OUR HYSTERICAL POLITICS.

Would you believe Ed Kilgore, contributing to New York's "Intelligencer," an Establishment site, cautions his co-religionists not to make too much of that futile and stupid gesture at the Federal Capitol?  Disregard the click-baity title, "Americans' Indifference About January 6 Is the Real Threat to Democracy."  Scroll down.

It's when the pollsters dig into what people mean by "threats to democracy" that any focus on January 6 gets lost. Far and away the most popular complaint was about politicians and government being "corrupt."

Maybe because they are, and the corona tyranny, the rising prices, the empty shelves, and the failure of the government schools provide evidence beyond the ability of the best semiotician to deconstruct.  At the end, though, Mr Kilgore sounds the alarm about incipient fascism.  "If Trump's Republican Party makes the gains so many expect in November, it will be a green light for authoritarianism in the future, even if Trump himself exits the political scene and gives way to another demagogue."

There has to be a variant on the laws of conservation applying to punditry, such as David Harsanyi's "Democrats: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule."  How many times has a prominent Democrat talked about getting enough senators elected to change the rules of debate in the Senate the better to pursue their own less incrementalist agenda?  "You will remember that by failing to 'reform' the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational 'reforms' without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy."

It's all too much for Reason's J. D. Tuccille.

Americans are pretty clear in what they mean by "too much power," too. They want a government that plays less of a role in people's lives.

"When asked how active the government should be in addressing the nation's problems, 53 percent say it is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, while 43 percent believe the government should be doing more to solve problems," Gallup added.

The catch is that "Republicans and Democrats are more inclined to say the government has too much power when the president is from the other party, and less inclined when a president from their own party is in the White House." For more than a decade, Republicans have said that government has too much power, but the intensity of their feelings fluctuates depending on whether they hold the White House. Democrats also vary in their feelings, though they tend to believe the government is too powerful only when the presidency is held by Republicans. Majorities of independents have pretty consistently stuck to their guns in opposing an overpowerful state no matter which party has the edge.

There is a way out.

With the major parties having a near-total lock on political power, Americans are stuck voting for different brands of the large, intrusive government most tell Gallup they don't want.

The irony is that people who don't like each other can get along reasonably well under a smaller and less-intrusive government by leaving each other alone and just rolling their eyes at the strange ways of those others. But the increasingly authoritarian parties for whom they're actually voting, and their selectivity about favoring smaller government only when their faction is out of power, guarantee continuing conflict. A big government that interferes in many areas of life is too dangerous to be allowed to fall into the hands of enemies who will use it for their purposes—and it will change hands so long as there are competitive elections.

It's encouraging that Americans tell pollsters, year after year, that they want a smaller government that does less; that's a recipe for a freer, more peaceful society that makes room for people of varied values and preferences. But advocating restraint only when you're out of power is only another way of saying that you want to kneecap your enemies. To end the alternating bouts of kneecapping, people are going to have to adopt smaller government as a principle that applies to everybody, including themselves and their allies.

There is a way out, although voters have to change their Nash equilibrium behavior. The choice is a binary choice only as long as voters vote with the belief that other voters are voting as if it is a binary choice. I submit, dear reader, it is braver to vote for a minor party candidate rather than abstain in the presence of a lousy choice, or writing a preferred nominee in, which under most states' election laws, doesn't count.