I feel like people often focus on either (1) "authenticity," (2) having empirically popular positions, and (3) good policy ideas that will actually work, but rarely all three. The reality is we need all three.
Agree with every word of this. Why is it missing the last paragraph, where it gets specific about which policies candidates should look to differentiate themselves on? What are some coherent ideologies that new candidates can be steered to, so they don’t default to hopscotch?
I genuinely think a lot of this is a skill issue, and you’ve got to give people some templates to follow and some pre-made roles they can inhabit, because they’re not going to do the differentiation and the ideological synthesis all on their own.
The first “Perspective” article in the September 25 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine should reveal to you what we are up against in trying to sell Democratic moderates as the future of the party. The article’s authors cannot see how their ideology-based research is neither science, nor practical. It is not science because the evidence they present as data requires human opinions that cannot be verified as reproducibly truthful. It is not practical because application of the conclusions from the research they cite, requires a fully civilized society that does not exist anywhere. Progressives eschew calling their programs “socialism” because the term has a bad reputation. O.K. Let's call a system in which the government tries to create a civilized electorate by using laws to delineate individual behavior, so that no one feels discriminated against, “collectivism”. That’s what identity politics is. Why is collectivism impractical? Because real science, sociobiology, has amassed tons of evidence that predicts competition between pressure groups believing that they are not as protected from being discriminated against as well as are members of other groups (e.g. feminists vs genderists, Palestinians vs Jews, Blacks vs East Asians, etc.). In short, the paleolithic genes that E.O. Wilson predicted as standing in the way of humans achieving a fully civilized state, will inevitably interfere with our exercise of the will to do so. Moderates have to be willing to bite the bullet and attack Progressives openly with the argument I have made; probably using simpler terms than I have.
Great post. Thank you. Since there is so little leadership from the Dems on this, could you layout one specific slate of issues that is data-driven in terms of popularity and importance to the median voter.
I’m not advocating that candidates simply follow the polls, but it might help further the debate and discussion.
I feel like people often focus on either (1) "authenticity," (2) having empirically popular positions, and (3) good policy ideas that will actually work, but rarely all three. The reality is we need all three.
Agree with every word of this. Why is it missing the last paragraph, where it gets specific about which policies candidates should look to differentiate themselves on? What are some coherent ideologies that new candidates can be steered to, so they don’t default to hopscotch?
I genuinely think a lot of this is a skill issue, and you’ve got to give people some templates to follow and some pre-made roles they can inhabit, because they’re not going to do the differentiation and the ideological synthesis all on their own.
The first “Perspective” article in the September 25 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine should reveal to you what we are up against in trying to sell Democratic moderates as the future of the party. The article’s authors cannot see how their ideology-based research is neither science, nor practical. It is not science because the evidence they present as data requires human opinions that cannot be verified as reproducibly truthful. It is not practical because application of the conclusions from the research they cite, requires a fully civilized society that does not exist anywhere. Progressives eschew calling their programs “socialism” because the term has a bad reputation. O.K. Let's call a system in which the government tries to create a civilized electorate by using laws to delineate individual behavior, so that no one feels discriminated against, “collectivism”. That’s what identity politics is. Why is collectivism impractical? Because real science, sociobiology, has amassed tons of evidence that predicts competition between pressure groups believing that they are not as protected from being discriminated against as well as are members of other groups (e.g. feminists vs genderists, Palestinians vs Jews, Blacks vs East Asians, etc.). In short, the paleolithic genes that E.O. Wilson predicted as standing in the way of humans achieving a fully civilized state, will inevitably interfere with our exercise of the will to do so. Moderates have to be willing to bite the bullet and attack Progressives openly with the argument I have made; probably using simpler terms than I have.
Great post. Thank you. Since there is so little leadership from the Dems on this, could you layout one specific slate of issues that is data-driven in terms of popularity and importance to the median voter.
I’m not advocating that candidates simply follow the polls, but it might help further the debate and discussion.
Thanks!