Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy the 'both sides' POV except in the longest historical view. Right now it's just not true. One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago, and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet. It's just not the same.
>One team is a feckless collection of timid hesitators who is trying to defend a social welfare policy from 70 years ago What is this referring to? >and the other team believes their volatile leader is infallible and will direct revenge at whatever they are pointed to by the latest 3am tweet. >It's just not the same. What does this have to do with gp's claim about cycle of reprisals by both parties? It can be simulta…
The cycle-of-reprisals is a separate point. In a two-party system, transfer of power means change. The minority party will always paint that as reprisal, so if you judge by who-complains-the-loudest, they will look the same. The churn of claims and counter-claims by politicians in the media has become a game with very predictable behaviors.
But if you look at actions, IMO they behave very differently.