The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.
One could argue the right with its views on abortion and religion suffers the same problem, one they've largely tackled by voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
The difference I think, is that the purity spiral on the left encompasses the entire party. If your perspectives are too moderate you are shunned from the entire hemisphere of politics and often suffer a barage of name calling (e.g. bigot) from your own 'side'.
On the right, this is far less often the case. The right is significantly more tolerant of people who fall outside of purity definitions. For example, the majority of republicans are pro-life, but co-exist with roughly a third of republicans who are pro-choice.
In contrast, most Democrats will not tolerate a pro-life member under any circumstance.
I do think purity spirals exist on the right, but they are not as all emcompasssing as on the left.
You can be shunned from MAGA, while remaining republican. You can be shunned from the religious right, while remaining republican.
There is significantly more ideological diversity within the republican party than within the democratic party, and the result is democrats switching to republican at a rate 4 times higher than the republicans switch to democrats.
So ... 4 senators and 2 representatives are not MAGA. Everyone else has had to swear fealty to Trump or leave. And you say that's diversity of opinion?
The list is not an exhaustive list of non-MAGA republicans, it is a list of non-MAGA republicans who publically opposed Trump's election even after he won the primary.
Non-MAGA republicans overall are about half the republican party.
Bro I'm a gun owner and a big time first amendment proponent and all that. I've been called a socialist, communist, American hater, a racist and more by those on the right as soon as I contradict dear leader slightly.
The right is every bit as bad at this as the left because at the end of the day people are going to people.
Democrats for life of America disagrees with your assessment. The organization has existed since 1999. Henry Cuellar is a member of the democratic party and is very "pro-life".
The issue is that "pro-life" has morphed into anti-choice. What is happening in Texas and other states is not pro-life. Forcing women to die is not a pro-life stance.
In other words, the left needs to learn how to love the right (and many people within the left). But I don't know if that's the case. I think there are a lot of people on the right who want the left to love them but believe that the people on the left do not love them.
I believe the problem is that people need to learn how to feel loved. To realize that even our enemies are trying their best and most likely care about us a lot more than they would ever admit. Both sides struggle with this. People on the current left tend to just resign and give up on the relationships. People on the right tend to seek vengeance.
Purity spirals are a social dynamic where members of a group compete to demonstrate ever-increasing levels of ideological purity. Moderate perspectives are seen as dissenters and are shunned as the group becomes more radicalised.
It's a big problem for the left because numerically they are now the minority of voters, but are still trending away from the center, and shedding their more moderate members.
We know it's not as much of a problem on the right, because the rate of party switching is still far lower on the right than the left, by a factor of about 1:4.
On the right, you can be shunned by MAGA or shunned by the religious right, but still be welcome within the republican party.
On the left, you cannot challenge with any of the tent pole policies without being shunned entirely.
I think YMMV here based on who you're around. If you're right-leaning in an urban setting or a coastal city, you'll find a lot of heterodox views. If you live in the Rural South or Rural Midwest and do not almost literally worship Donald Trump, you are shunned.
The opposite is true for the left and the Democratic Party. Those circles tend to be very orthodox if you live in a lefty urban area. Disagree with one major platform issue and you're immediately suspected. If you're in the suburbs or a rural area you'll find that left-leaning people are much more heterodox.
Purity spirals are most intense in enclaves, which are echo chambers.
You'll find the same phenomenon online with regard to echo chambers. If you're in a left or right wing echo chamber, the purity spiral phenomenon is intense.
I am exactly who you are talking about, I live in a very purple city in the midwest. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, my family was Amish 4 generations ago. I'm also a 90s kid and grew up on south park. Turned into a redneck hippy.
It's a complete social poison pill in the city to have voted a certain way. Have had the same look of "how could you be that dumb" from people ranging from strippers to lawyers.
All I want is love and belonging, not sure how to feel love when I've heard the word "barbarian" to describe certain types of people. Not sure how to feel love when men's loneliness and suicide problems aren't being prioritized
Yeah, the hurt turns into anger sometimes, but yes, I need them too. For me to exist, my opposite has to exist, and I should love us both.
I appreciate you sharing this story. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit and while I voted for Kamala, I have a lot of friends and family who either openly voted for Trump or who I imagine secretly did. And while it can be so hard for me to not call them stupid (I tend to default to insulting people's intelligence sometimes because I feel so confident in mine), I try really hard to see how they're really just struggling/suffering.
And it can hurt me so much when I see people in my life attack people very hard for voting for Trump. The ones in my life who voted for him sometimes seem to be the ones who are craving the most social connection, the most interaction, and don't get it. They seem to want to engage with people and sometimes the best way to engage is to say something controversial. Like the kid who can't get the mom's attention and so starts hitting her in the leg.
People on the right are not a basket of deplorables, they're human beings who want love and attention, often from those who they fear think they're better than them. Often from those they admire the most, who keep ignoring them and running away from them.
So thank you for sharing this and helping me see this even more deeply and lovingly.
People have despaired of making common cause, because bipartisanship IS punished within the republican party, and by FOX.
I can apprecaite my fellow man, but I must also answer the question posed by the success of their tactics. I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him. Someone who openly doubted McCain?? Good gravy, that would have been something to see.
But reality has drifted, and political success has dependend more and more on extremism and animosity. They can dispute the existence of evolution, and succeed in making it an issue!
Today, all that seems to matter is poltical efficiency. People have voted for Trump even KNOWING that he is going to be terrible, but because he is better for their goals.
I can feel for everyone, but as the right likes to say - who gives a frig about your feelings?
What matters is winning.
Make emapthy win. Make bipartisanship work again, then you have a chance. But why should the republicans ever do that? Their approach has given them everything they have ever desired.
Gaining voters from the right shouldn't be the Democrats primary focus.
Their primary focus should be retaining voters, by broadening the range of opinions which are acceptable within the party.
They are a decade down a purity spiral, which has resulted in the range of acceptable opinions within the party shrinking considerably, and the shunning of many individuals unnecessarily, who either stop voting altogether or find company on the right.
I gave the example above of how the republican party is able to accomodate a significant number of both pro-life and pro-choice members. The Democrats will similarly need to learn to expand their umbrella as well. Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.
If they can fix this, they will grow, because their biggest source of new members is young adults becoming eligible to vote, not people they pull away from the right. The Democrats just need to stop churning so many people away.
> Perhaps not with abortion rights, but maybe by shedding some of their zero-sum economic thinking, or race-centric thinking.
I think this is the big one here. Race and gender, this seems to be the only thing Dems can even talk about. I just saw videos from the recent DNC winter meeting. Watch for just 75 seconds starting here: https://youtu.be/1pHvkq4ehkE?t=93
I guess this apparently plays well among the tiny base that the DNC still has, but when most independents and moderates look at this nonsense, this party is a caricature of itself.
And my point isn't that they need to pull the far right into their tent somehow. But rather that most people including the average first-time voters, are much more moderate than the current DNC has positioned itself now, and it seems like Dems mostly just want to shock them rather than win their hearts.
> I know that during the Bush era, the republicans would be AGHAST at someone like him.
The Bush era has been the worst disaster for the right wing this century in both the US and potentially globally. He was a warmonger, an economic vandal and an unprincipled man at the helm of a state that flubbed any chance at setting up for meaningful long term success in favour of the patriot act and slaughtering goat herders in the middle east. Under his eye the Republicans exiled the right from cultural relevance for around a decade. The party around him were cut from the same cloth.
There is a reason the modern Republican party went with Trump rather than another person who looked like Bush. The entire Trump story has been the Republicans - without too much recrimination - attempting to purge the remains of the Bush era because they were a gross embarrassment whos legacy has been little short of a disaster. If the US Democrats had undertaken the same purge instead of embracing the leadership of the same era then they wouldn't have tried to run Biden then Kamala.
This is what is annoying - you saw a noun, and talked about that noun.
Not about the conversation we were having which is about standards of decency expected from the Dems in speech.
And how those standards don’t matter on the right.
Bush was an idiot, does stating that satisfy you ? Would that allow you the peace to reconnect with the point ? (Also yeah. Warmongers suck. Surprisingly something everyone agrees on. The anti war position is the OG leftie position, so it’s great to see it on the right.)
Maybe make your point more directly next time. It seems that point was winning is the only thing that matters and that is driving change in the Republicans.
That isn't what is happening; if they were focused on winning at all costs they wouldn't ever nominate Trump. The man has some of the most dedicated enemies out there short of those found in a multi-generational religious war and he doesn't poll especially well. The female half of the population tend to be a bit lukewarm towards him and that doesn't help win elections either since there are a lot of them.
The Republicans are engaged in an ideological reform to clear out specifically the people who were active in the Bush years. That happens to be a broader election winner too.
You see the same desperation when a religion starts faltering/drying up. Loads of good folks start to break away. Those that remain tend to be beneficiaries from the system, or are sociopaths who don't know how to adapt, or are gullible folks who don't know how to discern lying, or are andbusy folks for whom inertia is less painful than change.
I see that in politics in a lot of ways. I'm still figuring out my concept model for it, but the experience of religious exit is showing similarities.
What I lost would not have been changed by ignoring reality. A too large share of people in the country support a traitor, amongst other deplorable qualities. The reason why informs me to how I should play the game.
In the short term, I am sure I will benefit greatly from Trump’s leadership, just like I did last time. In the long term, I need to plan for what is best for my family to live in a country (world?) with less and less societal trust/cohesion (including family members).
Maybe the reality of this level of tribalism was always there, temporarily hidden from me by my youth and economic momentum from previous decades.
It is funny, ironic, but moreso sad, to complain about the loss of societal trust and cohesion whilst actively engaging in an ideological purity spiral that merely worsens that loss.
Not really. Traitors are traitors, and people who oppose women’s rights are people who oppose women’s rights. It seems expected to not trust someone who attacks your country, much less one’s mother/daughter/sister/etc.
Sure, you can say I support killing babies. It is black and white that a woman (and her doctor) should have zero qualms about doing whatever they need to prioritize the woman’s health.
Literally no one is killing babies who can survive outside of their moms for fun. They are all medically necessary healthcare procedures.
Doubling-down on the dehumanization and simplification of your enemies is not how you convince others that you actually care about societal trust or cohesion.
I am not dehumanizing anyone. I know they are humans, which is why they are behaving as they are. Humans just don’t happen to be better than most other animals when change in relative status (and hence power) is happening.
I used to think we were a little better, though.
For the record, I actually like some of Trump’s ideas, like no (earned) income tax, about Gaza, and I would still buy a Tesla (although I would prefer if a different automaker that isn’t led by someone who makes Nazi salutes would make buying a car as easy as Tesla).
But he’s not the guy I want my kids to see as the leader of their country, both for his character and his support of other policies/traitors/racism/general chaotic nature.
Your black and white thinking is dehumanizing. By being so rigid in your stance you're being neglectful of other peoples view of the world. It comes across so invalidating and dismissive, the lack of curiosity as to why people have these world views makes it even worse. The flavor of neglect feels very much like the kind growing up in a devoted christian home. You don't get to have a personality or have a valid view of the word because "god".
Stop being so intolerant! You know the existence of vaccines is religious persecution as they make it so there are fewer lepers to be embraced. </s>
As a libertarian who voted conservative (democratic) nationally for the first time in 2020, this narrative is so upside down. The overriding dynamic is that of the wedge issue, where republicans dredge up things our society either took for granted or at least agreed to disagree on and reanimate the old arguments. They find or craft the worst hyperbolic instances that appeal to thirty second attention spans, and then harp on them until there are enough "independent thinkers" staking out a contrarian position to make it an "issue".
The democratic party has its problems and is still fundamentally working to serve the corporate status quo. But contrast the soul searching that's been going on even since November, to the unapologetic doubling down of "stop the steal" in response to an objectively disastrous first Trump term.
The real answer is that people are squeezed, angry, don't know how good they actually have it, don't want to listen to reason, and just want to fuck shit up. Well, now we're all going to get it good and hard.
(edit: added /s tag to mitigate Poe's law, as it's 2025)
Well we can sit and hope that the other side solves the problem, while they sit and hope we solve it, and remain stuck in a never-ending cycle of blame and waiting.
Or someone can have the courage to change the situation. The nice benefit is that by ridding the hate in ourselves, we feel better even if the other side doesn't.
Not sure if this was to me (I hate that HN anonymizes so much, it doesn't understand the importance of personal context in communication), but I just looked up purity cycle and didn't find anything but found purity spiral, is that what you meant?
> A purity spiral is a theory which argues for the existence of a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and more extreme views are rewarded while expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished (a process sometimes called "moral outbidding").[1] It is argued that this feedback loop leads to members competing to demonstrate the zealotry or purity of their views.[2][3]
Free and fair elections are likely a thing of the past in the United States after this administration has completed its term, so it doesn't really matter if the left is competitive. They'll be a placeholder opposition party without any change of taking power for the foreseeable future. Trump and Johnson were already colluding to refuse certification of the 2024 election if Trump lost. They'll have a far more robust plan prepared next time.
The left won't be competitive in elections until they learn what it is, why it results in alienation of people who would otherwise support them, and find a way to escape it.