There's a really relevant (and much misrepresented) piece of political thought on this, that has been labeled as "Wilhoit's Law". It was written by a classical music composer named Frank Wilhoit.
Here's a link to the full original comment: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
One of the most important parts of this is that everything we call "liberalism" or "progressivism" is a flavor of conservatism for this purpose. This is not a Democrats v. Republicans issue, it applies to Democrats and Republicans.
And I think that viewed through this lens, the VoteBlues make tons of sense (from their perspective).
The election in November is about how those VoteBlue individuals are classified.
Will they be the people who are protected by the law and not bound by it?
Or will they be the people who are bound by the law and denied any protection?
They cannot imagine the law protecting non-white people. Or Palestinians. Or the homeless. Or ...
And they cannot imagine the law restraining the US military or CEOs or the police or anyone else with power.
dededos
jacobvanloon
kaledo-art
yousharknotpass
gummygunk
titsay
izzy806
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
