more: And that is that one Party is probably better than two. At least in times of intense partisanship in the media.

This seems a strange position to take. I do not take it in defense of one party states, which I generally oppose unless a state is newly founded (see Kemalist Turkey or post-unification Vietnam). I take this position because two parties is just so unrelentingly awful.

The reason two can become worse than one is that it effectively functions as a single party state in that the broad consensus keeps ticking on unchallenged while the pantomime of free choice is pushed front and center. Picked up by a media both pliant and partisan, the most inconsequential of differences are held up as vital decision points. This has the bizarre effect, as we see all around us today, of radicalizing the ignorant in ways where their radicalization actually supports the establishment of both parties. Any cultural flashpoint or nakedly partisan example of corruption is held up to be the end all be all, while the machine of private contractor grifting and surveillance creep expands at an ever growing clip. The relatively minor differences between the parties creates a yawning cavern of difference between voters too dumb to see they have more in common with the opposite-party rubes than they do with their own leadership.

Reverse partisanship is another bizarre aspect of this phenomenon. In just the past decade (and ignoring all the many examples prior to that) we have seen two party systems across the world basically reverse entire positions almost overnight simply because an upset in the other party triggered their oppositional defiance disorder. The focus of the neoconservative movement went from Republican to Democrat in about two years as preparation for what they saw as an inevitable Hillary Clinton Presidency. Choosing negotiation over reflexive war and sanctions was once a strongly Democrat coded position, but now that Trump exploited the neoconservative realignment to take over the GOP it is the Democrats who come across as the party of Freedom Fries. Meanwhile, the Democratic embrace of Clintonian neoliberal economics led to a (utterly false) GOP pivot towards claiming the mantle of populism…but now that The Big Beautiful Bill is passed and that claim is exposed as utterly hollow, one expects another reversal for both parties around austerity. The tariff issue has really driven this home for both parties recently, with people contradicting their views on trade multiple times in the same month.

As mentioned before, these pivots do nothing to challenge the bipartisan establishment, but they do make the populace more stupid. How many extended family members or second tier friends do you have that parrot talking points they would have been adamantly opposed to just a few years ago simply because their party-coded media has reversed position? In most instances they seem incapable of even acknowledging this if it is pointed out, with uncomfortable silence standing in for their utterly hollow engagement with the pantomime of partisanship. It is a confession of nonsentience. The regime rules through the endless dance, the dittohead serves as its thuggish yet cowardly enforcer in the public sphere.

One of the weirder things you will notice when traveling to a state that bans parties or has only one is that, in general, the average person is much more in touch with reality. There may be things they cannot say in public, and they may long for a viable opposition, but there is a certain honest cynicism from the government supporters that they back the regime because they personally benefit from it. Likewise, the opposition to it shares a kind of inclusiveness and solidarity that they are all in this together. Distrust of canned media narratives are, I find, far higher in these societies than in my own. There is almost a reflexive private trend to disbelieve all official sources. Though this obviously comes with its downside, it is a preferable state of being for the cultivation of critical thought than those who mindlessly parrot the media of who they imagine to be their co-ideologues. That they imagine themselves as free and rational while doing so makes it all the more galling.

Compared to two party states, one party states are total amateurs when it comes to nullifying opposition and setting unquestioned media narratives.

Maybe a slight lyrical revision to Three Dog Night’s hit is in order.