While I agree with the Prof that the so-called two-party system must be destroyed, I think we must beware the idea that multiparty democracy offers some kind of improvement; I mean, that is really the social democracy fallacy, isn't it? Oh, if only they had to assemble coalitions to rule, etc. etc. But the problem with a bipartisan oligarchy is contained within the second word of the term, not the first; a gaggle of nobles can fuck things up just as easily as a single king, and if you don't believe me, just ask this Sforza/Medici/Borgia/Rovere/Orsini over here. All you need to know about democracy: Congress' public approval rating hovers around negative infinity, and it doesn't matter a bit. The oligarchic interests in the US have for a hundred years organized themselves into two superficially opposed, effectively cooperative factions; well you could find periods in English history or Roman history or whatever where the same more or less obtained. The house is not its window treatments. It is true that people like the few relative outsiders who penetrate the system (although it's hard to make the straight case that Harvard Yard Warren is in any meaningful sense an outsider) can't really do anything in it, except, you know, benefit from its endless supply of personal power and sweet swag and money money money money.