They do so for two primary reasons: 2/14
The current split we’re seeing in the Republican Party is not a sudden split of ‘consciousness’ or ‘doing what’s right’, but rather a split between two factions of their billionaire donors: Langone et al. vs. Mercers et al. 1/14
They do so for two primary reasons: 2/14
Democracy is always a threat to power, which is why power is always working to subvert it. 6/14
https://t.co/9KlceOQRo9
Part of what makes conspiracy theories like Q-Anon so appealing is that the sheer magnitude & scale of these theories match people's lived experiences of pain, alienation, indignity & oppression.
— Arash Kolahi (@ArashKolahi) September 8, 2020
Centrism's 'business-as-usual' could NEVER compete.
But could the left? 1/26
https://t.co/aFxZofC6Oy
\u2018Freedom\u2019 & \u2018democracy\u2019, two words that like many others have lost much of their meaning due to Orwellian doublespeak, intellectual dishonesty or just plain confusion. Their meanings have been so degraded, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss them effectively. 1/11
— Arash Kolahi (@ArashKolahi) May 6, 2019
More from Politics
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
I\u2019m sorry it\u2019s just insane that Democrats are like, \u201cwe won everything and our opening position on relief is $1.9T\u201d and Republicans are like, \u201cwe lost and our opening position is $600B,\u201d and the media will be like, \u201cDemocrats say they want unity but reject this bipartisan deal.\u201d
— Meredith Shiner (@meredithshiner) January 31, 2021
First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/
Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/
Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/
Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/
