Does AOC's attack on Honest Joe make you more or less likely to support her?

[Hortensis]

116. We jprobably have a hundred ideologies, at least. But

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2020, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

humanity has two main personality types -- liberal and conservative. (Libertarian may be a small third; they lack altruism and they glorify this lack, making them very unlike liberals and conservatives.)

I'm sorry but, the notion that our party has "the centrist wing (Obama/Clinton/Biden) and the progressive wing (Sanders/Warren)" is not correct. It's propaganda pushed by a smaller farther left faction who want to be seen as far more numerous and representative than they are. Also as "the only true progressives," which is just plain an outrageous lie to deceive. Both conceits are also pushed by hostile RW press to style Democrats as more extreme than we are, and of course as hopelessly divided and warring.

Progressivism: Liberals and the democracy liberals above all created are intrinsically progressive. You know, as Lincoln described it: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." "All people are created equal" is the quintessence of liberalism. The right to vote and "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are liberal bases in our constitution and Declaration of Independence for progressive government that everyone's familiar with. There are others.

We the people get to say what we need from our government, not an authoritarian elite: pure progressive liberalism. Every progressive advance in our nation's history was the work of liberal progressives, often but not always joined by conservative progressives (who are effectively defunct themselves these days, but no doubt they'll be reborn someday).

To illustrate who's who in our party, Democrats have currently elected 235 Democrats to the house. 200 or more are liberals, 27 blue dog conservatives, and an uncounted handful of farther-lefties, dissident against the liberal majority but actually a liberal variation.

Our 200ish liberals are divided into two major ideological caucuses who, being liberals, share almost all goals. One, the "New Dems" (post-midterms count 103) is generally inclined to smaller, more guaranteed steps to achieve goals, including more cooperation with others. The "Progressive Caucus" (post-midterms count 98) believes in stronger action, pushing to achieve more and sooner, and is less inclined to cooperation with conservatives but critically important, still cooperative, as liberals are.

Again, both caucuses are liberal, and some members align with both groups because the disagreements tend to be in how, how much to go for and give up, and how soon rather than ideology. The press try to portray these as schisms, but even the much inflated noise around universal healthcare is all about universal healthcare.

The dissident handful of course tries to claim the Progressive Caucus as their own, but they're not.
Members of the liberal Progressive Caucus and the liberal New Dems Coalition are completely unconfused about who creates progressive action (Democrats) and who tries to destroy it (GOP).

As for rendering anyone defunct, that can't happen. Again with the house as an example, a handful can't render over 200 liberals representing the vast liberal majority of voters defunct. Nor can 27 conservatives.

In the dissident corner, those wired to opposition are always with us too, and joining the party and developing their own leaders just firms up their differences. After all, if opposition groups agreed with the majority, they'd lose their identity, their reason for existence, and their leaders their stature. Notably, LW dissidents have tried to start their own parties a number of times, but parties made up of dissident types have always fallen apart. One guess why.