I see propublica, I upvote

I think it’s important to clarify what is left or right because that’s how people talk and think - a lot of political language is warped or difficult to clarify. When I explain what liberals are to people in the U.S. they simply refuse to believe me. They think “liberal” can only mean “the left” and this has a whole set of assumptions built into it. When I ask them about the Liberal party in Australia they legitimately don’t understand it, and it seems like people are extremely stubborn around political topics and unwilling to believe you when you say something so against their understanding.

I think whether a “communist” or “socialist” is left-wing depends on a few things, I don’t consider Marxist-Leninism a left-wing movement or ideology for example.

I also tend to be skeptical that ideology is relevant to political movements, and that most of the time politics is reduced to the struggle of different constituents who pragmatically use ideology to manipulate people into supporting that constituency. Much like racism was leveraged to get the agrarian, southern whites in the U.S. to vote for the interests of wealthy landowners in that region, I think ideological promises or affiliations are often used to whip up support and then dropped once elected in favor of whatever is needed to get things done.

Sometimes I think ideology applies, it’s hard to understand the particular flavor of George W. Bush’s imperialism without understanding the Christian motivation to wage a religious war, but even that is ultimately more about civilizational struggle" than it is about any particular religious or theological belief.

Anyway, I just mean to say that most political language sabotages political understanding, and that maybe understanding is a tricky endeavor.

I don’t really see what is wrong with authentically egalitarian politics, so I’m inclined to think the “center” is just a euphemism for right-wing.

If a left wing movement fails in its egalitarianism, like when the USSR had slave camps, then I think we should not think of that movement as left wing at all, it just fails the definition of being left wing.

The common response to this is that it is a form of no true scotsman fallacy, which I think could be a legitimate concern since you might define a left wing ideal as the definition and anything failing to live up to the perfection of that ideal is not “left”. But on the other hand, I don’t know how else to consider some politics authentically egalitarian and worth supporting and others inauthentic or corrupt and embodying hierarchical or right-wing tendencies. Maybe there is no bright line we can draw or reduce to a logical equation, but I would like to think there is still some value in evaluating which politics to support (i.e. which politics are furthering egalitarian means or ends).

yeah, definitions are hard, but in general I tend to think of the right as promoting traditional hierarchy and the left as being egalitarian.

let’s keep it that way, the right-wing should be unwelcome everywhere

Who did she vote for?

Yes, lots of trans people live in Texas and Florida, that’s exactly what is terrifying about these laws - there are real victims.

I’m in one of the worst states, I’m scared about where things are going …

FYI Texas has been marked as a “do not travel” state on Erin Reed’s trans risk map: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/final-pre-election-2024-anti-trans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinda_Ardern

Labour prime minister of New Zealand. She was great, I was sad when she stepped down.

Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama’s ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.

Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among “center-right” voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.