In World War II, my great-grandfathers had a choice: either fight on the side of the Soviet Union or on the side of Nazi Germany. The definition of a lose-lose situation, and of the illusion of choice...
I think what you’re describing—the terror and ridiculousness of being forced to choose between two coercive systems—is real and damning, but not for the reason you imply. “Choice” without legitimate alternatives can feel like (and in the moment, perhaps might as well be) an illusion.
That said, your deeper point, I think, actually maps to structural problems in many modern democracies. When the incentive structures that ultimately drive institutions and institutional behavior collapse into false binaries and political partisanship, voters are often choosing between packages they don’t actually endorse. The system *as it exists today* only allows two viable bundles at a time in the United States. Voters are voting against what they most fear, not for what they actually want. But that’s not the only way to ‘do democracy.’
In that sense, the poison isn’t left or right, but poor institutional design (and here, especially, electoral design). Winner-take-all systems especially tend to turn complex multivariate disagreement into an often binary, forced-choice referendum, reward extremity, and convert politics and policymaking into semi-permanent ‘governance by emergency / fiat.’
I’d posit that the answer isn’t “reject the system,” but to “fix the system.” It’s to redesign the rules so choice is real and meaningful again. Proportional representation where legislatures reflect the public, majority-acceptable executives rather than factional winners, and fiscal/monetary constraints that make tradeoffs visible so politics can’t run on pure symbolism. The goal is not to have perfect options. It’s to have real, fair, honest, representation and legitimate options, so people aren’t asked to pick a tribe, but to select representatives who can build durable coalitions around specific problems.
In short—I don’t think this is so much a referendum on whether liberal democracy works, but how ours works now. If we fix the rules, we can keep our promises—to ourselves, to each other, and to future generations.
/rant over
That said, your deeper point, I think, actually maps to structural problems in many modern democracies. When the incentive structures that ultimately drive institutions and institutional behavior collapse into false binaries and political partisanship, voters are often choosing between packages they don’t actually endorse. The system *as it exists today* only allows two viable bundles at a time in the United States. Voters are voting against what they most fear, not for what they actually want. But that’s not the only way to ‘do democracy.’
In that sense, the poison isn’t left or right, but poor institutional design (and here, especially, electoral design). Winner-take-all systems especially tend to turn complex multivariate disagreement into an often binary, forced-choice referendum, reward extremity, and convert politics and policymaking into semi-permanent ‘governance by emergency / fiat.’
I’d posit that the answer isn’t “reject the system,” but to “fix the system.” It’s to redesign the rules so choice is real and meaningful again. Proportional representation where legislatures reflect the public, majority-acceptable executives rather than factional winners, and fiscal/monetary constraints that make tradeoffs visible so politics can’t run on pure symbolism. The goal is not to have perfect options. It’s to have real, fair, honest, representation and legitimate options, so people aren’t asked to pick a tribe, but to select representatives who can build durable coalitions around specific problems.
In short—I don’t think this is so much a referendum on whether liberal democracy works, but how ours works now. If we fix the rules, we can keep our promises—to ourselves, to each other, and to future generations.
/rant over
2