I don’t think anyone does as a general rule. I’ve always seen the ideal of politics as compromise negotiated for the betterement of that country. Yeah, I am that naive, LOL.
Viewing it from the outside (I got no team affiliation. I don’t even vote.) the withdrawal of cooperation is a heavy weapon, to be used only in emergencies, such as when orders of dubious legality are issued hastily by someone who is woefully unprepared and inexperienced and who then immediately dismisses the person who’s job it is to act as a check and balance.
It’s the nuclear option. Something of last resort. Ignoring the fact that one side has been happy to use this option at will for the last few years, just leaving that aside… do you think that, when negotiations aren’t possible, when compromise is not an option and when the checks and balances built into a system are being dismantled…
Do you think it’s a good idea to prevent further damage being done by withdrawing all cooperation?
I think that one reason why it’s seen as an equivalent is because of the way that option been used previously. Rather than a stand to prevent further harm until at least things settle and shake down a bit, it looks like tit-for-tat politicking.
It don;t think it’s anyone’s ideal situation to see things come down to this. But what other option is there? Sometimes, if you’re trying to hold back a tidal wave of crap, you’re gonna get some on you. 
