It heavily depends on what kind of creative interpretations of the law you think are reasonable.

Democrats often go for “creative” interpretations that fit the existing legal framework just fine. Defining CO2 as pollution is upsetting for what it does but is within the spirit of what the law was intended and fits what it actually says just fine. Much of the civil rights movement operated on such principles because the laws where on the books it was the systems that didn’t keep up.

Republicans tend to find creative interpretations that depend on ill defined principles like executive power or corporate personhood which have about as much to do with the actual law as sovereign citizens and are open to unlimited abuse.

Failing to differentiate between each type of interpretation misses the inherent limitations of the first type.

Scale matters enormously, and scale is the difference.

> Party politics is a disease.

On that we agree.

You could be right, though I do think that we can't say for sure until they (i.e. non-corporatists) actually get a shot. What we can say is that the US is in this mess after nominating corporate dems for decades and asking for people to vote for the "least bad" option. Watching interviews with working class who voted Obama and now Trump shows that this is a core reason. Yet online there's still a huge number of people advocating for repeating the same thing expecting different results.

I think one reason why this is especially bad in the US is because of its cultural optimism, which inherently leads to extreme shorttermism. People are vouching to support Clinton/Biden/Harris/... because of blind optimism that somehow after 4 years thing will get better, to an extent of willingly completely ignoring the previous decades and somewhere deep down knowing that doing it is probably worse in the long term.