[klipt]

Yes you could definitely make an argument that democrats benefit from poverty, or that republicans benefit from illegal immigration. People in poverty receiving benefits vote democrat because they're afraid republicans will cut benefits. People who fear illegal immigrants taking their jobs will vote republican because they think republicans will be tougher on illegal immigration. If democrats actually solved poverty or if republicans actually deported 100% of illegal immigrants, a lot of people would lose their reasons to vote for those parties.

Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.

[salawat]

>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.

You aborted your analysis too early. Getting Roe v. Wade overturned still benefits Republicans until such time as Legislation is successfully passed to outlaw abortion at all levels (i.e. State & Federal, though arguably we're talking Republican here, so one would think they'd content themselves with States). Only then would the "problem" be solved.

[jesushax]

You are completely correct, I didn't mean to argue against the Dems, just noting that I hear this critique raised against them a lot.

>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.

Indeed, the far-right has raised exactly this criticism of overturning Roe v Wade:

>If you have limited energy and a limited number of possible wins, it is important to focus your limited energy on one kind of win: wins that make future wins easier. By definition, these are the kinds of wins that augment your power. These are real wins. > >There is another kind of “win,” wins which expend your power in order to achieve some result you want. These are sometimes called “Pyrrhic victories.” Pyrrhus took the battlefield, but after the battle his chances of winning were reduced. His tactical “victory” was a strategic defeat.

Source: You can only lose the culture war (https://graymirror.substack.com/p/you-can-only-lose-the-cult...)

This kind of thinking isn't partisan, I think it describes the a problem that occurs with institutions in any society. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to be collectively vigilant against institutions succumbing to these tendencies. Which seems woefully inadequate.