|
My feeling is that the origin of attack on allies (people largely on your side who also partly disagree or speak in a tone-deaf way) stems from the broader hostility between left and right. That has made progress impossible, and faced with frustration at the lack of communication or any hint of compromise, people lash out at those who should be on their own side. At least they're listening. I don't like it either, and I don't think it's helpful, but I understand the frustration. Fragmentation has long been a problem for progressivism. There are so many injustices, and since each happens to a group that is marginalized, the only way forward is unity. We have to back each other. Especially since the system is designed to be conservative: it requires multiple branches to pass legislation, any of whom can halt it, sometimes by a minority vote. About the only significant progress ever comes only from the Supreme Court, which is dominated by conservative judges who will often prescribe a legislative solution. Which they know won't happen. People should be able to disagree publicly and loudly with their allies. But when faced with an opposition who will oppose anything you say solely because you say it (even reversing their own past positions to do so), you face an impossible dilemma. You need unity, but can't reach it without disagreeing publicly. And when you despair from the fact that the system is stacked against you and you perceive that nothing you do will help, lashing out at any pretext at least feels like some kind of accomplishment. We need to fight against that impulse, but we won't do that without identifying the cause. And I believe that the cause stems from the right wing intransigence that has long since past any sincere ideological disagreement into active hostility and denial of reality. If we can't win fights against people who deny well-recognized science on many fronts, and promote conspiracy theories not just at the fringes but at all top levels of leadership, how can we actually win anything? |
I would also point out that for many white people in the US, political affiliation is merely a way to claim tribal membership in a group as our fundamental rights are already secure. Of course this is also true more generally, but look at polling information by demographic and it's clear for example that black voters aren't confused about who is working against their interests, and largely vote accordingly. The tribalistic people have little inherant interest in policy, and care much more about protecting their identities as group members. There can be value in exerting internal pressure on those people to statistically help move the herd. An analogy might be a dog snapping at sheep to move them to safety. A sheep dog that gets too agressive and actually bites to cause injury is counterproductive, so this has to be done diplomatically.