The biggest problem with the article is that it completely ignores how the GOP got here. How is this hypothetical party going to win enough votes to be relevant?
I can see a future where the Democrats absorb folks who are this kind of conservative. In fact, I don’t see much difference between what they’re advocating and what, say, Paul Krugman advocates. And maybe there’s a future where the Democrats capture enough of the country’s vote that tribalism becomes less important and people can associate more by ideology than through cultural signifiers. Maybe then, the rump right would be marginalized to such a degree that the existence of these centrist folks inside the Democratic party would open up space on the left. (It’s much more likely for the left to split away from Democrats than for a separate party to coalesce from the center.) But the new centrist Democrats would include basically every national-known figure you currently associate with the Democratic intelligentsia: every Democratic Senator, nearly every pundit, every economist and political scientist. Bernie Sanders might become part of the New Socialist Party, but he’d be their right flank.
Yeah, the scenario being suggested as a possible outcome is less of a “Some Democrats join a new GOP”, and more “The democrats just split into two parties, having ultimately won.”
Right. I wonder then, what distinguishes the folks from Chait’s article from current mainstream Democrats? It didn’t strike me that the article was about them seeing the light and realizing that Democrats have been right all this time and that they should become Democrats. It seems like they’re holding onto their self-identification as conservatives and believe that they represent some kind of middle ground between Democrats and the rabidly seething mass of people we call Republicans. What do they offer then? Why are we talking about them? Krugman’s already been saying everything they are, for decades. I mean I’m glad that they’re not insane anymore, and I welcome them, but other than a pat on the head, what else do they want?
Sounds like they want to be Democrats but not be called Democrats. Because Democrats are evil. Haven’t you heard?
You might like this article, because I think (though it is a gut feeling, it’s not like you can “prove” this stuff) that it gives the reasons for some of the issues you raise.
A lot of what you see as difficulty admitting errors is really, in my opinion (along with this article) that a lot of conservatives simply do not want change. And they will evidence seek (and often simply evidence ignore) anything that helps them avoid that change.
Like it’s pretty fucking clear that climate change is real. But 'Murica has always been about excessive use of fossil fuel. Changing that is scary. Change is scary. So instead, we’ll just pretend all of the things saying we should change are wrong.
I see that in so many other areas as well. And frankly, I understand it. I was raised in a small town, in a rural area of a flyover state. There is very much a hardboiled (if not really consciously noticed) mindset that tends to harshly react to anything different. Without much thought of whether different is good or not - just it being different leads to much more suspicion that it does in other more metropolitan areas. I think that is a thing for conservatives in general. Hell, even the word “conservative” says that by its very nature.
I think they work be on the rightmost edge of Democrats, or perhaps more correctly, the large part of voters who don’t choose to identify as Democrats (even though they vote with them). I suspect they care more about certain liberties like gun rights than the core of the Democratic party (so more in line with Democrats from rural areas). I suspect they may place more importance on national defense than.
Ultimately, the rise of this division in the Democratic party would just be just the final step in the overall political spectrum of the US shifting to the left.
I don’t know. Moving from fossil fuels to green energy is not “difficult” change. It affects way less than 1% of the populace and will mean more jobs and cleaner air/water/land.
I think what it is, is you have half of America screaming, “You can’t tell me what to do!” while they rig their pickup trucks to spew black smoke out their exhaust pipes (I wish I were being facetious, but they literally do this).
I truly think because green sector initiatives tend to be Democrat initiatives, Republicans are going to to hate it like you’re trying to pour poison down their throats. In essence, it’s petty tribalism.
But I think you’re missing the point of the article/study. The change is difficult for these people. Because mom and dad always drove giant oversized cars, and gave no thought to fuel consumption, or water consumption, or any consumption. So why should they have to?
They don’t like change. They literally see things as they were as their worldview. Change, even if it is harmless, is effectively changing their belief in what their culture, society, and worldview is. That is threatening to them.
It does not matter if it is easy to do (though I think, having switched to taking the bus to work myself, that you make it out to be a bit easier than it is). What matters is that it is change to the fixed order. That’s the article’s point. They have fixed mindsets. A fixed mindset literally is their worldview.
That just sounds like they’re selfish assholes who don’t want to share. These are the same kind of idiots who moved to the Arizona desert from 1990-2000 to grow rice and fruit, who are now mad they may have to grow less profitable crops because they drained the water table to nothing and there’s no reservoir water left. These are the same people who will scream the loudest when we have an energy crisis and driving to work costs as much as their Hummer payment. It’s not about change, it’s just about “me first” - being wholly self-absorbed and self-centered. I think this is why the “America First” tagline works with them. It speaks to their selfishness and narcissism. “Me me me me me me”.
I can throw so many things in here. We used to have affordable college, we used to pay decent tax amounts, we used to have affordable healthcare, rich used to pay their taxes… all these things changed for the worse. who was the primary driver behind it? Who is the primary driver behind other forced changes that are negative for this country like destroying Constitutional separation of church and state, forcing creationism into the classroom. All these things are drastic changes from the old ways, yet they’re not afraid to do it there.
When it comes down to it. It’s really just about being selfish because the changes they discuss are selective.
Well said, @jpinard.
I tend to agree that the left is more likely to split off than anything else. As much as we all enjoy being effectively forced to support the Vichy Left against the fucking nihilism cult that is the literal entire GOP, an actual party that reflected our values would be swell.
In a two-party system, each party moves as the center moves. The real long-term harm of the Reagan Revolution was to move the center to the right, which forced the Dems to move to the right, which then forced the Reps to move even more rightward. I don’t think a substantial third party is viable in our system, so I don’t really think it’s likely that we’ll ever have a party of the right, a party of the center, and a party of the left. The goal is to shift popular perception of where the center is. Shift it left, and the Reps will move left, and the Dems will move further left.
You’re right, of course.
The solution becomes obvious: amputate the crazified 27% as a doctor regretfully removes a gangrenous limb.
Or fix it, maybe with some awesome cybernatics with like lasers and shit.
Course then we just end up with Cybermen.
Ugh. We really are doomed, aren’t we?
The good news is that it has worked. Medicare for all, or some similar public option, is an idea that now has majority popular support. Before Obama, it was a loony left idea, now it is the center.
Other leftist ideas that enjoy majority support: job guarantee, public internet, gun regulation, increasing legal immigration and easing the path to citizenship, more progressive taxation, stiffer banking and financial regulation.
Yeah, seems like if we let the right destroy the country, suddenly people like leftist ideas.
Yeah but I feel like I’ve seen that show before. The GOP ran the country off a cliff in 2007/8 but just a few years of stability and steady economic growth later, they’re even more radical and took control of every branch of government.
Bothsiding is why. We gotta keep the blame on the Republicans forever- Trump needs to be a 40-yr albatross for them the way Carter was for Dems.
But any time the media dares be slightly critical of republican policy they get accused of being rampant leftists, which hurts them in heir feels man! They have to fight against this accusation by exceeding deference to GOP platforms, and running every Dem scandal into the ground!