I am using this blog to repost The Iconoclast's Review,   the column I write on Newsvine. Thanks for reading!
I've left my old Blog articles from Ulteriorly Motivated which I started writing here on WDC before I got sick. I'm starting to write again, but I've changed my focus in my political writing, and The Iconoclast's Review reflects my new focus.

Thanks much for reading, first of all. I'm not ready to post again (frankly, I've been busy watching election results and reading stuff) but I liked this observation and wanted to give a quick answer. (I've like previous comments, too, but this one is dead on, and I wanted to answer.)

I actually do have some strong opinions about why the two parties in America evolved as they did, and I look forward to your comments, as a non-US point of view, when I broach that subject. I'm interested to know how it compares to Aussie politics (I've studied Australian public policy as one of fair number of nations, but I've never looked very closely at the politics in your nation.)

Yes, you are on to something, although I happen to believe it is more an Anglophone cultural thing than 'human wiring.' If you take a look at the world's many democracies, you mostly see this trend is found mostly in the English-speaking ones. Not exclusively, but look at the non-Anglophonic democracies, you will often see 'minor' parties becoming much more important, to the point of forcing cabinets and legislatures to be coalitions.

There are never coalitions in US politics. They happen occasionally in other English-speaking nations, but absolutely not here. I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of Australia to respond specifically, but I suspect it is more like the UK than America, where two parties dominate, but the minor parties have a small, real influence. They become important outlets for positions contrary to both major parties and important voices for change, even though they will never unseat the Tories and Labour insofar as control of Parliament or the Cabinet are concerned. Try to imagine a situation where no lasting outlet of such positions and voices ever appears.

The key difference is this: in the UK, when people have had enough of both parties, they go ahead and vote for someone else. I don't find this suprising; for all their reputation for being stiff and spartan, every Brit I ever met was not only vocal in his or her political views, but downright proud of them. As a result, their vote figures into the totals and cannot be ignored. In the US, people who are this frustrated stay home. I am trying to get Americans to understand they aren't 'protesting' by holding out, they are simply getting themselves thrown into the 'apathetic voter' category and ignored.

In Australia you have a law that I think could never be implemented in the US, but that probably makes a big difference in how people treat the election. Very simply, voting is mandatory. I'm not clear if that is a State law in parts of Oz, or a National law, but I know it exists. Here, it is strictly voluntary in all fifty states.

I would be very interested to hear how you feel about that law, and how it may or may not influence people's attitudes toward minor parties. Email me if you are willing to fill me in on it.

Here in Australia, we too talk about the two main parties. Any others are called minor parties.

I won't comment on you US politics and the election, but I will mention something that may show why there are usually only two main parties in a democratic society.

It seems that people's brains are basically set one way or another. Policies that are conservativewill attract one set of folk, while most of the rest will go for the opposite camp that may look to be more socialist in tendency. Then there are the middle camp - what are usually called swinging voters. They are able to see both sides of an argument, and often are the supporters of parties that try to look for a different direction.

I don't know more than that, but through observation, I believe this is true. And that means that there will always be two main, opposing parties, while the rest of us get frustrated that the majority can't see beyond their pet political dogma.

Is this something you have ever considered?

I enjoyed how you tied your life and thoughts, throughout this entry, to make a very good point.

I think you can breathe a sigh of relief knowing, whatever children make it through all of those years of training, the parents will end up having to sit through the rest to hear theirs.

It's really just a countdown now...and maybe by the end of this ugly campaign, there really will be enough fiscal responsibility so we all can have a bottle of tequila in the cupboard.
Thanks for your thoughtful entry.

I don't know how many times I have heard the comment: "I love that guy, but there is no way I would vote for him; he doesn't stand a chance of winning."

I have often wondered why many people will only vote for someone who they think has a chance of winning. It doesn't matter what the person stands for, all that is important is that they have a chance of winning. It is reasoning like that which makes me believe we get the leaders we deserve, not nessarily the best.

A very easy to understand explanation.

I noticed during the last debate a question was asked of both the candidates; "What will you ask the American people to sacrifice to help, like during WWII?"

I did not hear them answer, and it deeply disappointed me. Maybe the sense of entitlement so many seem to feel includes not having to give up their latte, or a trip to the mall. This makes me ill. I was raised differently. I've already voluntarily given up things, and my business just died. I can do more.

Sigh. I think few "get it".

I admit to worrying about the future a little. I know things are going to get worse and I know we have to be very careful how we spend.

My husband and I do live hand to mouth so to speak and we did buy a house two years ago with a 30 year loan and I would love to find a way out of owning this house and buying or even renting in the country, but I am here.

I am one of many people living here that if not necessarily buries my head in the sand, just can't keep up with all the woes. My fear and worry kind of reminds me of a rat. I get startled and worried, but I can't hold on the the fear for too long because it wears me out.

I can only ride the rollercoaster and hope I make it to the exit still alive.

Interesting article.

Have a great day

Eric, this is the sort of well reasoned, even-handed essay that I have been waiting to read in here. I am sick to death of all the name calling and finger pointing...dems blaming the republicans and visa-versa. This essay gets to the very heart of the matter.

I have said over and over in my own blog that WE as a nation are to blame for where we find ourselves today. I have always maintained that, just like a family, a nation can not spend more than it makes and hope to get ahead or even stay afloat.

I am a few years older than you, my friend. At 59 I am quickly nearing the time I use to dream of...retirement. The thing is, retirement today is just as much a distant dream for me as it was when I was 29. Even so, I am in better shape than many. I have ten acres of land in the country with space to grow a garden and keep a milk cow and chickens, not to mention livestock for butchering. THAT has now become my finical plan....to go back to living like my grandfather did.
The thing is, I was not hurt as much as many folks by this downturn. I never made enough money in my life to be able to set aside any sum in the stock market or retirement fund...other than a 401k at work. It took every penny I made just to live. I own no credit cards and I buy only when I have cash to make the purchase, so in that respect I am better off than many. I have not lost a lot of money and I have not gone into debt to buy a lot of stuff. Having said that, I will also say that the truth of the matter is, I am affected by this crisis just the same as those who have lost money and who are in great debt from spending.

As the economy worsens, I can expect layoffs and I will probably be among the first to go.It will do me no good for gas to drop back to two dollars a gallon if I don't have the two dollars now will it.

I look forward to the rest of your series with great interest Fred. Well done and thank you for sharing your insights.

This gives me hope that maybe 'someday', things will change. The two party system is stuck in tight and they refuse to try to move themselves.

The comments are refreshing too, and I'm surprised - pleasantly. As partyof5 said, I too, am more anti-liberal than pro anything. So many had their hopes set on Ron Paul and were devastated when he dropped out. Wouldn't it be wonderful if he ended up with the written-in popular vote anyway? I know a few that intend to write-in his name. Too bad they won't count.

There is a very short "Libertarian Test" and a longer one that consider: 1. authority versus individuality and 2. change versus custom. I consistently fall into the social libertarian quadrant. In many ways I have been distraught the last 8 years.

Regardless of how I vote, I have always been blessed with family and friends who look at life differently than I do. And sometimes they are right!

Here in Montana, there is a candidate who believes in the parliamentary system. Under such, minority parties and viewpoints would receive a moment on the stage. Too bad we couldn't have a parliament as well. It is so important to realize that dividing into two camps is not inclusive beyond the more obvious divisiveness. So many voices are hard to hear in the present set-up.

Welcome to Bloggsville Eric, this was quite an interesting read. I look forward to reading more of your blog in the future.