When Republicans go low should democrats go low or high?

[filghy2]

The current Republican ascendancy in all four arms of the US government owes substantially to that Party's willingness to be ruthless and discard previous conventions whenever it has suited them. This has occurred despite the Republicans winning the popular vote in only one Presidential election since 1988 (the 2004 election).

How should Democrats respond? Many people are arguing that they need to become similarly ruthless. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

The general Democrat approach to date seems to be characterised by Michelle Obama's view: "When they go low, we go high".

There seem to be two possible arguments for such an approach. The first is that virtue should be rewarded once enough voters see what Republicans are doing and become turned of by it. Clearly, this hasn't worked to date - in part because part of electoral manipulation in states under Republican control.

A second argument is that if both sides cheat the result will be a downward spiral that cause the system to break down completely. The problem with that is that if one side sees that it consistently gains by cheating it will have no incentive to stop. Because the cheating side wins most of the time you end up with the downward spiral toward law of the jungle anyway.

Game theory suggests that the best way to get the other side to stop cheating is actually to "go low when they go low" - the tit for tat strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
The idea is that the other side will eventually learn that it gets no lasting advantage from cheating and resume cooperation - given mutual cooperation should be better for both sides than mutual cheating. The key point is that the response should be proportional - whenever the other side does the wrong thing you do an equivalent wrong thing, but if they then do the right thing you let bygones be bygones and do the same.

In reality, there may be complications. For instance, if one side has gained from cheating for a long time then it may take a long time to learn that cheating no longer pays. It also assumes that both sides are fully rational, when the tribalist 'us vs them' mentality may be anything but rational.

[Stavros]

I think the problem for many people, and not just Americans is that the discourse of politics has become coarse and vulgar, and that this creates ugly tones and issues around them which are more about the political process than its outcomes.

On the one hand identity groups mobilize in outrage over specific causes -Black Lives Matter is a good example- but by their very example generate hostility from those who focus on the rage and the way it is expressed rather than the issues which created Black Lives Matter in the first place -the murder of un-armed civilans by law enforcement officers.
In what world, one wonders, can somebody not ask harsh questions when an unarmed man is shot 16 times when once is enough?

Even if race is a clear dividing line in this example, the broader issue of how the police are trained and respond to potentially -but not actually- dangerous situations does merit a public debate rather than a slanging match, just as when footballers 'take the knee' the issue should not be the respect or otherwise for the National Anthem but an answer to the question: why are they doing this?

If I were in the US I would want the Democrats to ignore the moron in the White House and articulate an agenda which offers a vision for the future, the hope that policies can be formed which benefit people on the ground in their homes and communities. It doesn't have to be empty rhetoric but based on thought-through issues on housing, education, jobs and health.

The problem is that I think Democrats have never embraced the kind of social democratic policies we have had in the UK, as someone told me the other day, the US is the only major democracy which does not have a national health service and its citizens suffer as a result. Obama's attempt at health care reform was doomed to fail on one level because States can resist Federal policies through their tax-raising powers and the protection of insurance companies -after all, the NHS when it was introduced in the UK in 1948 was bitterly opposed by the medical establishment who fought, as it were tooth and nail to preserve their right to a private health sector, granted by Labour to get the Act through. If the Democrats can't win on health, the options for other policies also do not look good.

The state school system is in desperate need of funds, but would the Democrats argue that spending $790 billion on 'defence' is a waste of money, which it is, and spend it on education instead? It takes courage in the US to offer radical policies, and I don't think the Democrats have the bottle to do what is needed. For the time being the Conservatives have defined where the centre ground of politics lies, and it remains to be seen how far the President can shift that centre ground, though I don't think he cares that much about it anyway.

But yes, as Republicans go low, joining their cretin-in-chief in their insult and abuse of their fellow Americans, Democrats need only talk politely and with respect to earn it, and it can't be that hard.

[buttslinger]

When it comes to Governing, Dems should go sky high. I'm sure Stavros has the same thing going on across the pond, but I implore all Americans to turn on Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh for 15 minutes. You will be ill. But you will see why Trump has so many faithful. Even the Republicans said the Kavanaugh fight was rock bottom. Sen Flake said he never could have spoken out if he was running for office.

I have a sincere hope that Robert Mueller does for the American People what a referee does and explains in Damning Clarity what a complete Prick Trump is, and how he's made complete and total fools of his own Party. If Trump is proven to be complicit in Russia's power play to weaken the Entire Western World, He needs to Hang. That's not going low, that would go a long way in fulfilling Trump's promise to make America great again.

[blackchubby38]

My question is this:

Do you want to feel good about yourself or do you want to win?

If its the latter, then Democrats need to start going low or if you believe what some Republicans think about them, start going low again.

[Ben in LA]

When you turn the other cheek, it opens it up for another slap.

[filghy2]

If I were in the US I would want the Democrats to ignore the moron in the White House and articulate an agenda which offers a vision for the future, the hope that policies can be formed which benefit people on the ground in their homes and communities. It doesn't have to be empty rhetoric but based on thought-through issues on housing, education, jobs and health.

I agree that a big part of the Dem's problem is that they've failed to articulate an agenda to address economic insecurity and rising inequality. Obama had many good qualities and some good achievements, including not doing 'stupid shit', but he was too cautious and too reluctant to take the fight to the other side when they made it clear that they were not going to play by gentleman's rules.

The financial crisis should have been a great opportunity to articulate an alternative vision for reformed capitalism, just as FDR did with the New Deal. Instead, they limited themselves to minor surgery to prop up the existing structure. Hillary Clinton had the same problem, even though much of the antipathy toward her is just ridiculous misogynism. As a result, the Dems came to be seen as the party of the status quo and left a vacuum for Trump to exploit with his faux-populist demogoguery.