What's fascinating here is the use of the word "strong." I would say a party that has achieved an amazing constitutional revolution of overturning a 50 year old decision, an achievement that took a focused movement overturning norms over decades, is "strong."https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1523812812434329602 …
-
-
The question is whether you think that the party ought be strong as an organization in itself, or a shell for powerful outside groups. The Rosenfeld/Schlozman argument, as I understand it is that neither the Democrats or Republicans are the former, and it’s bad for democracy.
-
I suppose my thinking on this is that parties exist on behalf of members (unevenly of course) and members can't be expected to subsume themselves to parties. I mean that view of parties makes no sense to me.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.