Me. Voters with a conscious who don't think every statement is a tactic to outmaneuver the others in a media game but have actual real values. People who don't think truth is weakness and a vulnerability to expose but something to hold fast and be outspoken. People who choose to work with the slow uncomfortable reality rather than the fast life and death lottery of unfettered anything. I'll make it simple: all the solutions are boring. Sanders is boring. Working out is boring. We can chuck it all away and most people will make it, but more won't than if we're boring. And who doesn't make it won't be fair. Half will be obvious (decided by fascists) half will be random (whoever dies of whatever disease etc).
A : We live in an entertainment culture with attention spans shrinking like a dick in an ice bath, boring simply won't get eyeballs, won't be promoted doesn't work anymore, look at Republican primary of 2016 as an example, people don't have the attention or work ethic to slog away like you idealize. Like that kid in your thread, overwhelmed by cleaning up after himself but happy to spend hours lashing out at strangers online.
B : A boring slog towards progress sounds motivational and might even work
IF people had faith in systems & institutions, that if they worked hard they would be rewarded, that recycling their cans & paying a bit more for gas & doing community service would be worth it in the long run. But they don't have that trust. Maybe during JFK's time people could keep their heads down & work hard & be patient & ask what they could do for their country but that's light years away.
C : The people who think working out is boring don't work out. Anyone's who's successfully integrated fitness into their lives finds a way to make it fun in the moment or at least rewarding somehow (w tracking progress, pairing w music, caffeine, competing w their friends, whatever). People are utterly overwhelmed in today's world, even in the best of world's people have hard time prioritizing 'shoulds', you gotta find the reward inside and 'a little feeling inside that you're doing the right thing' doesn't cut it for most people most of the time.
The Democrats appeal to good, decent people. People who took on debt to learn to string complex sentences to understand real solvable problems that they know other people who aren't them face because they combine abstraction with empathy. People who will slow down their own convictions to account for their own biases. People who speak softly so that you can come to your own conclusions. But also educated enough to recognize Nazis the moment the arrive and ID them in public.
But there's great weakness in all of that as well. Speaking the truth softly, to all, while hesitating to check your bias, those are compensations against what works to mitigate damage. Mitigating damage is not an activity of construction. You who builds things DONALD TRUMP BUILDS WALLS. My dead great grandfather, meanwhile, is mitigating damage harder than anyway. DONALD TRUMP MAKES AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I got a bit lost about your grandpa but I think I understand your point that mitigating damage is not constructive. That's the issue w Dems is they're generally
ANTI. They're the ninny telling you to be careful, don't do that, don't say that, we could do that but it might go sideways and hurt a seal or someone's feelings. Trump is cracking eggs & making omelets consequences be damned. Action bias in action.
Beware anyone who defines themselves by what they are not. <- Most democrats afraid of criticism by other democrats or "leftists"
Better those who define themselves by who they are.
Best are those who define themselves by what the do. <- This is where we go from here.
What the left is is pretty blurry. Every thread about it there's people saying American left isn't really left (usually every 20 posts or so), even Bernie is a mild conservative meanwhile Repubs calling Harris a Marxist. Its a mess.
If we were a really efficient machine party, we would take in the RFKs whose media magnetism forces them to the table. Then we would give them the assignment of "do the thing you do that's actually cool" which is support healthy lifestyle changes.
And we would magically have a way to keep redirecting him positively instead of watching him crash all over into the chairperson in charge of of "do good disease science" as his ... personality.. demands he pick the fight while we've just amplified him with the other position.
Since we do not have the structure or leadership to manage that, he has to be kept out. As you put it, he does not help us achieve our goals aka cure diseases and have good medicine.
We're in a populist age and the Dems are not populist.