I appreciate the argument you are making, but I disagree with the main premise that “republican” is some inherent identity akin to someone’s religion, and that we need to be magnanimous in our messaging about being involved with that political party in a time like this. This type of political affiliation is a check mark on a form that can be changed at any time. The kind of argument you are presenting is reminiscent of “all lives matter” or “not all men” arguments. I think it is missing the point. It is not to say that literally everyone who is a registered republican is an irredeemable monster, but that supporting that party, being a part of it, is not some neutral thing that can be ignored (maybe that would be different if their base fundamentally opposed the party’s actions, but they are supportive).
There is no evidence to suggest that reaching across the aisle in that way has any net positive effect. History has shown that the opposite is true. We can embrace those people if they leave their ideology and come to us, but not the other way around. We will not be able to counteract billions of dollars’ worth of media and propaganda apparatus by being accepting. It is better to make it clear that the actions of that organization are unacceptable.
It’s not about reaching across the aisle in this context.
It’s about the reality of fixing what’s broken, and the entire system is.
It isn’t about being magnanimous, though as an ideology of its own, that has a place. It’s about the practical issue that you either kill them all, or work with some. If you’re going to pick working with some, then you have to accept that not all of your enemy are the same, no matter who your enemy is.
I appreciate the argument you are making, but I disagree with the main premise that “republican” is some inherent identity akin to someone’s religion, and that we need to be magnanimous in our messaging about being involved with that political party in a time like this. This type of political affiliation is a check mark on a form that can be changed at any time. The kind of argument you are presenting is reminiscent of “all lives matter” or “not all men” arguments. I think it is missing the point. It is not to say that literally everyone who is a registered republican is an irredeemable monster, but that supporting that party, being a part of it, is not some neutral thing that can be ignored (maybe that would be different if their base fundamentally opposed the party’s actions, but they are supportive).
There is no evidence to suggest that reaching across the aisle in that way has any net positive effect. History has shown that the opposite is true. We can embrace those people if they leave their ideology and come to us, but not the other way around. We will not be able to counteract billions of dollars’ worth of media and propaganda apparatus by being accepting. It is better to make it clear that the actions of that organization are unacceptable.
It’s not about reaching across the aisle in this context.
It’s about the reality of fixing what’s broken, and the entire system is.
It isn’t about being magnanimous, though as an ideology of its own, that has a place. It’s about the practical issue that you either kill them all, or work with some. If you’re going to pick working with some, then you have to accept that not all of your enemy are the same, no matter who your enemy is.
This ain’t about voting.