Barack Obama, definitely. He came in committed to an outmoded ideal of bipartisanship and when that didn't work, he stuck with it far too long. The blocking of Merrick Garland was a four-alarm fire for democracy. When it became clear that the Repugs were going to focus on hurting us, which was evident from the moment Mitch McConnell said…
Barack Obama, definitely. He came in committed to an outmoded ideal of bipartisanship and when that didn't work, he stuck with it far too long. The blocking of Merrick Garland was a four-alarm fire for democracy. When it became clear that the Repugs were going to focus on hurting us, which was evident from the moment Mitch McConnell said his focus was on making Obama a one-term president. Once McConnell started blocking Garland, any counter measure based on institutional norms was off the table. Institutional norms were gone, yet Obama and many Democrats continued to behave as if there was some good faith left. So we stood appalled but ineffective.
Why? Because we didn't grasp the hard lesson of Game Theory: when your opponent operates in bad faith, punish them any way you can until they come back into line.
I express caution in painting the mainstream Democrats with such a broad brush as you did in your original comment.
Right now I am urging Garland to take action while withholding blanket criticisms of the mainstream Democratic Party. This type of rhetoric is harmful.
Once again. I can't and don't speak to such gross generalities. Which election? Which opponents? What are the issues. Who is winning the argument? What is the prevailing political sentiment? What is the media environment? I won't throw down good guys vs bad guys arguments without more specifics.
Barack Obama, definitely. He came in committed to an outmoded ideal of bipartisanship and when that didn't work, he stuck with it far too long. The blocking of Merrick Garland was a four-alarm fire for democracy. When it became clear that the Repugs were going to focus on hurting us, which was evident from the moment Mitch McConnell said his focus was on making Obama a one-term president. Once McConnell started blocking Garland, any counter measure based on institutional norms was off the table. Institutional norms were gone, yet Obama and many Democrats continued to behave as if there was some good faith left. So we stood appalled but ineffective.
Why? Because we didn't grasp the hard lesson of Game Theory: when your opponent operates in bad faith, punish them any way you can until they come back into line.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201607/the-prisoner-s-dilemma-and-the-virtues-tit-tat
I express caution in painting the mainstream Democrats with such a broad brush as you did in your original comment.
Right now I am urging Garland to take action while withholding blanket criticisms of the mainstream Democratic Party. This type of rhetoric is harmful.
If simply having a nasty bad faith opponent is enough to make you lose, and no better opponent is forthcoming, what are your options?
Once again. I can't and don't speak to such gross generalities. Which election? Which opponents? What are the issues. Who is winning the argument? What is the prevailing political sentiment? What is the media environment? I won't throw down good guys vs bad guys arguments without more specifics.
We must be informed, discerning voters.
We must. Oh indeed, we must. But we aren't the people we need to convince. And the people we need to convince are neither informed nor discerning.