Theres a logical fallacy (there's probably a name for it) where explanation is misconstrued for approval/complacency, which I hate for sure. Like providing more nuaced reasons Putin's actions result in being attacked as a Russian sympathizer.
However, I get the impulse because such explanations are often followed by weak-sauce proposals. Performance targets? More diverse senators in committee? Really?
In my eyes, showing the behavior as a robust, stable phenomenon from a confluence of different interest suggests more extreme action, like gutting the whole thing.
The trouble is that a durable set of interlocking interests generally makes change difficult, and gutting probably impossible, even if doing so would be ideal. That's partly why radical policy change rarely happens, or requires an incredible amount of popular mobilization that doesn't seem in the horizon for this issue.
Theres a logical fallacy (there's probably a name for it) where explanation is misconstrued for approval/complacency, which I hate for sure. Like providing more nuaced reasons Putin's actions result in being attacked as a Russian sympathizer.
However, I get the impulse because such explanations are often followed by weak-sauce proposals. Performance targets? More diverse senators in committee? Really?
In my eyes, showing the behavior as a robust, stable phenomenon from a confluence of different interest suggests more extreme action, like gutting the whole thing.
The trouble is that a durable set of interlocking interests generally makes change difficult, and gutting probably impossible, even if doing so would be ideal. That's partly why radical policy change rarely happens, or requires an incredible amount of popular mobilization that doesn't seem in the horizon for this issue.