Coalition of The Sane: How A Recent Online 'Argument' With a Progressive Explains Why The Democrats Should Stop Talking With Them Altogether

 

One of the reasons I think the recent DNC autopsy of the 2024 election was absolutely on the right track is because of the reaction it provoked in certain people – and by certain people, of course, I mean progressives. If it had been released in a series of tweets from POTUS's account it couldn't have caused more pearl clutching.

One of the subtlest and most insightful points was that 'certain people are more interested in winning the argument then the election.' As always the Democrats are trying to use euphemisms but they're actually more on point.

The progressives, as we know, have no interesting in winning elections unless it's on their terms, which is why they win so few of them. And they absolutely care more about making a point then governing. It’s the term argument that I've a slight issue with because having spent far too much time on this site and others, I know that we're not speaking the same language with that term.

Their version of an argument is closer to the Monty Python version. To them an argument is not an intellectual process, it's just contradiction and the guy who does moonlights in abuse. They may think they're engaging in an intellectual process but at this point it involves four basic steps:

1. Stating a point of view in the loudest and most self-righteous way possible.

2. Using cherry-picked facts to buttress their argument.

3. Gaslighting any debate by saying the problem as you.

4. Calling you the worst name possible depending on the section of the left aisle they're stumping for (racial, gender, LGBTQ+ etc.)

And most times they go from step 1 immediately to step 4.

If you are a member of the coalition I suspect all of you are nodding sympathetically, having gone through some version of this yourself over the years, either in person, online or even within the comments section of this site. I myself have spent far too much time dealing with these citizens over the years before I basically realized that engaging with them simultaneously rose by blood pressure and dropped my IQ.

I now think it's more important to point these arguments out not just for our own sanity but to explain exactly why the Democrats should, with all deliberate speed, cut out all further engagements with them. In the past decade in particularly and throughout the 21^st century, my party has spent too much time trying to win to its institution people who say institutions can't solve problems. We're trying to win over people for whom wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt is as close as they will get to be a revolutionary, for whom wearing a Guy Fawkes mask is as they'll come to being anarchists, who have a hundred ways to tell you what's wrong with America but can't give you one way to fix it and if they do, they'll never tell you how you pay for it or get it through Congress.

I came to this realization, as I've mentioned, during Biden's administration though unfortunately the actual administration didn't come to it at any time. I think they're closer to it then they have been in a while but it's important for people to keep point out the manifest flaws in what passes for logic by the progressives. To that end, I'm going to highlight a series of exchanges I had on Facebook with one such individual in the past 24 hours that pretty much explains why rational or irrational debate is pointless.

Now hard as it may be if you read my articles or my snark in the comments, everything I've ever written to progressives is under the heading of 'constructive criticism'. I am, as I've mentioned over and over, in alignment with their arguments in theories and I want them to succeed. In order to do that they have to convince people who don't already agree with them. That means convincing a centrist Democrat like myself who knows history and electoral policy and knows what works and what doesn't. And as someone who's all too familiar with all things Republican and conservative, I'm a soft touch compared to whatever they're going to throw at you if you get that far.  You need allies and you need to convince them.

The conversation I'm about to relate took place on Facebook. Now while I can be someone snarkier on that site then on Medium, much of my remarks do fall under the headline of constructive criticism. I have little hope of reaching the poster or their acolytes but I'm trying to convince the middle which they've decided to reject.

For context I was dealing with a cartoon about socialism and capitalism. Here is what I'll refer to as A1 said:

We will be pooling our tax dollars when our candidates our elected and yours will be just as ours are being wasted currently…It is a sad day when you allow the wealthy to convince you the people who want you to have the free health care and a better life are the bad guys.

Boilerplate one percent stuff. No originality. My response:

So all that each the rich chat really just meant the wealthy pay their fair share.

They already do they pay their fair share on their income. You aren't saying that, Bernie and AOC. Socialism and communism are about taking all the money everybody has and pooling it, and to  be clear, you've said its only the one percent. Which again you can only do once and all the money's gone forever.

Wealth isn't like matter. It can be created and it is destroyed. So clearly you don't understand economics if you think it's like physics..

More sarcastic then usual but nothing I haven't said before.

At that point she wrote a loud and obscene response that I won't print the entirety of. But here's part of it

Someone who makes $100,000 a year and pays 20 percent is left with $80,000. Whereas someone who makes $1,000,000 a year and pays 50 percent is left with $500,000. Do you see how unfair that is?

She also said she had an MBA. (That will be relevant, trust me.)

Two things which I suspect you'll get. First she's acknowledging in this post that the rich do pay more than their fair share. So her defense she's not only undercut her own argument she's made it clear her problem is with the wealthy rather than the poor.

And two, this didn't prove anything I said was wrong.

This was my response:

I see a lot of profanity and you still haven't answered my question. I agree there should be tax reform. But simple arithmetic doesn't solve the problem. How do you get the money from the rich person to the poor PERSON? And you admit they pay taxes but your problem is they still have too much money? So how do you propose to raise taxes only on the rich and somehow not doing it on the poor?

Now I couldn't resist getting a little nasty.

By the way I'm proud you have an MBA. Does that mean you know more about economics then everyone who has studied it for decades over the last hundred years? Or is this more of the moral right and wrong BS that is really powering every argument people like you ever make. Try to answer calmly and without calling me an idiot, if that's possible.

I'll admit to baiting her but that's the thing with people on the left: they take any criticism as the worst kind of attack. And sure enough it was right to step four with two straight posts

I'll only deal with A1's second post. You don't need to see the first.

How do you not know that before Reagan we taxed the rich fare more than currently which many pay nothing or if they do it isn't even as much as I make? Exactly what the f—is wrong with you? Do you only have one set of grandparents or what?

I'm not even sure what that last insult is supposed to mean. However in the second part of the first sentence we once again what this is about: A1 is envious that the rich make more than they do.  That's not a reason for policy change; it's just a combination of vituperation.

Now as my readers know I do know about American history and the lead up to Reagan's election, having written multiple articles on the subject. I gave a brief summation.

And at this point I decided just to have fun because I knew what I was dealing with.

Now I know this recitation of history as it happened will do nothing to eradicate your worldview of 'Reagan ruined the liberal dream' from the Daily Kose scholarship of Why The Left is Never ever wrong. But as someone who actually studied American history in college and has read more books on politics by the time I graduated then you have in your entire life, I'm kind of interested in knowing which books you've read on the subject that told you these facts. I'm always interested in broadening my worldview.

This is all true. I actually want to know the books if only to criticize them on this site.

By thew way, you've now demonstrated a basic ignorance of economics, American history, political history and even math. But as always, top marks in moral indignation. I shouldn't be surprised. It's always been your major.

And with that I blocked A1 forever. A brief look at A1'a Facebook profile convinced me that I was right about everything about them and that further discussion would be useless. (I won't share this article on Facebook, obviously.)

To be fair (damn my impartiality!) I don't know anything about this person beyond what they said and the brief glance at their profile. But I'm pretty sure that based on the way they engaged and yelled that this is exactly the kind of voter the Democrats have been trying to win over for at least ten years. And that's a problem. Because they're not interested in rational debate, they clearly have no understanding politics or the basics of how policy works, and while they claim to have a college degree for all intents and purposes she really does only seem to have gotten top marks in moral outrage.  There were more debates this person had with far more conservative people who were far less pleasant and by and large they chose not to engage. I'm guessing that A1 sees them all under the same broad stroke of 'the enemy' and saw any intellectual debate as a sign of unwillingness to engage.

These are not people who are built to make alliance, form coalitions, or work to get policy made into law. These are people who are certain of their morality and will not accommodate any deviation from it. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Now personally I'm not going to give up on trying to reach even those who are clearly as locked on course as A1 was. Maybe I'm a fool, maybe I'm an optimist. I want to try and find common ground. But there's what I do and what others should do. And when it comes to the Democrats, the votes are in.

It's difficult enough to convince the undecided voter and we need to spend time on this. If the kind of people who should be on our side anyway are going to be this pig-headed and unwilling to help, we have to call them a lost cause. Considering that as a party we've always been more successful when we went to the center then the left, I think its time we went back to a strategy that worked.

That was also very clear in the autopsy of the 2024 election and for all the crap he's taken it looks very much like Ken Martin is following that path. I think for the record the Democrats can win without them and its time we started trying to do that. Let's stop trying to offer membership to people who think clubs are tools of the one percent.