I used to have that perspective, but I actually think it's even simpler than selective application of principles or hypocrisy as the parent commentator put it. It's not so much that they believe in an ideal but struggle to apply it when doing so isn't in their favor and more that their guiding premise is that things should always go their way and they adopt the language, but not the intent, of a deeper principle because it sounds like a better justification.
You may not have meant to excuse the sad state we are in by presenting the "both sides are bad" argument. But it does have a strong whiff of it.
Both sides are bad. No doubt about it. It has always been that way. But, one side takes being bad to a whole new level.
Our choice has always been between bad and less bad. The voters decided to pull the lever for "massively bad" during the last presidential election because they could not tell the difference.
We get to give one bit of feedback to "the system" every four years. After four years of Trump, the feedback was "we don't want that". After four years of Biden, the feedback was "not that, either".
My impression of the US electorate is that they don't want illegal immigration, at least not in the volume and with the openness it was happening. They don't want immigrant trains rolling through Mexico. But they don't want the brutality and violence of the current crackdown, either.
They don't want trans people on womens' sports teams, and they don't want the US taking over Greenland.
And so on.
So after four years, the majority of voters were choosing "not Biden, and not the Biden things we don't like" rather than "yes Trump".
The place where it was "yes Trump" was the Republican primary. If you want to fix US politics, get involved with a political party - either one - and have some influence on who comes out of the primary process.
The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
I'm not a "whatabout" guy, I'm actively opposed to both extremes. The far left is just as capable of ruling with violence as the far right, they just haven't got the opportunity in this country yet.
The politics of emotion and absolutism is the cause, which flavor of extremism you pick isn't the core issue.
>The politics of fear stoked by two sets of extremists egging eachother on is the core reason we're in this mess, the failure to reject both simultaneously and the desire to rule with feelings instead of facts caused it all.
Pol Pot[0] was a leftist extremist. Chairman Mao[1] was a leftist extremist. As were the Red Brigades[2] and the Symbionese Liberation Army[3], etc., etc., ,etc. Who in the US Democratic Party advocates for the same things as those guys? Let's see. No one.
In fact, the only ones in the US who've shown an interest in nationalizing the means of production (c.f. Intel) or putting down the Intelligentsia and normalizing violence against those who criticize the regime are just one set of extremists. Because extremists end up going full circle -- because for them it's about power and not ideology.
The "far left" statistically doesn't even exist in the USA. Less than 1% of the population and less than 0.01% of elected politicians. Effectively zero. No major national or state politicians call for seizing the means of production, a centrally planned economy, widespread price controls, Great Leaps Forward, and so on. The far right has us all convinced that anything to the left of Reagan is "far left".
You can pretend all you want. The proof is in the reality of what we see. Mass illegal immigration is not a center-right or even left position. It's a "far left" position that has had enough political power to be enforced for years now.
That's the most disingenuous argument yet, that completely ignores reality.
The libertarian party does NOT advocate for illegal immigration today. Only once NAP-violating governments are abolished, do they contend that the harmful effects of unconstrained immigration are non-existent. They argue that if you want complete freedom of movement, you must first give up all claim to nonconsensual government force, including taxation and redistribution of wealth. And even the most radical of libertarians include a "non-aggression" exception. They support screening to exclude violent criminals, security threats, and health risks. All of which are impossible if there is no monitoring or reasonable enforcement.
You know _damn well_ that in the context of actual politics in America as they stand TODAY, open immigration is a FAR LEFT position. It's undeniable to anyone arguing in good faith.
The Libertarian Party does not put all of those caveats on their stance and you sure as hell didn't in your polemic post.
Your argument is nothing but pedantry anyway. The libertarian stance is that most immigration laws should be abolished. Whether or not the books on the laws reflect their stance doesn't change that is their stance. They advocate for open boarders and migration free from government interference.
Except that the 'radical left' part of the electorate holds ~0 sway over the people who actually get elected. The 'radical right', on the other hand, has fully purged the GOP of anyone who isn't with their program through either primaries, or the fear of getting primaried.
The "radical left" stayed home in the presidential election, 9 million of them decided Harris wasn't radical enough for them so they would rather not vote, giving Trump the 2.3 million vote popular margin. Of course electoral analysis would be a lot more complex, I'm not doing that.
Elected democrats are stuck between trying to appease the radical left and trying to actually govern along with republicans and those two are very incompatible goals because the radical left knows very little about actual government policy and just has a couple of very narrow issues that most of the country opposes that their social bubble convinces them are the only important issues in this country.
Democrats lost the last election because of the radicals AND didn't get any of their goals done. Democrats needed a more centrist charismatic leader and instead they keep nominating candidates who "deserve" the nomination opposed to the actual will of the people OR continue nominating ancient relics who needed to retire a decade earlier... 6 of whom died in office over a period of 13 months in a period where every vote counted.
In short, I blame stupid leftist radicals and corrupt self-interested Democratic cowards in office for our current situation.
