On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> 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?
I have solved this problem forever: the Dems are a party of capital that is forced for electoral reasons to pretend otherwise on occasion. That's why they always look weak and full of shit.
Doug