I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment. “Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address. Keep in mind, Republicans have effectively turned being focused on the existential threat that is unchecked climate change into a “progressive” issue and part of their culture war.
Moreover, political spectrum positioning historically shifts only one step one way or another between generations (i.e., children are usually one step more centrist than their parents when they settle into a stable political outlook). What this means is that most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives. This isn’t to say most people are stupid, but rather they are thoughtless and myopic. It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
You are making the same mistake that economists (used to and some still do) make in that you are baking perfect rationality, at least along some axes, where it just does not exist. And trying to build any sort of model from such a flawed axiom is doomed.
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment.
It is an oversimplification, I don’t deny that. But just because my analysis is a simplification doesn’t mean it is wholly inaccurate or lacking in usefulness.
“Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address.
That’s true, although I don’t know how many progressives are “doing just fine.” Perhaps it’s many, or even most, but I don’t think anyone can say for certain. I’m not sure it matters, either, whether progressives are just disaffected people or disaffected people and their allies and advocates. The point is, despite their differences, they want radical change, and that is ultimately what puts them at odds with centrists.
most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives.
I think that’s true as well, but I’m not really making a distinction between the people who identify with and lend their loyalty to one political tribe or the other, even if passively, and the thought leaders of said tribes.
It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
Well, I think you might be doing the thing you accused me of and oversimplifying. I don’t think societal changes are simply a result of an incidental cascade brought on by bumbling, thoughtless humans flapping around mindlessly. Certainly some people have much more influence on societal change than others, and many people are mostly just passengers, but that doesn’t mean societal changes are merely random.
I think this is a deeply flawed and simplistic categorization of Americans’ political sentiment. “Progressives” capture a broad swathe of people with different concerns and intents, very many of whom are doing just fine but appreciate the myriad systemic issues that merit address. Keep in mind, Republicans have effectively turned being focused on the existential threat that is unchecked climate change into a “progressive” issue and part of their culture war.
Moreover, political spectrum positioning historically shifts only one step one way or another between generations (i.e., children are usually one step more centrist than their parents when they settle into a stable political outlook). What this means is that most people just don’t give significant thought about their politics and their practical and lived impact on their lives. This isn’t to say most people are stupid, but rather they are thoughtless and myopic. It also means that a very large portion are not reacting to anything-- they’re just bumbling along like humans always have and it’s the incidental cascade from flapping butterflies here and there that cause the population level swings and societal changes we ultimately see.
You are making the same mistake that economists (used to and some still do) make in that you are baking perfect rationality, at least along some axes, where it just does not exist. And trying to build any sort of model from such a flawed axiom is doomed.
It is an oversimplification, I don’t deny that. But just because my analysis is a simplification doesn’t mean it is wholly inaccurate or lacking in usefulness.
That’s true, although I don’t know how many progressives are “doing just fine.” Perhaps it’s many, or even most, but I don’t think anyone can say for certain. I’m not sure it matters, either, whether progressives are just disaffected people or disaffected people and their allies and advocates. The point is, despite their differences, they want radical change, and that is ultimately what puts them at odds with centrists.
I think that’s true as well, but I’m not really making a distinction between the people who identify with and lend their loyalty to one political tribe or the other, even if passively, and the thought leaders of said tribes.
Well, I think you might be doing the thing you accused me of and oversimplifying. I don’t think societal changes are simply a result of an incidental cascade brought on by bumbling, thoughtless humans flapping around mindlessly. Certainly some people have much more influence on societal change than others, and many people are mostly just passengers, but that doesn’t mean societal changes are merely random.