On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, SA wrote:
> In nuclear strategy, Paul Nitze used to propound the doctrine of
> "escalation dominance." If a crisis escalates, and each side fires its
> weapons, the chain of escalation will eventually reach a rung where one
> side runs out of weapons. That side will find itself disarmed and lose
> catastrophically. Knowing this in advance, it will seek to avoid
> confrontation from the beginning, and will always preemptively concede.
> I think the Democrats are in the position of the side with fewer
> weapons. For example, based on the poll I cited, the population seems to
> contain at least twice as many anti-compromise Republicans as
> anti-compromise Democrats. In that situation, it may well be prudent for
> Democrats to concede in advance.
Is it possible that escalation dominance as you sketch is simply the consequence, stretched on in time and in detail, of the original problem with the Dems: that they don't boil down their programme into a few strong resonant principles? But rather prefer a laundry list of details?
That is to say, perhaps the side with clearer principles is more willing to make a stand for them because it is clearer what they are making a stand for? And vice versa?
Michael