Scott argues that Trump supporters and conservative-aligned people who push back on bad administration policies should be supported rather than pressured to publicly denounce Trump, as they're often the only ones who can effectively prevent worse outcomes. Longer summary

Scott argues that Trump administration officials who maintain credibility with the administration while pushing back on bad policies are a valuable resource that should be supported rather than condemned. He explains how the Trump administration ignores liberal criticism but sometimes listens to loyal Republicans and Trump supporters, making these 'thoughtful collaborators' crucial for preventing worse outcomes. The post defends people who work within conservative institutions or refrain from publicly denouncing Trump while privately working to improve policy, arguing that demanding they explicitly condemn the administration would eliminate their effectiveness. Scott addresses concerns about collaboration legitimizing the administration by noting that voters are too uninformed and polarized for policy details to significantly affect political outcomes, making the real-world benefits of good policy more important than theoretical electoral effects. Shorter summary

Scott examines claims that political parties should focus on base turnout rather than appealing to moderates, finding evidence that extreme candidates decrease turnout and swing voters matter. Longer summary

This post analyzes the claim that political parties should focus on turning out their base rather than appealing to moderates. Scott examines research and data on voter behavior, finding that extreme candidates tend to decrease turnout for their own party and that swing voters can be decisive in close elections. He concludes that the evidence does not support the 'win-by-extremism-turning-out-the-base' argument. While acknowledging that non-centrist candidates like Trump can win, Scott argues this is by appealing to new coalitions rather than just moving to ideological extremes. The post evaluates academic studies, exit polls, and analysis by political commentators to reach these conclusions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Republicans' failure to achieve smaller government despite holding power contributes to increased polarization and the election of more extreme candidates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a factor contributing to increased polarization among Republicans. He argues that despite Republican control of various levels of government, they have failed to achieve their stated goals of smaller government, fewer regulations, and a reduced welfare state. Scott presents graphs showing growth in government spending, regulations, and welfare spending over time. He suggests this failure is due to secular trends that make everything more expensive, requiring more government spending and regulation. However, Republican voters, unaware of these underlying factors, perceive this as betrayal by their elected officials. This leads to a cycle of electing increasingly extreme candidates who promise to be 'real' Republicans, resulting in hyperpartisanship and refusal to compromise. Scott notes that this is a general issue when people have unrealistic expectations, leading to rejection of existing governments in favor of extremism. Shorter summary