It's an unfortunate set of affairs, but Democrats must have a more vested interest in bipartisanship than Republicans due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to: desire to help people, caring if people suffer, & commitment to a functioning government
It's also broadly true that--even in their most idealized senses (rather than concrete manifestations in political parties)--progressivism presents greater challenges than conservatism, given change can be more difficult to enact than preserving the status quo (or regressivism)
So, in this sense, left-wing/center-left parties can typically face greater hurdles in implementing their policies than conservative parties.
In the U.S., these core challenges are exacerbated by the fact that the "conservative" party is not just regressive in policy, but also uncommitted to democracy itself. &, in fact, "uncommitted" is an understatement, given the GOP maintains power by actively undermining democracy
Finally, these challenges are further compounded by the fact that our "conservative" party not only feels free of any moral obligation to mitigate suffering, but is also rarely held accountable for these failures, both by the media & by their own thoroughly radicalized base.
In any case, I'm not saying anyone should be happy about all of the compromises Democrats make or calls for "bipartisanship" w/ fascist-wannabes. At the same time, it doesn't work to say, "Mitch McConnell doesn't compromise, so we shouldn't either"
McConnell's goals were perfectly well-served during the Obama administration by being unrelentingly obstructionist. Democrats' own goals cannot be served in this same fashion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
