While in practice I think the distributions involved in heterodoxy trend towards moderation in aggregate, I think your frame is both more electorally resonant and more strictly accurate, especially as a function of regional variation for reasons you mention.
When the hell did puberty blockers for children and biological men in women’s sports become a ‘left wing’ issue? I can’t imagine FDR letting that be the thing that defined the New Deal
I do have a good answer for Democrats who are hit with the ‘what is a woman’ gotcha question
Just reply “if you’re being paid 87 cents to do a job a man is paid a dollar to do then you’re probably a woman”
What about embracing socially conservative but economically populist or social democratic voters like myself? I am a pro-life Catholic who donated to a Democrat for the first time in 2018 when I donated to Dan Lipinski's race that year. Guys like me and Dan used to be common in the Democratic Party, but we've been hounded out of the party for our beliefs which happen to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as ours to have.
Why is this? There are a hell of lot of us out here who are up for grabs but don't want to be treated as pariahs for our beliefs.
To win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, NC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Az, Dems will have to run a more centrist candidate who appeal to non college-educated and independents.
Do you know what would be profoundly helpful to get these kinds of candidates, open primaries and ranked choice voting. This would dramatically decrease the power of the far left, and these terrible groups that they control.
Yes, yes, yes. Why the heck is this so hard for the Dems to understand. I need to write an article covering the last 10-20 years titled “GOP Are Cruel and DEMS are Idiots”.
I wonder if "heterodox" might be in practice the left's best response to the "transgressive" right. I have long pondered how to make "moderate" more appealing, sexier. Young male voters were thrilled by the transgressive nature of the new right. Moderation and centrism, alas, will never have the same electrifying effect. Maybe in our hyperpartisan times heterodox views capture a bit of the norm-breaking energy that Trump has always replied upon? What you call in this essay the supermajority of ideologically inconsistent voters I think of as the Disgusted Majority. Disgusted by the clownish levels of partisanship. But maybe it's less disgust and more about voters aching to express their ideological inconsistency.
Maybe re-title this post as "This is how you fight super-partisanship"? Either way you title, I'm not sure that heterodoxy as a principle addresses hyper-partisanship.
Per the post, the two most extreme, litmus-test addicted voting groups on the right and left respectively are "Cul-de-sac Conservatives" and "Liberal Arts Left". I suspect that they accrued fundraising superpowers after 2010's Citizen United decision. That's not to say the other groups don’t also have access to those powers, but they likely don't have the energy and commitment to raise funds nonstop. I'd go as far as to say that a higher percentage of those extreme groups pursue advocacy as their means of making a living and not just something they do in their free time.
The challenge for heterodoxy then becomes how to fundraise when one group’s "litmus test" is just another group's audience-tested message.
While in practice I think the distributions involved in heterodoxy trend towards moderation in aggregate, I think your frame is both more electorally resonant and more strictly accurate, especially as a function of regional variation for reasons you mention.
When the hell did puberty blockers for children and biological men in women’s sports become a ‘left wing’ issue? I can’t imagine FDR letting that be the thing that defined the New Deal
I do have a good answer for Democrats who are hit with the ‘what is a woman’ gotcha question
Just reply “if you’re being paid 87 cents to do a job a man is paid a dollar to do then you’re probably a woman”
💯 I've been saying this for years, but not as succinctly and articulated perfectly as you do here.
This definitely would be much easier if we had a multi-party proportional system
What about embracing socially conservative but economically populist or social democratic voters like myself? I am a pro-life Catholic who donated to a Democrat for the first time in 2018 when I donated to Dan Lipinski's race that year. Guys like me and Dan used to be common in the Democratic Party, but we've been hounded out of the party for our beliefs which happen to be enshrined in the Bill of Rights as ours to have.
Why is this? There are a hell of lot of us out here who are up for grabs but don't want to be treated as pariahs for our beliefs.
This would be 370 and a good target.
To win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, NC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Az, Dems will have to run a more centrist candidate who appeal to non college-educated and independents.
Do you know what would be profoundly helpful to get these kinds of candidates, open primaries and ranked choice voting. This would dramatically decrease the power of the far left, and these terrible groups that they control.
You make some great points here.
Yes, yes, yes. Why the heck is this so hard for the Dems to understand. I need to write an article covering the last 10-20 years titled “GOP Are Cruel and DEMS are Idiots”.
I wonder if "heterodox" might be in practice the left's best response to the "transgressive" right. I have long pondered how to make "moderate" more appealing, sexier. Young male voters were thrilled by the transgressive nature of the new right. Moderation and centrism, alas, will never have the same electrifying effect. Maybe in our hyperpartisan times heterodox views capture a bit of the norm-breaking energy that Trump has always replied upon? What you call in this essay the supermajority of ideologically inconsistent voters I think of as the Disgusted Majority. Disgusted by the clownish levels of partisanship. But maybe it's less disgust and more about voters aching to express their ideological inconsistency.
I have a tough time accepting the prediction that Texas could go blue.
Or North Carolina.
Maybe re-title this post as "This is how you fight super-partisanship"? Either way you title, I'm not sure that heterodoxy as a principle addresses hyper-partisanship.
Per the post, the two most extreme, litmus-test addicted voting groups on the right and left respectively are "Cul-de-sac Conservatives" and "Liberal Arts Left". I suspect that they accrued fundraising superpowers after 2010's Citizen United decision. That's not to say the other groups don’t also have access to those powers, but they likely don't have the energy and commitment to raise funds nonstop. I'd go as far as to say that a higher percentage of those extreme groups pursue advocacy as their means of making a living and not just something they do in their free time.
The challenge for heterodoxy then becomes how to fundraise when one group’s "litmus test" is just another group's audience-tested message.
"Pain cave" - love it.