[yummypaint]

This is very true. It isn't possible for two political parties to have fruitful process and debate without both acting in good faith.

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.

[zozbot234]

> 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. ...

You do realize that this is a tautological argument, right? One could just as easily argue that black people are voting for policymakers who, by and large, seek to patronize and infantilize them, thereby "protecting their identities as group members" even as they're in fact working against their long-term interests.

[yummypaint]

You should try talking to black people sometime and you will see this is not the case

[zozbot234]

Talking to voters is always a good idea, of course. I'm fairly sure that quite a few white voters would want to similarly disabuse us both of this notion that they only vote based on pure tribal loyalty, and don't actually care about their broader interests, however construed.