In my experience the Republican Party is less opposed to weird people as it is to weird ideas. I just got a survey from a conservative college that asked how much I opposed Socialism (without defining it) and how much I opposed "woke" ideology (which is mostly a strawman at this point). But I will say that they are doing a better job of scooping up white working class voters as the Democrats leave their interests behind in a quest for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
The DEI vision that the Democrats promote in I would argue a positive one. And I mean positive in the sense the it is not opposing something. I certainly don't see it as a positive set of values but I believe the vast majority of democratics do.
So the challenge of a Solidarian movement is to convince working class voters the we are on their side and professional people that the USA will be a more fair playing field than the left can deliver in it's current state.
Good point! To some extent, the Republican Party has rallied around "anti-weirdness" as a whole, although I do think much of their strategy involves finding "weird people" who embody the weird ideas and then ridiculing them.
I also agree with your points about the Democrats...most of the leftists I've interacted with have a vague notion of a happy, tolerant, and diverse society that fuels their enthusiasm. The trouble comes when the entire discourse around the subject from the Left becomes defined in terms of "we need to save this oppressed category of people from the Bad Folks on the Right," which leads to the negative view of things that I talked about. After all, what does the cause of civil rights for African Americans have in common with environmentalism and transgenderism aside from a need to end oppression and destruction? As far as I can see, the only uniting factor here is a negative one, which creates a massive messaging problem for the Left
The only thing I would disagree with any of that is that both major parties have polished messages. They are both good at selling their party as the only hope for America against those bad guys over there. Hostility and contention sell. Tribalism gets butts in the seats. The ASP needs to learn to sell the whole life position. Most of our conversations are very academic. And I mean that in the worst of ways. If we remain an ivory tower party which I sometimes think we are we will not win hearts and minds. The messaging for Peter Sonski is tepid at best. I never see messaging about the party in general unless I've specifically asked for it. I maintain to you that we have more of a messaging problem than either major party because they are good at sales despite being lousy at governance. I like the ASP. I give money to the ASP. But I am not enthusiastic about the ASP. I know of few people that are. And that strikes deeper to what the party needs than mere messaging.
In my experience the Republican Party is less opposed to weird people as it is to weird ideas. I just got a survey from a conservative college that asked how much I opposed Socialism (without defining it) and how much I opposed "woke" ideology (which is mostly a strawman at this point). But I will say that they are doing a better job of scooping up white working class voters as the Democrats leave their interests behind in a quest for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
The DEI vision that the Democrats promote in I would argue a positive one. And I mean positive in the sense the it is not opposing something. I certainly don't see it as a positive set of values but I believe the vast majority of democratics do.
So the challenge of a Solidarian movement is to convince working class voters the we are on their side and professional people that the USA will be a more fair playing field than the left can deliver in it's current state.
Good point! To some extent, the Republican Party has rallied around "anti-weirdness" as a whole, although I do think much of their strategy involves finding "weird people" who embody the weird ideas and then ridiculing them.
I also agree with your points about the Democrats...most of the leftists I've interacted with have a vague notion of a happy, tolerant, and diverse society that fuels their enthusiasm. The trouble comes when the entire discourse around the subject from the Left becomes defined in terms of "we need to save this oppressed category of people from the Bad Folks on the Right," which leads to the negative view of things that I talked about. After all, what does the cause of civil rights for African Americans have in common with environmentalism and transgenderism aside from a need to end oppression and destruction? As far as I can see, the only uniting factor here is a negative one, which creates a massive messaging problem for the Left
The only thing I would disagree with any of that is that both major parties have polished messages. They are both good at selling their party as the only hope for America against those bad guys over there. Hostility and contention sell. Tribalism gets butts in the seats. The ASP needs to learn to sell the whole life position. Most of our conversations are very academic. And I mean that in the worst of ways. If we remain an ivory tower party which I sometimes think we are we will not win hearts and minds. The messaging for Peter Sonski is tepid at best. I never see messaging about the party in general unless I've specifically asked for it. I maintain to you that we have more of a messaging problem than either major party because they are good at sales despite being lousy at governance. I like the ASP. I give money to the ASP. But I am not enthusiastic about the ASP. I know of few people that are. And that strikes deeper to what the party needs than mere messaging.