3 ms·
> The fact that it is possible for things to be different doesn't imply that they are Right, so let's stop talking of theoretical possibilities and look at con
by hackuser 10y ago
> The fact that it is possible for things to be different doesn't imply that they are
Right, so let's stop talking of theoretical possibilities and look at concrete reality. I don't know of the last time a party embraced ideology as strongly as today's GOP; anyone who doesn't see that will never see ideology anywhere - it hardly could get more extreme.
> I do think there are very large segments of both that are almost entirely ideological, and that, unfortunately, these subgroups often take most of the limelight.
Again, a false equivalence IMHO. Which very large, limelight-stealing Democrat group are you referring to? Hillary Clinton supporters were the largest group; she's almost the opposite of ideological. Obama and his supporters are very non-ideological. The participants in last Saturday's marches were generally non-ideological, AFAICT.
- dwaltrip 10y agoI agree with you that the Republicans are more ideological in recent years. It's late, so I don't have the best examples, but I have a vague impression that there has been an increase of single-dimension, with-us-or-against-us identity politics. Perhaps I'm mistaking noisy for large. Even still, many of these groups do have legitimate claims... Reflecting a bit, I suppose one main reason I posted was that I didn't like the implication that the mainstream left has become enlightened past the point of ideology. But perhaps that point is too much of a distraction in this conversation. Meh. Btw, not that it should matter, but I lean left and voted for both Obama and Hillary.
- hackuser 10y ago> I didn't like the implication that the mainstream left has become enlightened past the point of ideology I agree. It's not that the mainstream left is so great and above reproach, it's that their right-wing competition has embraced madness.