[event-horizon]

"I understand why so many of us want to believe in the political spectrum—it makes politics simple and gives us the illusion that our party’s beliefs have an underlying (and righteous) philosophical coherence—but it’s time to face up to the facts. “Right-wing” and “left-wing” are little more than tribal designations."

While i understand where the author is heading with this, i think that a departure from left-wing/right-wing language for any individual would not be reflected in the political reality that one of two parties (which broadly allign to left or right) will wield power in the foreseeable future. So we neccesarily fall back into the "tribes".

Im not convinced that changing the map at an individual level changes the terrain here.

[dig6x]

I suppose rather than shaping the nature of party politics itself it would change how the narrative of either party is shaped. The party can't rely on pandering to extreme realities and perhaps a more complex voter will compel more thoughtful leadership? This does sound like a bit of a stretch however.

[event-horizon]

Yeah, at scale i feel the individual who insists on nuance and plurality in policy is sacrificed for the sake of the larger masses who are willing to take on more tribalistic positions.

I don't think this is so far from today's reality. How often have you disagreed with positions from either side of the aisle but found yourself powerless to achieve political expression.

Perhaps this us too defeatist. So i commend the author for trying.