Not exactly sure what to make of this, conceptually it just sounds like 90s era Clintonite/Thatcherite consensus with some ranked voting and other stuff thrown in. The reason why the US is polarized (and most other places to a slightly lesser degree) is because that quadrant of the political spectrum is dead[1], and people have overall grown tired of this liberal (in a broad sense of the term) anti-politics which aims to disguise managerialism and technocratic government as 'non-ideological'.
I disagree on the reason for polarization. Your reasoning is more a symptom than the cause, which is the media/information sphere. Most people are silo'd into increasingly polarized and misinformed information diets. Fox news, huffpost, Breitbart, donald.win, rush Limbaugh, the young Turks -- we all know people who have fallen into these types of news sources and are unable to moderate their views. They see entertainment as truth and triggering bait as news.
I don't think I'd call that Clintonite/Thatcherite. Thatcher was quite confrontational, and also hawkish socially conservative. Not dispositionally centrist, consensus oriented or antipolitical. Blaire is probably the PM you're looking for.
That "consensus" happened when the centre left accepted structural changes made by the previous "generation's" new right, Reagan & Thatcher. Economic issues became non-ideological, and technocratic rather than political from that point. This is even more of thing in the UK than the US, where the right wing still focused on economic conservatism rhetorically.
> I'm not disputing the US clinton part. I'm disputing the Thatcher part.
I wasn't disputing your dispute of the Thatcher part, I was disputing (in the US context) the center-left part.
> Blaire is "the center-right faction taking over the more left-leaning of the two major parties" and succeeding politically in the UK.
From my American perspective, it looked like that, but 1990s UK internal political party dynamics isn't something I’m nearly as confident of as their US parallels, so I wasn't going to take a stand on that.
I think Yang's painted picture of the world is to capture the disconnect between modern society's fast paced improvements and government's resistance to change.
Ironically, the fast paced improvements of modern society is because government has kept the economy and country stable, but that may soon change. Stability is needed in times of prosperity to continue prosperity. Stability in bad times is perpetuated hopelessness.
The forward party I think predicts that times ahead is not going to be prosperous for the majority, and that a slow moving government will not service the times very well.
> people have overall grown tired of this liberal (in a broad sense of the term) anti-politics which aims to disguise managerialism and technocratic government as 'non-ideological'
[1]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyE_4e9V4AAW0od.jpg:large