This may be what you believe the author of the article believes, but it isn't what the article actually says. Its message is that the *Democrats* are the lesser evil because they are able to co-opt progressives. Whereas with the Democrats out of power, rank and file Democrats can be co-opted into resistance, broadening the resistance. It argues that resistance will be more effective without the Democrats in power because of this.
There is nothing there about resistance being stronger because things will be objectively worse, in fact I recall it suggesting that things will be objectively better, mainly because the Republicans could not hope to get away with some of the things the Democrats do, both domestically and internationally. In other words, the Republicans are better because their strategy of open confrontation and no pretense of being a friend of progressive causes is less effective. It gave some examples.
So you seem to be simply ignoring the actual analysis and transposing another position entirely onto this article. But perhaps I missed something, can you quote any part of the article which says what you suggest it it saying?
>This model exists largely in heads of armchair revolutionaries and has no
>shred of empirical support in social science.
But, to my eyes, the author is saying no such thing.
> In fact, evidence point in
>the other direction - rebellion is most likely in situations when things are
>getting decidedly better but not quickly enough. The betterment of the
>human condition raises the expectations and leads people to believe
>everything is possible, the slow progress irritates them and prompts them to
>act. Another reason: any social movement for a change needs material
>resources and these are difficult to procure when things are going down -
>people are more likely to use them for their own protection rather than to
>advance a common good (that pesky free-rider problem). When things are
>getting better, however, more resources can be directed toward broader
>political goals.
There is a lot of truth in that. But that isn't relevant to this article, since "worse is better" isn't what the article argues.
>Another reason is my total disgust with the cretinous sermons that there are
>no differences between political parties and candidates, and that we need to
>elect a new set of men (sometimes women) to change things for the better.
The argument was that the Democrats were objectively worse, not that there was no difference.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas