5 ms·

To rephrase your point a bit more accurately. One of the parties is the party of no. The other is the party of "idk, what do you guys think?"

• hayst4ck 3y ago
  > One of the parties is the party of no. Not at all. The republican party realized that if they want to push unpopular policy they cannot do it via democratic means. So they made the very strategic decision (and strategically correct, since there have been no consequences for republicans worth mentioning), to gridlock the government and prove that it doesn't work, which directly gives them credibility. They have packed the courts with ideologues from the heritage foundation and then gridlocked the body that does oversight. So in good years they build their power foundation, and in bad years they work on both weakening their opponents power and harming their credibility and exercising the power they built in their good years. That is very very far from being a "party of no". The part of "no compromises" maybe. They are winning. Choosing to defect in a game of prisoners dilemma is rational if you don't think your opponent will defect too or if the cost of their defection is too low. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" means in the game of prisoners dilemma, cooperate, but be able to punish defection. Democrats don't punish defection. Democrats don't have a big stick. Democrats are just speaking softly. If you want cooperation, you must have the ability to meaningfully defect.