The most charitable reading would be “Their positions are winning votes. Are we going to stick to our conservative positions and let them drive us out the party or are we going to adopt their progressive positions in order to retain power?”
I’m not too optimistic though. They might sacrifice principles, but I’m not sure their pride could stomach accepting that their stubborn attempt to win over the right was fundamentally flawed. Nor could their donors stomach it.
Considering all the times they’ve literally worked to attack more progressive members of their own party, even when it would lead to clear loss, I’m not giving the DNC any charity.
Centrists have lost all generosity and instead dessrve only animosity. Worthless conservatives pretending that they aren’t.
Starting from charity is just my method of analysing statements, before proceeding to argue against it. That doesn’t mean I consider it likely. In fact, I generally find it easier to spot the flawed premises (such as humility to admit mistake and integrity to put what’s right over what’s profitable) required to support that assumption.
If I start from the negative position, I find it hard to reason my way out of cynicism (probably because cynicism comes naturally to me) and reach a nuanced position. I also found that a “negative by default” stance is bad for my mental health.
The most charitable reading would be “Their positions are winning votes. Are we going to stick to our conservative positions and let them drive us out the party or are we going to adopt their progressive positions in order to retain power?”
I’m not too optimistic though. They might sacrifice principles, but I’m not sure their pride could stomach accepting that their stubborn attempt to win over the right was fundamentally flawed. Nor could their donors stomach it.
Considering all the times they’ve literally worked to attack more progressive members of their own party, even when it would lead to clear loss, I’m not giving the DNC any charity.
Centrists have lost all generosity and instead dessrve only animosity. Worthless conservatives pretending that they aren’t.
Oh I agree with you.
Starting from charity is just my method of analysing statements, before proceeding to argue against it. That doesn’t mean I consider it likely. In fact, I generally find it easier to spot the flawed premises (such as humility to admit mistake and integrity to put what’s right over what’s profitable) required to support that assumption.
If I start from the negative position, I find it hard to reason my way out of cynicism (probably because cynicism comes naturally to me) and reach a nuanced position. I also found that a “negative by default” stance is bad for my mental health.
I get that, but at this point they’ve already shown their faces. The bar is too low and they still can’t clear it.