Good Read: Why Republicans Play Dirty

September 21, 2019 By: El Jefe Category: 2020 Election, Alternative Facts

In the NYTimes Opinion section, political scientists Steven Levitsky and

Be social and share!

0 Comments to “Good Read: Why Republicans Play Dirty”


  1. Dayam! it won’t let me read the article.

    1
  2. Papa @ 1 When you encounter a pay wall. Go to DuckDuckGo which doesn’t track you and shows a safety rating with your search question. I copied the header and entered it to the search engine and was given a list showing all the other sites posting that story.

    Try this one: the text is visible.
    https://trendingpress.com/why-republicans-play-dirty/

    2
  3. Here is an excerpt:

    Democracy requires that parties know how to lose. Politicians who fail to win elections must be willing to accept defeat, go home, and get ready to play again the next day. This norm of gracious losing is essential to a healthy democracy.

    But for parties to accept losing, two conditions must hold. First, they must feel secure that losing today will not bring ruinous consequences; and second, they must believe they have a reasonable chance of winning again in the future.

    When party leaders fear that they cannot win future elections, or that defeat poses an existential threat to themselves or their constituents, the stakes rise. Their time horizons shorten. They throw tomorrow to the wind and seek to win at any cost today. In short, desperation leads politicians to play dirty.

    3
  4. What, precisely and exactly, is a “political *scientist*”?

    Is it necessary to study for years and then pass a strict exam in order to claim the, er, ‘scientific’ title?

    When faced with the thoughts and words of a political *scientist*, should we remain politely and respectively silent, or should we just blow a very long, loud raspberry?

    Jes’ askin’ – again!

    4
  5. Grandma Ada says:

    The GOP is also following an economic strategy called accelerationism. Probably most of them don’t even know what it’s called, but I can tell you it’s not good for the US or us.

    5
  6. @David Duff: Someone with a degree in political science? To me, that signifies a reasonably rounded liberal arts type background. Although I’m not sure I’ve heard many people refer to themselves as ‘political scientist’. Maybe the pundits at FOX. I hear you have to be a drop out to work there. So they might get away with ‘political scientist’ faster than ‘college graduate’.

    6
  7. @David Duff #4:

    Back in the ’80s, PoliSci was a compendium of “applied” History and detailed explanations of various political philosophies. It wasn’t until I took polisci classes that I figured out that politics and economics (which I hated) are 2 sides of the same coin: sometimes the best understanding of a political event is from looking at the economic underpinnings. And that seems to be true still…

    8
  8. Is it going to take another civil rights movement to restore voting rights to those disenfranchised by the GOP, as it did to those disenfranchised by the bigoted South after the withdrawal of Union troops? I hope it doesn’t take as long.

    9
  9. The Surly Professor says:

    Rhea@9: don’t forget what led to the withdrawal of Union troops. In the Hayes-Tilden election, everything turned on the electoral votes from Florida. Which had sent two delegations of electors, and which one was certified would determine the winner.

    In return for ending Reconstruction, the Democrats agreed to let the Republican Hayes become Pres. So the franchise, freedom, and even lives of blacks in the South were traded off for short-term power. Good thing that we’re more advanced now, and would never let grubbing for power take priority over people. [There, I just exceeded my sarcasm quota for the month.]

    In short: I think the answer to your question is “yup, it’s going to take another civil rights movement”.

    10
  10. I don’t need to read no stinkin’ article.

    Why do Republicans play dirty?

    Because it works.

    Because their policies and philosophy are so biased and bankrupt, it’s the only thing that works for them.

    11