People on the left have historically had a lot of difficulty organizing, I think in part because they are always trying to impose their subjective point of view on others and that prevents them from forming a plan of action and following it.
Because the biggest enemy of someone on the left, is another person on the left with slightly different viewpoints than their own.
Fuck them and their philosophically similar but marginally divergent opinions.
The right ideologically represents consolidation of power and conformity. The left ideologically represents distribution of power and freedom of expression. All of those things lie in a balance, and all are necessary for a functional society. That balance is the big problem. When one ‘party’ is focused on unifying behind a powerful person regardless of the broad reaching implications of that accumulation of power, while the other ‘party’ is focused on wrangling different ideological groups towards the overlap in the EDIT: Venn (not vent. Thanks autocorrect) diagrams of their interests and goals, you tend to observe a relative ‘difficulty in organizing’.
Of course, there are other viewpoints that would disagree with this analysis.
Project 2025 is a report from a far right think tank, the Heritage Foundation that MAGA aligned groups are all pushing into the news cycle.
There are plenty of centrist, progressive, and/or left wing (the 3 camps that make up democrats) think tanks but those are producing 3 fairly different paths/goals - compared to HF’s singular message of “lets make a white christian nationalist state.”
So it’s easier to for them to build a critical mass of polling (1 high profile UltraCon idea vs 3 different voices out of the Democratic party). The media ultimately magnifies apparent support because extremism drives ratings/clicks and they’re all dependent on popularity to make money (or keep what funding they have in the case of NPR/PBS).
Edited for clarity.
I would really appreciate it if you found the time to edit this post and expand a bit more on your general thesis here.
That opposing force is the sheer amount of desperation people are putting into chasing voters to the polls
There isn’t an opposite manifesto because the opposition to Project 2025 is a big tent coalition of several groups that in a proper democratic system would be entirely different parties.
It’s a beast with 20 heads that all have to agree to make any significant movement in any given direction, and so all that this monster can agree to do right now is to keep keeping the other guy out and hope a resolution comes in the process.
Only sometimes one of the heads decides to be a privileged little twat and not even agree to that, and then gaslight everyone else about how they all made the twat decide to let the worse guy win.
Anyways the point is someone would have to beat down the egos of a lot of big names to unite the democratic coalition enough to put out a counterproposal to Project 2025.
You probably could do it too with enough being the biggest most confrontational douche ever seen in the DNC to literally everyone until you’ve successfully bowled everyone else over and browbeaten them into line, but congratulations now the only thing they’re more united about than The Project for All is how much they all hate you and want to ruin you so they can all go back to being the petty lords of their sub-partisan fiefdoms.
I want you to imagine an indestructible box filled with all the world’s comforts. How do you craft it? How do you procure the materials to craft it? How do you search for the means to find the materials to craft it? Hard questions without a simple solution.
Now I want you to picture a decently sturdy box filled with some neat stuff. And now I want you to picture yourself bashing it to pieces. Pretty doable, right?
It’s easy to break something of value, it’s near impossible to craft the invincible. Especially when half of your team is actively bashing.
I agree with you that a large part of the problem is that destruction is easier than creation, but it wouldn’t be hard to get a lot of progressive things in if there were the political will for it. Appoint tons of progressive judges and start putting through huge increases in wealth taxes, climate and social programs, workers/union rights, scale back police power, etc etc.
But even if there were hundreds of leftist judges waiting in the wings, the dems are too corporatist to support stuff like that, so the best they can offer is some social programs that won’t upset the status quo too much.
Leftists are famous for infighting and disunity.
