The leader of a conservative think tank claims that most recent political violence in the U.S. has been caused by left-wing extremists, but the data paints a different picture.
I don’t think that’s true. The “left” as I understand it, is a largely heterogenous, loosely united coalition of all kinds of different factions beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting. Some factions are united by choice, and others are there because they would have died out once the USA became consumed by the dominant two-party system we currently languish under.
The Right isn’t like this, or at least it’s not as bad. Despite having just as many if not more factions with just as many if not more differences and conflicting interests, they value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which keeps them coming together every 4 years to form a surprisingly unified front. It also helps that they all fucking hate anyone even slightly left of center and most will vote for a Republican they despise over a Democrat they kinda sorta like on a personal level.
Consider your average Democratic Senator/Representative. They lean left on many things and have the backing of party leadership. To win their election, they need two things, votes and funding. They know that there are many things their voter base is passionate about, such as healthcare reform, police reform, campaign finance reform, housing and income inequality, and so on. They know their voter base has no hope of ever getting these things from Republicans, but unfortunately they are things that the donor class tends to despise. When faced with the challenge of appealing to all the different factions of the left while staying within the good graces of the wealthy donor class, the Democrat will pivot away from “policy” and focus more on “process”. Generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, and compromise. They don’t really take stances on wedge issues unless they run in a solid blue district where they can take that stance and not break up the coalition or lose donor support.
Specially when the left is virtually nonexistent
I don’t think that’s true. The “left” as I understand it, is a largely heterogenous, loosely united coalition of all kinds of different factions beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting. Some factions are united by choice, and others are there because they would have died out once the USA became consumed by the dominant two-party system we currently languish under.
The Right isn’t like this, or at least it’s not as bad. Despite having just as many if not more factions with just as many if not more differences and conflicting interests, they value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which keeps them coming together every 4 years to form a surprisingly unified front. It also helps that they all fucking hate anyone even slightly left of center and most will vote for a Republican they despise over a Democrat they kinda sorta like on a personal level.
Consider your average Democratic Senator/Representative. They lean left on many things and have the backing of party leadership. To win their election, they need two things, votes and funding. They know that there are many things their voter base is passionate about, such as healthcare reform, police reform, campaign finance reform, housing and income inequality, and so on. They know their voter base has no hope of ever getting these things from Republicans, but unfortunately they are things that the donor class tends to despise. When faced with the challenge of appealing to all the different factions of the left while staying within the good graces of the wealthy donor class, the Democrat will pivot away from “policy” and focus more on “process”. Generally uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, and compromise. They don’t really take stances on wedge issues unless they run in a solid blue district where they can take that stance and not break up the coalition or lose donor support.