I don't believe in 'side-ism'. A crackdown on the GOP would be a benefit for the rule of law while it still being in a perilous position, while a crackdown on the DNC is very a much a prelude to destroy the idea of rule of law altogether.
Destroying the opposition isn't obviously bad. Referencing side-ism implies that removing all the nazis from your government is a bad thing because it gives non-nazis unchecked anti-nazi political power. I view that as a good thing if the definition of nazi reflects reality (like in germany) rather than unreality (like russia/urkaine).
It's bad. It's what turns a democracy into a dictatorship. And it's always for "good reasons" (by labeling the opposition as Nazi's/corrupt/criminals/etc.).
Now China was never a democracy, but the CCP was not monolithic and was somewhat democratic within the party itself -- except that is now gone.
I disagree here and I don't think it's a point we'll agree on.
Sometimes the label matches. There have been 4 people in high GOP positions who have sieg heiled. They aren't being labeled Nazis, they are objectively and factually Nazis. Germany's crackdown on the AFD is a response to power seizures/white supremacy in America. The GOP strategy writers literally wrote "there will be a revolution and it will be bloodless if the left allows it to be." There has very much been a declaration of "us or them", and that's not the type of thing that can be tolerated. You can't say "yes we'll work together with people who have said it's us or them."
Likewise your argument becomes a defense for pervasive systemic corruption, because the defense is no longer "we aren't corrupt," but "they're attacking us because we're the opposition, this is a power grab."
The gridlock that is a direct result of lack of corruption enforcement "because that would be a political power grab" became the mandate to overthrow the old establishment/ignore the constitution. What is happening in America right now is most influenced of all people by Merrick Garland who failed to prosecute a criminal because he was worried about enforcing the law against politicians which turns the justice system into a political weapon.
Unfortunately a weapon is just a weapon, it is a completely amoral object that amplifies the morality of it's wielder. Police officers carry weapons. It is not the weapon or that a weapon was used, but what the weapon is used to achieve that is worth analyzing.
That's the problem with side-ism, it implies that there are two equal sides with equal legitimacy and equal ability with equal strategies.
Game theory is deeply relevant, because on the two ends of the political spectrum are the cooperators (liberals) and people who think they should defect if they are able to win by doing so (conservatives). Conservatives don't cooperate when they should, and liberals don't defect when they should, and that's how those ideologies largely fail. Conservatives end up power grabbing (which is what I believe you're largely speaking in reference to) and creating dictatorship, while liberals fail to power grab and create dictatorship by ceding power.
I try to be internally consistent, and I don't think I am here. I guess communism is written in my head as an authoritarian movement, but it is re-distributive and comes with a message of cooperation as a means of gaining political mandate. In my post history I definitely state that communism is a pitstop on the way to authoritarianism and can't sustain itself as an ideology, because those who get themselves into a position of re-distributive power tend to choose to redistribute to themselves. This contradicts my post.
On one hand you have people that are incapable of acting in their own best interest because of ignorance/illiteracy, which is largely the Chinese argument that justifies authoritarianism, which I find compelling because America is living through that right now. On the other you have authoritarians that are incapable of acting in any interest other than their own, while simultaneously no one is able to veto obviously bad decisions.
I think my problem with "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is that it says you should not seek out power because it will corrupt you, and I think that is a message that predators wish their prey to internalize.
Parents being authoritarians to their children is not automatically bad, although there is clearly good parental behavior and bad parental behavior, and I think the analysis of the behavior is much more interesting than the status as authoritarian, especially under current global conditions.
I don't believe in 'side-ism'. A crackdown on the GOP would be a benefit for the rule of law while it still being in a perilous position, while a crackdown on the DNC is very a much a prelude to destroy the idea of rule of law altogether.
Destroying the opposition isn't obviously bad. Referencing side-ism implies that removing all the nazis from your government is a bad thing because it gives non-nazis unchecked anti-nazi political power. I view that as a good thing if the definition of nazi reflects reality (like in germany) rather than unreality (like russia/urkaine).