Articles like this are so strange to me. Lots of thoughtful coverage of what various people are feeling & saying, but nothing on *what is true*, on whether any particular feeling or statement is justified. Just "the two sides" & their feelings, the end. washingtonpost.com/politics/end-o…
Like, the left's feelings about Trump are based on what he's done, and tried to do, and said he wants to do. They're based on the demonstrable, consistent direction of the US conservative movement for decades now. They are based on evidence!
Meanwhile, if you listen to Trump (or any conservative these days, really) about what the left is & wants to do, it sounds like overwrought, hackish genre fiction. In reality, the Dem Party is a boring center-left party -- less left than other center-left parties.
Seems to me the main story is that the US has found itself, for various contingent historic reasons, with a boring center-left party & a frothing, reactionary, enthnonationalist far-right party. That partisans on these two sides fear & distrust one another is interesting, yes ...
... but it is interesting & relevant *only in context*. If it's presented free of context, as just two free-floating sides & their statements, with no anchors in the actual world, it becomes highly misleading. The anger itself, not what it's about, becomes the focus. </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
