"I think this—and so many other reactions I’ve seen and others like Salena Zito have well documented and categorized—is largely because of one fault Democrats have. Progressives who hold to the ideal that power dynamics and persecution are to be praised and idolized find themselves on a merry-go-round of denouncement. One day, it’s woman power, and the next, TERFs are evil succubi. One day, Jews are expected to vote Democrat, and the next, Jews and Israel are the entire problem with the world."
Meanwhile we have a Missouri Senate candidate advocating for hunting members of his own party[1]. Now, to be fair to Greitens (which is more than that creep deserves), I do think that the video is in jest, but Republicans seem to be as eager and adept at shooting in a circle as Democrats, as well as rewriting their history as well. I submit that the hatred you think voters have for busybody Democrats is probably spread a bit more evenly between both parties than this being a Democratic-specific phenomenon.
Chris and Steve are both correct. Pair of pants have two legs. Both of you adept at approaching the subject from differing perspectives. Probably should have collaborated on a post on this subject.
Related to Steve's point on the Left's Villains of the Week, Politico has an interesting article[1] about the conflict not being a Leftists vs. Centrists, but Lumpers (folks pushing for comprehensive change) vs. Splitters (folks who believe that progress can happen on separate independent tracks):
"The fight is becoming bitter. On one side are people who believe in what can be thought of as a unified field theory of political and social change. Diverse issues, from climate change to abortion rights to racial equity, are seen as intimately interwoven, and progress on one priority will only be achieved with simultaneous progress on other fronts. On the other side are people who don’t much buy this theory — and roll their eyes impatiently at theoretical arguments of any sort if they stand in the way of practical results on the specific issues they care most urgently about."
"One way to think of the contest roiling the progressive movement is between 'lumpers' and 'splitters.' The lumpers see American society in need of a sustained and comprehensive overhaul, and are wary of people, even potential allies, who don’t share this synoptic worldview. A core assumption is a commitment to 'intersectionality' — the concept that contemporary power arrangements reflect historic and overlapping patterns of discrimination on grounds of race, class and gender and that progress on specific issues must include challenging the underlying power structure."
"The splitters prefer to take one issue at a time, and are happy to accept an ally on, say, climate change or gun control, even if that person doesn’t share their views on abortion rights or how to remedy systemic police violence against Black people. In their view the choice isn’t sweeping progress versus incremental gains. It is incremental gains versus no progress at all."
There seems to be a similar thing happening within the GOP where you could plausibly substitute "#MAGA" for "intersectionality" and see the same kinds of conflicts playing out in the Republican party.
(And I'm done threadjacking for the day. Thanks for your patience with me!)
"I think this—and so many other reactions I’ve seen and others like Salena Zito have well documented and categorized—is largely because of one fault Democrats have. Progressives who hold to the ideal that power dynamics and persecution are to be praised and idolized find themselves on a merry-go-round of denouncement. One day, it’s woman power, and the next, TERFs are evil succubi. One day, Jews are expected to vote Democrat, and the next, Jews and Israel are the entire problem with the world."
Meanwhile we have a Missouri Senate candidate advocating for hunting members of his own party[1]. Now, to be fair to Greitens (which is more than that creep deserves), I do think that the video is in jest, but Republicans seem to be as eager and adept at shooting in a circle as Democrats, as well as rewriting their history as well. I submit that the hatred you think voters have for busybody Democrats is probably spread a bit more evenly between both parties than this being a Democratic-specific phenomenon.
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/6/21/23177718/eric-greitens-missouri-senate-campaign-ad-rinos
Chris and Steve are both correct. Pair of pants have two legs. Both of you adept at approaching the subject from differing perspectives. Probably should have collaborated on a post on this subject.
Related to Steve's point on the Left's Villains of the Week, Politico has an interesting article[1] about the conflict not being a Leftists vs. Centrists, but Lumpers (folks pushing for comprehensive change) vs. Splitters (folks who believe that progress can happen on separate independent tracks):
"The fight is becoming bitter. On one side are people who believe in what can be thought of as a unified field theory of political and social change. Diverse issues, from climate change to abortion rights to racial equity, are seen as intimately interwoven, and progress on one priority will only be achieved with simultaneous progress on other fronts. On the other side are people who don’t much buy this theory — and roll their eyes impatiently at theoretical arguments of any sort if they stand in the way of practical results on the specific issues they care most urgently about."
"One way to think of the contest roiling the progressive movement is between 'lumpers' and 'splitters.' The lumpers see American society in need of a sustained and comprehensive overhaul, and are wary of people, even potential allies, who don’t share this synoptic worldview. A core assumption is a commitment to 'intersectionality' — the concept that contemporary power arrangements reflect historic and overlapping patterns of discrimination on grounds of race, class and gender and that progress on specific issues must include challenging the underlying power structure."
"The splitters prefer to take one issue at a time, and are happy to accept an ally on, say, climate change or gun control, even if that person doesn’t share their views on abortion rights or how to remedy systemic police violence against Black people. In their view the choice isn’t sweeping progress versus incremental gains. It is incremental gains versus no progress at all."
There seems to be a similar thing happening within the GOP where you could plausibly substitute "#MAGA" for "intersectionality" and see the same kinds of conflicts playing out in the Republican party.
(And I'm done threadjacking for the day. Thanks for your patience with me!)
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/23/the-new-battles-roiling-the-left-00041627