We have a fundamental problem on the broader left in the USA which is squeamishness. Y’all got to put that aside for this plan to work.
We are very affected by the people we spend time with. If we adopt conservatives into our friend groups they will be moved. So will we, but there’s more of us, so they’ll be moved more, and that’s more important since electorally they have a minority advantage given the federalist system so we need to move them a lot for very basic and not even very left wing changes need to be made (climate, tax code, industry reregulation, government programs etc)
I don't think you even have to do that deliberately, say
seek out a conservative. It's natural to know people from different backgrounds and with different political leanings. You have to lead a pretty sheltered life for that not to happen.
How much of the divide "liberals versus conservatives" there is created by one group defining the boundaries of the other, rather than defining its own? Is the typical conservative really big on, say, industry deregulation, or only against "big government"? Because these are different things, but the "liberal" group does not notice this and fails to advance its agenda. Perhaps because the liberal group also does not have a clear goal, they want regulation but do not invest the time to decide
which regulation, among the many possible ways of setting up and enforcing rules... I recall the health care issue, arguably the most pressing social and political issue to be decided there. I don't think that most people called "conservatives" are happy with the status quo. But the "liberals" have failed to unite around a genuine solution to the problem so far. At least they seem to be fighting about solutions now, so there is hope...
My own opinion is that agendas are being manipulated from the top anyway, through the media, to deny space for real arguments about the very important
details. No better way to achieve that than to turn issues into a circus of us versus them,
radicalizing positions so much that people invest their energy in the "good fight", rather than analyze the details of policies. But do notice that it's
phony radicalism, because it keeps moving in a distracted manner: today it is about the president allegedly being a traitor, but the radicals who claim to believe that are unwilling to act out consequently; tomorrow about democracy being at risk but (recalling the brexit clown show) the radicals who claim to believe that refuse to have an election... granted, some of these dramas take a few months to play out and die, but you get the idea.
Is it intentional, this promotion of phony divisions? Or is it just because this circus became the bread of the media and its employees? I don't know. But it turns out that it pays more for those in power to have their adversaries and their allies united around two
poles, that to have people divided and risk constant questioning of the present order. Political "anarchy" is much harder to
manage than the simple bipartisan divides.
I think you have the right aim, but you're fighting big windmills as things stand now...
I wasn't going to elaborate, but ended up wring: the root cause imo is that we're living through an era of cynicism. People claim to passionately believe a number of things but play it as a game. The vast, vast majority, don't really
do, not enough to act, and that is valid for both sides on the cultural-political divides.
Live is comfortable enough still that playing at these divisions gives people the sense of social involvement and some kind of accomplishment without too many sacrifices. This is also the reason why all the talk achieves so little and is not much threatening. No impending civil war. But no improvements either. So long as cynicism holds. And cynicism is itself a defense reaction to the impression that one is too small to do anything relevant. The issues are too large, the polity is too large. The hopey-changey candidate there betrayed his voters, the orange one afterwards campaigned and won on
cynicism itself. I fear you'll have to wait for another generation to grow up in order to escape this situation, this one is burnt. That or some unforeseen shock.
Cal me a cynic. I'll say that sometimes patience is a necessity.
I don't know you, you don't know me. We might know other forumites better, sure. But the judgement is easily conflated in both cases. Likewise, I don't take it personally, it's just puzzling.
fair play, but consider the following: conservatives primary (only?) defense of the inhumane border camps where CHILDREN HAVE DIED is the perfect antonym of empathy: "They broke the law!" As if, in doing so - nonviolently - they permanently cede all human rights and human dignity. They don't even think of it as a bad thing. "They broke the law! That's what they get!"
