3 ms·

This is the old scaretactic of "I would vote left, but since you started all this crazy stuff, I see myself forced to vote the right". So if the "other side" m

This is the old scaretactic of "I would vote left, but since you started all this crazy stuff, I see myself forced to vote the right". So if the "other side" moderates itself somehow, this demand is never going to stop.

naasking 4y ago
> So if the "other side" moderates itself somehow, this demand is never going to stop. The demands for change never stop in democracy, that's how it works. The point PG is making is that if the mean on the left keeps shifting then they are by definition excluding and making enemies of people that were previously allies. If they stopped doing that, they could actually gain influence and start effecting change on real issues. This pathological behaviour of the left eating itself is why they're still marginalized. The other factor at play is that both parties in the US benefit financially from maintaining an almost equal balance of power. Each party holds up the other as the boogeyman to drive donations. Someone needs to get the money out of politics, at least via publicly funded elections. This is a left policy, and if the left could stop eating itself on other issues as described above, they could actually get it done.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  > if the mean on the left keeps shifting then they are by definition excluding and making enemies of people that were previously allies. Many of those are not allies and can be sabotaging the left, especially if they are vocal. > If they stopped doing that, they could actually gain influence and start effecting change on real issues. Don't kid yourself, those "real issues" would then get pushback too, and you would just have one slightly less conservative party. The demands never stop, which is a good thing, society must adapt to changes. If one side is against that, then that's also legitimate. But I don't have to regard the feelings of someone who is actively in favor of current social unfairnesses.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Don't kid yourself, those "real issues" would then get pushback too, and you would just have one slightly less conservative party. Sure, but at least then social issues wouldn't get dominated and perverted by capital.

naasking 4y ago

> So if the "other side" moderates itself somehow, this demand is never going to stop. The demands for change never stop in democracy, that's how it works. The point PG is making is that if the mean on the left keeps shifting then they are by definition excluding and making enemies of people that were previously allies. If they stopped doing that, they could actually gain influence and start effecting change on real issues. This pathological behaviour of the left eating itself is why they're still marginalized. The other factor at play is that both parties in the US benefit financially from maintaining an almost equal balance of power. Each party holds up the other as the boogeyman to drive donations. Someone needs to get the money out of politics, at least via publicly funded elections. This is a left policy, and if the left could stop eating itself on other issues as described above, they could actually get it done.

the_gipsy 4y ago
> if the mean on the left keeps shifting then they are by definition excluding and making enemies of people that were previously allies. Many of those are not allies and can be sabotaging the left, especially if they are vocal. > If they stopped doing that, they could actually gain influence and start effecting change on real issues. Don't kid yourself, those "real issues" would then get pushback too, and you would just have one slightly less conservative party. The demands never stop, which is a good thing, society must adapt to changes. If one side is against that, then that's also legitimate. But I don't have to regard the feelings of someone who is actively in favor of current social unfairnesses.
- naasking 4y ago
  > Don't kid yourself, those "real issues" would then get pushback too, and you would just have one slightly less conservative party. Sure, but at least then social issues wouldn't get dominated and perverted by capital.