[ralusek]

I don't think most of the people I listed are tame, I think they're "hard liberal" or "hard libertarian." One of the problems is that there are really 3 camps in most western countries at this point. There is

1.) the authoritarian left, which prioritizes racial and gendered identity, collectivism, equity, all facilitated by the state.

2.) the anti-authoritarian liberal, which prioritizes individual liberty, universality under the law, accountability and self-determination.

3.) the authoritarian right, which prioritizes tradition and national identity.

An extreme person in any of these camps would not result in "great people." I do not think that the left's collectivization of society along racial and gendered lines is "great." I do not think the left's conviction in its moral superiority and subsequent willingness to censor and deplatform is "great." I do not think that the left's disassociation of merit and value in pursuit of arbitrary equity is "great." These are very dangerous things. Radical leftism is responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

[low_poly_shiba]

I suppose your own bias aside, these roughly map to

- AOC/Sanders

- Obama/Clinton

- Bush/Trump

? I'm not american but it's no contest I'm "authoritarian left", I guess. If "universal health care" is authoritarian, sign me up.

[camdenlock]

Is it possible that a group/party can offer something you find very agreeable, like universal healthcare, while simultaneously being dedicated to installing unrelated authoritarian policies?

[low_poly_shiba]

I don't think so. Got any examples?

Any "national socialist" that tried to couple free healthcare with racist ideas about who gets it would be making a mockery of "universal", for example.

There's probably a good reason why health care/women's rights/pacifism/environmentalism all go hand in hand, something to do with compassion and one's idea of where hierarchies come from.