The 2016 election campaign has not exactly been a
great advertisement for the American two-party system:
“But this campaign
has been oddly impervious to events, and certainly to discussion of policies
(one hopes Clinton can change that in the debates—it is worth remembering that
her platform is more progressive than any Democrat’s of the last thirty years).
No, the election is about Trump—whether he is menace or entertainment. Most
people in the media are surely well aware that he is a menace; but the media as
a machine can’t help but present him first as entertainment. Maybe fifty years
ago it could have been different. But not now.
One can acknowledge
Clinton’s flaws and add some. Still, this election is barely even about her.
It’s about whether the people and forces that exist to protect the United
States from precisely what is happening now will rise to the occasion and do
so. Clinton has to make the case for herself and the case against Trump clear.
But really, no one’s made the case against him clearer than Trump himself.
Pointing that out is not defending Clinton. It defines what is at stake in the
election.”
--
Interesting question to consider:
Is a multi-party system better than a two-party system?