> Carrol's crabbines and your clever bon mots notwithstanding, I don't
> think anyone here has an argument with the fact that there's less
> than a dime's worth of difference between the two parties,
You certainly wouldn't get any argument from *me* on that point, anyway -- at least, not WRT policy differences. There's a difference of function -- they play different but complementary roles. Hence the asymmetrical ferocity levels of the two parties, so extensively discussed in this thread.
Oh and for some reason I'm in pedant mode today -- "bons mots", not "bon mots". Always galls me a little when I see that -- like the phrase "the hoi polloi".
> >When do you think it changed? I'm not disagreeing -- the party system
> >has certainly evolved over time. But I'm curious where you would date
> >the transition to the current prima donna/understudy arrangement.
>
> How about with the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970? After that the
> main thing you had to do to get elected to most any office in the
> land was bluster about crime.
A good case could be made for that.
--
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com