3 ms·

For the life of me I cannot see why this article is written in a positive light. The result is pretty clear: Members of the two parties hate each other less in

by Daho0n 6y ago

For the life of me I cannot see why this article is written in a positive light. The result is pretty clear: Members of the two parties hate each other less in reality than they think they do and they are actually closer than they think. "Hey you know what? The two only real options we have in an election doesn't actually disagree as much as you'd think!" How is that a good thing? With only two options they better be far apart or those left-leaning on the right and those that are right-leaning on the left starts to blend together and you have one party in reality with two names and two outer wings that hate each others guts. At least as one party they might work better together (hah, okay sorry that was stupid).

livueta 6y ago
Yeah, an interesting implication of a lack of substantive policy differences is that policy-heavy partisans on either side are going to be disappointed - the necessities of tribalism generate a lot of noise and rage around controversial issues, but when it comes down to actual policy there's no appetite. I saw an interesting example of this first-hand last year. I live in a pretty bougie area, kind of place where everyone's car radio (and everyone owns a car) is pegged to the local NPR station. BLM signs went up like mushrooms - sure, neat. Then, the local school levy election rolls around. Most of the same properties grow "Vote Yes For Kids!" signs. We even get "vote yes" mailers explaining that since the state only funds "basic education", we've got to top up our local schools to do right by our kids. Of course, any discussion of how areas without fat property tax revenues get by is conspicuously absent. There is not a lot of appreciation of the irony of holding these positions simultaneously. Words (and yard signs, I guess) are cheap but policy might actually impact upper-middle-class WASP QoL; can't be having that.

by Daho0n 6y ago

livueta 6y ago

Yeah, an interesting implication of a lack of substantive policy differences is that policy-heavy partisans on either side are going to be disappointed - the necessities of tribalism generate a lot of noise and rage around controversial issues, but when it comes down to actual policy there's no appetite. I saw an interesting example of this first-hand last year. I live in a pretty bougie area, kind of place where everyone's car radio (and everyone owns a car) is pegged to the local NPR station. BLM signs went up like mushrooms - sure, neat. Then, the local school levy election rolls around. Most of the same properties grow "Vote Yes For Kids!" signs. We even get "vote yes" mailers explaining that since the state only funds "basic education", we've got to top up our local schools to do right by our kids. Of course, any discussion of how areas without fat property tax revenues get by is conspicuously absent. There is not a lot of appreciation of the irony of holding these positions simultaneously. Words (and yard signs, I guess) are cheap but policy might actually impact upper-middle-class WASP QoL; can't be having that.