The primaries in the United States reflect the erosion of its two party system. It is common for social distrust and instability are the result of institutional weakness. The quality of democracy is low where institutions are ephemeral and the rules are easily altered. This is the case in much of Latin America. Other times, however, the democratic deficit is the result of an opposite scenario: too stable, rigid institutions. They are that institutions are perishable, served for some time. Past its expiration date, less able to do that for which they were created. In the specific case of political institutions to represent and rule, that is, compete in elections and legislate.
Welcome to America. Divided government paralysis in Congress and legislative activism Executive are hallmarks of the difficulties to govern. Once every four years, in addition, an election cycle after another, exacerbated symptoms of a system of representation that does not work emerge. It illustrates polarization. They are no two games are three or maybe four.
Establishment is the word most often the electoral lexicon. This in reference to the unexpected weakness of the moderates and proposals, once expression of their respective majority currents. With the erosion of the mainstream, it also increases the probability of losing the median voter, the moderate who occupies the center. It is a systemic feature, note that occurs in both parties. In the Republican Party it has been the conversation in language Trump. His media show has marked the time for debate. Among xenophobia, misogyny and protectionism, the senselessness of their proposals was surprised and frightened to traditional party leadership. Its rival solid-for now, at least-is Ted Cruz, an exponent of religious fundamentalism finish. The first sentence in the speech with which he celebrated his victory in Iowa was "God's glory."
Cruz is not exactly moderate, much less secular, but neither is Marco Rubio, despite being the favorite of the establishment . Maybe it's a preference for disposal, considering that Rubio is unable to open his mouth without invoking Jesus in each intervention-based quipped Paul Ryan, the leading Republican on the House and that his legislative record is, say, "Hit "benign euphemism for" calculated opportunism. "
If the Republican center of gravity has run to the far right, the Democrats are going in the opposite direction. There the mainstream feels cornered to the class speech Bernie Sanders. His victory in the race for control of the rhetoric is such that much of the debate with Hillary Clinton takes to determine which of the two most progressive display scrolls. There she is, surely, though less for being captive agent Wall Street, as the accused Sanders, who, having been part of the DLC, Democratic Leadership Council, a group that renounced the classical principles Democrats, universalism in social policy including. It is as if Tony Blair had told the unions that, despite New Labour, he was left to them.
The presence of a candidate defined as "democratic socialist" no longer a breath of fresh air, a little Europe in frozen American politics. In fact, with its relentless stigma of the banks and large corporations, Sanders might even seem like a relic of the New Deal. If not this inequality grows steadily since 1969, with a sharp acceleration in the nineties during the presidency of Bill Clinton, regarding primary.
Polarization is speculate. What is right, she looks in a mirror on the left and vice versa, but the picture is identical. For some impoverishment and inequality occur by Mexican immigrants. To others blame it on Wall Street. The defendant changes, anger is the same. In both cases, the polarization away the median voter, that almost always defines a choice. Imagine a choice between Trump and Sanders and all that space in the center without an owner. Unowned until Michael Bloomberg and independent pragmatism decide to enter the race at the last minute to win the jackpot in November. It is no longer a two-party system. It not more, then.