Almost any political policy change can be framed as partisan entrenchment.

Evidence

Imagine the position of a court charged with policing against partisan entrenchment through labor law. On the one hand, an expansive and protective labor statute might be viewed as entrenching Democrats because it facilitates the growth of unions, which in turn support Democratic candidates. On the other hand, a restrictive and punitive labor statute might be viewed as entrenching Republicans. From the perspective of a status quo ante baseline, any change in labor law could be viewed as entrenchment because one party or the other will likely benefit politically. Even no change in labor law might be viewed as entrenching, if the decision to do nothing were cast as refusing or failing to enact some salient proor anti-labor policy. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 419

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: This is the crux for the reader’s theory: entrenchment is not an objective feature of a law but a fractal, frame-dependent property — which explains why entrenchment claims themselves become ideological weapons rather than stable triggers for dismantlement.
• QUESTION: If nearly every policy change counts as entrenchment under some baseline, does the concept of entrenchment itself become unfalsifiable? This bears directly on what makes an anti-entrenchment ideology sticky.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s interest in institutional persistence and path dependence — a court that keeps every status quo is itself embedding whichever ideology happened to be entrenched last. — connects to: Seemingly substantive policy domains conceal underlying partisan self-entrenchment battles. — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 536

Broader Connections

• Seemingly substantive policy domains conceal underlying partisan self-entrenchment battles. #expands (0.85) — Daryl Levinson and Benjamin I. Sachs, Political Entrenchment and Public Law, 536