Reply #46: Seems to me that party apologists misconstrue criticism for hammering...

[LooseWilly]

"If your only implement is a nail, then all your solutions involve a hammer" ~ give or take

If the administration's policies and behaviors are assumed to be right and above reproach, by definition, then all the rank and file of the party will, perforce, be reduced to cheerleader/spectator status.

If, on the other hand, the administration's policies were potentially flexible enough to process criticisms/complaints and put into practice modifications of policies to address those criticisms/complaints that are judged to be important to the rank and file... then the rank and file might feel that they are participating in their self-governance, which is a cornerstone of a democratic system of government.

Those who try to spin criticisms based on concrete policy decisions as 'hammering', and who, rather than addressing the policies instead try to brow-beat and guilt-trip those doing the criticism into sitting politely on the side-lines, or joining in the metaphorical cheerleading, are in fact a threat to democracy.

Why don't we all step up our game and address the validity of the 'hammered hard' points from a policy perspective, rather than pretending that we're just spectators at a sporting event?