"centrism"

[Travis B.]

The thing is that it is easy to say "oh the Democrats and Republicans, they're all the same" from afar. This is a typically myopic leftist thing - they can't see the actual drastic differences between the two because their point of view is so skewed.

Well, that's not entirely fair. In practice, as opposed to social media chattering, leftists can be very practical and readily work with other progressive movements.

I did not mean to refer to all leftists by any means, just a certain sort of leftist.

And contrariwise, it's very easy to get frustrated with the Dems for not being progressive enough! There are a lot of reasons why, but they don't erase the frustration.

While the Democrats much of the time are pretty centrist (and not in Linguoboy's sense of the term), the key thing is that much of the Republicans are so far to the right (and like their charismatic megafaunal counterparts, the "RINO" is very much an endangered species) that there still is a drastically wide gulf between the two, such that leftists that claim that there is little difference between the two seem entirely blind to reality.

But there's a mostly online group of leftists that think it's some kind of strategic brilliance to focus all of their vitriol on the 25% of the population that is closest to agreeing with them.

Yes, I know exactly what type you speak of there.

[Emily]

The people who are being literal when they say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans are such a microscopic percentage of people who say that, that it's not statistically worth talking about them. Almost everyone who says it is being hyperbolic, flippant, or provocative, and their actual point is one or more of:

• The Democrats and Republicans are more alike than the general political discourse in the US cares to admit
• The Democrats and Republicans are more alike than they are different
• The Democrats and Republicans are in agreement in opposing the things leftists generally see as the most important political questions (e.g. war) and/or the biggest changes we want to see (e.g. an end to Wall Street's domination of politics)
• Both parties have become right-wing parties and there isn't even a center-left opposition in """mainstream""" politics
• The Democrats (whether intentionally or through incompetence) stall, stimey, or oppose progressive policies and therefore have the same effect that Republicans do (or did before their own lurch to the far right)
• The Democrats (whether intentionally or through incompetence) do not wage an effective fight against attacks by the right wing and therefore are not functionally in opposition to the Republicans

I'm not saying I agree with every single one of these bullet points, and I certainly don't advocate framing it as "they are identical and there is no difference" because as people in this thread are pointing out it comes off as rhetorical and ignorant. But the conversation of "can you believe these clueless leftists really don't see a difference between AOC and Betsy DeVos?" is likewise an unproductive echo chamber discussion that doesn't engage with what the left is actually trying to say.

But there's a mostly online group of leftists that think it's some kind of strategic brilliance to focus all of their vitriol on the 25% of the population that is closest to agreeing with them.

The people who say these things are talking about the Democratic Party as an institution, not about its voting base. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not the 25% of the population closest to agreeing with the left. There's debate to be had (and that is being had!) about how much relative criticism the left should focus on either party, but when we do criticize the Democrats the point isn't to blast hatred on everyone who votes Dem, it's to make the point that progressives should not look to the Democratic Party as the saviors of progressivism.

[Raphael]

The people who are being literal when they say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans are such a microscopic percentage of people who say that, that it's not statistically worth talking about them. Almost everyone who says it is being hyperbolic, flippant, or provocative, and their actual point is one or more of:

As far as I'm concerned, there are basically two modes of talking: sarcastic, where people say something that's more or less the opposite of what they mean, and literal, when people say what they mean. When people are clearly not doing the former, I can and will assume that they are doing the latter.

Saying ridiculous things and then hiding behind the "I was just being hyperbolic, flippant, or provocative" excuse is something I associate with some of the worst people on the far right. So I don't see why I should have any more patience for that kind of thing when it's coming from other parts of the political spectrum for once.

If you have a really great point worked out inside your head, but then decide to make a different, much less great point instead, you have only yourself to blame if people respond to the point you actually made, instead of the point that was theoretically waiting inside your head.

[zompist]

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not the 25% of the population closest to agreeing with the left.

In the case of Pelosi, she sure is. Pelosi ranks 64 of 213 Dem representatives according to progressivepunch, 39 according to voteview.com. (These are both based on measures evaluating progressivism-- smaller numbers are better.)

Schumer is right in the middle-- 24 or 23 of 51.

There's debate to be had (and that is being had!) about how much relative criticism the left should focus on either party, but when we do criticize the Democrats the point isn't to blast hatred on everyone who votes Dem, it's to make the point that progressives should not look to the Democratic Party as the saviors of progressivism.

I'm pretty far left (hey, I voted for Sanders), but I've seen way too much of the "blasting hatred" strategy. A lot of people wrote their playbooks back in the Clinton era and never updated.

[Travis B.]

I have little patience for people who still believe that there is little practical difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Sure, most of the Democrats aren't left-wing if your criterion for "left wing" is "social democrat or left thereof" ─ they are centrists, no doubt ─ but there is such a wide gulf between them and the modern-day Republicans that it is not funny one bit. Sure, they might not be our left-wing saviors, but overall they are really the only people standing in the way of the US becoming even more of a right-wing hellhole than it already is. And yes, there are right-wing Democrats that have caused trouble with actually enacting progressive policies ─ you know who they are ─ but as Democrats go they are definitely in the minority despite their disproportionate influence.

[MacAnDàil]

And yes, there are right-wing Democrats that have caused trouble with actually enacting progressive policies ─ you know who they are ─ but as Democrats go they are definitely in the minority despite their disproportionate influence.

I think the main people you are referring to are Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. And Sinema has left the Demcoratic Party, which actually supports your general point even more.

[Travis B.]

And yes, there are right-wing Democrats that have caused trouble with actually enacting progressive policies ─ you know who they are ─ but as Democrats go they are definitely in the minority despite their disproportionate influence.

I think the main people you are referring to are Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. And Sinema has left the Demcoratic Party, which actually supports your general point even more.

Well of course. The practical inability of the Democrats to push progressive policies does not reflect their actual politics overall, which are considerably further to the left than a superficial glance at American gov't policy would lead one to believe.