Read on Twitter
Okay the cause, and this is a fraught thing to communicate so uh, before dunking on it ask for clarification
So in Europe, left and liberal political elites are divided into a lot more groups (on average) than they are in the US (this is true of right-wing ones, but less so). https://twitter.com/ElyEelee/status/1355624067295027200
So in Europe, left and liberal political elites are divided into a lot more groups (on average) than they are in the US (this is true of right-wing ones, but less so). https://twitter.com/ElyEelee/status/1355624067295027200
This is basically a consequence of party systems being political spheres, and political elites are distributed within that sphere. The more parties, as a rule, the more spheres, and the more need to *differentiate*.
note: parties can, and generally do, have more than 1 sphere!
note: parties can, and generally do, have more than 1 sphere!
The competitive pressure to differentiate historically creates a distinct party culture and societal philosophy for each party, often implicitly, which is a source of socio-political value cohesion among elites.
Under dominant or limited number-party systems, this isn't true.
Under dominant or limited number-party systems, this isn't true.
For people inside an extremely liberal value sphere, there's going to be much less variation within it than you'd get in a 2-party system. This also shapes attitudes to domestic and international institutions and to different value systems.
Now because these often end up overlapping, you do get a general milieu, a sort of splodge of social ideology. This is definitely what I see as common in Western Europe.
In the US, at least among my mutuals, it feels more like a scribble than a splodge.
In the US, at least among my mutuals, it feels more like a scribble than a splodge.
(that's clumsy imagery but functionally what I'm saying is there's more individual heterogeneity in US socio-cultural beliefs, at least among my mutuals on here). There doesn't seem to be as much of a uniting philosophy as you get here.
Now this leads to a problem, which is defining yourself in terms of institutions. Western European parties are, as a rule, proceduralist, often in the extreme, but they're not necessarily *institutionalist*. It often feels like it's the opposite way round for liberal Americans!
And obviously the left likes to define itself as being anti-institutionalist, but it lacks a well-defined and dedicated history that explains its relationship and ideology with institutions. So you get this sort of erratic behaviour, and I *think* that's what I'm picking up on.
This was an extremely haphazard way to communicate half a dozen thoughts so it might seem really unconnected and poorly developed, and that's because it is! But I can clarify or elaborate on points if I need to
a stylised model of party spheres in a hypothetical European party system, where voters value both dimensions equally
if there are more dimensions or voters value different issues differently then these circles will be stretched, can lead to red-dark blue or green-yellow overlap
if there are more dimensions or voters value different issues differently then these circles will be stretched, can lead to red-dark blue or green-yellow overlap
stylised two-party value space, by comparison
(this isn't a political compass, think of it more like a set of social values than political positions)
