Think I clearly said the 'new' or 'regressive' left. Not left in general.

Anyway, that's not the point of the thread. This is not a discussion about which political leaning is more correct. Pretty much the opposite. The question is why is it seemingly so hard for people on different sides of the political divide to identify the means to maximize human flourishing/happiness and work towards that together?

That gets more into rhetoric about 'incremental change' as opposed to pragmatism, I think. Or rather, the difference between pragmatism as an approach v. pragmatism as a goal.

In our current political divide, each 'side' is pretty opposed to incremental change. If you're on the right, incremental change means the downfall of society, and things get catastrophized. We saw this pretty heavily here in the US where calls for same-sex marriage were met with concerns about it leading us to legalizing marrying a child, an animal, etc.

On the left, incremental change is seen as both insufficient and as a weapon used against them by moderates to accept positions that are not radical enough. To accept, or advocate for, incremental change is labeled traitorous by radical leftists and uttering the desire for 'compromise' makes you a pariah in leftist circles.

I think pragmatism as a goal is nonsensical. However, it is much more viable as an approach to achieving goals.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Aug 4 2020 04:27am

Ah, I should have worded it better. This is what I was trying to convey.

But it is viable not from a place of moral soundness, but out of the limitations of society. All change is incremental.

I think a fear or reluctance to embrace the fact that all change is incremental stems from death anxiety and that existentialist philosophers were right about its existence.

nop. plaguefear mentioned 'the left' in general, to which your reply was 'it's not called the regressive left for nothing' - that's why i wondered what your definition of 'the left' really is.

as to your central question, it's pretty clear what the answer is: money in politics (legalised bribery), propaganda, and a two party system.

people (on both sides, though not to the same degree) are made to vote against their interest by demonising the other side, when, considering the wealth of possible options, only two ever so slightly different flavours of the same narrow, late stage capitalist slice are offered to 'choose' from.

it's really just pitchforks against torches, or, if you prefer, the sports teams analogy that was made earlier.

if there is no real alternative, one that would make a meaningful impact on your life, there's not much incentive to abandon your 'team' - especially if you were indoctrinated with the idea that supporting the other side would make the world collapse and all your worst fears come true for decades.