Hardkill

But liberalism and progressivism are both examples of stage Green, whereas the status quo/capitalism in America is primarily stage Orange. So, you mean that liberals are center-left, whereas progressives are solid leftists?

And Trump could pardon him if he pays Trump a lot of money and/or makes friends with him.

These days, I've been listening much more to pragmatic progressives like David Pakman, Pod Save America, BTC, Thom Hartmann, Hutch, IRI, etc. I still hate-watch TYT and Secular Talk, which I know I gotta stop doing.

I'd be very careful with your "bothsideism" if I were you.

I am glad the Democrats didn't let the funding for this tyrannical government continue. Hopefully it lasts for weeks.

As someone once told me before: Canada is looking real good now.

How so? I didn't say that they don't, but the electorate is just not the same. Here's a quote from Dan Pfieffer about this: "As many of you know, Democrats are the party of high-propensity voters. As data from Catalist, a Democratic analytics firm, shows: the more frequently someone votes, the more likely they are to vote Democratic. That means as overall turnout increases, the additional, less-frequent voters who enter the electorate tend to lean Republican. In 2024, those voters broke for Trump — which explains how Biden could be trailing Trump in the polls even as Democrats were winning down-ballot races in red states like Kentucky." https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/democrats-keep-winning-special-elections?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

Some Leftists are already freaking out about this:

Yeah, well not so much anymore. They lost to Trump and the GOP in 2016, they barely beat them in 2020 when they should’ve killed them in a landslide, and they lost to them again in 2024.

Again, special elections don't have a lot of those dumb, low-information, and less engaged voters like in presidential elections.

The Democratic brand is still more damaged than the Republican brand, sadly. So even though many people dislike the GOP, even more dislike the Democrats. Before the 2024 election year, I thought that the Democrats’ strong performance in special elections, midterms, and off-year elections was a good sign for their chances in 2024. However, it’s clear to me now that the electorate in special elections, midterms, and off-year races is too different from the general electorate in presidential elections. Presidential general elections bring out a much higher percentage of low-information, less engaged, and less politically developed voters than special, midterm, or off-year elections do. I don’t see how Democrats can win over enough of those voters when so many are too misinformed, too disengaged, or too deeply influenced by right-wing and alternative media.

It's still not clear that Newsom can pull it off. What if the damage to the Democratic brand has been so great that they never want to elect another Democrat for president again, no matter how talented any Democrat out there is?

So, what do you think about what David Pakman is saying? He's already interviewed many establishment/moderate Democratic politicians and says that none of them have been willing to learn how to be good at doing interviews in independent and alternative media. I worry that if Democrats don't fix their credibility, messaging, and media strategy problems soon, then the majority of Americans may never believe in electing any Democrat for president, may never be able to stop the radical right courts, and may never win back control of Congress, except for maybe just the House.

I think that another economic depression and/or another World War or some extreme collapse of our country maybe the very best shot of getting the past this toxic orange.

I've been contemplating on the notion that “women only want the top 20%” meme and I now find that to be really misleading. It seems to mostly describe app dynamics (photo-first, inbox floods, safety filters, status amplification). Offline, in socially dense contexts (recurring mixed-gender scenes, warm introductions, real third places), the old forces still run the show: taste diversity, multi-factor attraction, repetition, vouching, assortative matching, and satisficing. That’s why, historically, most men (not 100%) ended up with partners by mid-life. Also, paying for sex is a minority behavior, and even among men who’ve ever paid, most of their encounters are still unpaid. For premodern settings, “most men had sex by mid-life”—typically ~90%+ in many regions—while ever partnered ranged roughly ~80–95% depending on marriage system (lowest where late marriage or polygyny left more men single). For modern settings, like in the past, most men have had sex by mid-life (often ~90–97%), and most will have ever partnered—but the age it happens and the share who never marry vary more now by region and economy than ever before. Two things seem true and in tension: App markets look extremely top-heavy; lots of men feel invisible. Historically and across many countries, most men eventually have sex and many partner by mid-life (even average/below-average guys). How do you reconcile these? My current hypothesis: the 20% vibe is mostly platform structure (photo sorting, message overload, safety screening), while offline contexts (warm intros, repeated contact, assortative matching) broaden who gets chosen. If you disagree, what data (not anecdotes) best shows the 20% dynamic holds offline?

It’s clear to me why liberals are generally more evolved than conservatives in Spiral Dynamics terms, since liberal values (pluralism, inclusion, reform, openness) usually sit later in the developmental sequence than conservative values (tradition, order, hierarchy, status-quo maintenance). Liberalism → “modern” (novelty, reform, inclusion, experimentation, expanding rights). Conservatism → “traditional” (continuity, order, inheritance, restraint, preserving norms). But here’s my question: Where do centrists/moderates fit in? On the one hand, centrism can look like a low-stage compromise—splitting the difference for safety, avoiding conflict, or defending the status quo without deeper principles (Blue/Orange shadow). On the other hand, integrative centrism could be seen as later-stage Yellow—not just “meeting in the middle,” but actually synthesizing liberal ends (rights, inclusion, reforms) with conservative means (stability, institutions, feedback loops, guardrails). So which is it? Are centrists more evolved than liberals because they can integrate multiple perspectives? Or are liberals still more evolved, since historically most major expansions of rights and progress came from liberal/left coalitions? Does it depend less on ideology and more on how people think (systems, trade-offs, humility, shadow awareness, implementation craft)? Curious to hear perspectives from those who’ve studied Spiral Dynamics more deeply. Is the “higher consciousness move” to lean progressive, to lean centrist, or to transcend both?

Even though Lenin was a Hard Leftist he was still fundamentally a conservative. He was never a true liberal or progressive, correct?

You're mistaken about conservatives wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas. Trump and the right-wing pretend to care about that. In fact, manufacturing jobs during Trump's first term continued to be offshored even more. Biden, progressives, and Democrats actually were responsible for the historic onshoring of manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency with the American Rescue Plan, Chips and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act, good stewarding of the economy, and so on. As for having strong police and military, yes that has traditionally been a right-wing characteristic; however, as I explained in another thread, virtually every liberal has been very pro-military and police, and that if you look at US History, many liberal/progressive presidents upgraded our entire national security and law enforcement. Truman, who inherited the mantle of New Deal liberalism right after FDR died in office, presided over the most comprehensive, permanent redesign of the U.S. security state: the National Security Act of 1947 created the DoD, NSC, CIA, and a separate U.S. Air Force, regularized the Joint Chiefs, and his 1952 memo stood up the NSA—the core architecture we still use. Obama was the one who successfully presided over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and Biden was the main leader of the world who united NATO and Ukraine against Russia, which saved most of Ukraine from Russia and dealt a very serious blow to Russia's standing in the world. All types of major crime throughout the entire country had plummeted to historic lows by the last two years of Biden's presidency. Btw, what proof is there that the so-called “demonic climate change action” has caused deindustrialization and left millions of factory workers unemployed? If anything, the historic action on climate change during Biden’s presidency has sparked reindustrialization—creating hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, new good-paying working-class jobs across the country since 2022 for the next several years. Sadly, much of the IRA got gutted by Trump and the Republicans, especially after their passage of the OBBB. As for immigration, progressives such as Bernie Sanders and those who are Center-Left like Joe Biden are for improving border security, and also are for more fair and legal immigration pathways in our country. Do you understand that the only main things that virtually every right-wing and Republican political actor in US History has only ever really done are enacting more major tax cuts and more deregulation policies for the very wealthy, very powerful, and big corporations at the expense of the everyday people, small businesses, and fair trade practices? Since the 1980s, most forward-looking national efforts to boost demand, rebuild industry, expand worker power and benefits, widen health coverage, and modernize infrastructure have been initiated by liberals and progressives. Only during times of great crisis, or when they are under intense constituency pressure, do Republicans back major packages (such as ARRA, IIJA, CHIPS, and the IRA) that provide broad relief and materially improve the lives of everyday Americans. Yet, since the 1980s, the right-wing politicians, their donors, and every conservative propagandist out there have generally prioritized tax cuts and deregulation over long-horizon industrial policy and broad, bottom-up social investment. Conservatives and the GOP usually revert to pro-capital priorities once the emergency passes, whereas Democrats and progressives continue to push for lasting, bottom-up gains outside of crises. The Right and the Republican Party have just been better than the Left and the Democratic Party at LYING to the people about how much they care about helping the working-class, middle-class, and working poor in economy, while the Left and the Democratic Party are worse at messaging than Right and the Republican Party and have had a much weaker media ecosystem for their side than the right-wing has for decades. Even the right-populist rebrand and rising right-populist interest in antitrust, industrial policy, and “worker power” rhetoric has just been talk on their side has been more rhetorical than programmatic. One more thing. Do you realize that almost every liberal or progressive president since the year 1900—except for Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter—has ended their presidency with a booming economy and major net job creation in both the private and public sectors across the entire country? Meanwhile, did you know that almost every conservative president since 1900—except for William McKinley and Ronald Reagan—ended their presidencies with a recession, stagflation, depression, or even the looming of the worst economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression?

Why aren’t enough centrists and Independents, even those who follow politics regularly, out there are not able to see that the Republican Party is much worse than the Democratic Party like? Are most centrists and Independents too afraid to take a side? Are they just more corrupt or more foolish than liberals and Democrats are? Or do centrists and Independents generally not follow politics and are not as informed as much as left-wingers, right-wingers, and highly engaged party loyalists do?

Yeah, I am totally with you. It fucking pisses me off. Though their "rationale" is that it's not just the Democratic party that has gotten "too extreme" and "too partisan." They are saying that both major parties have gone insane and gone too far from the center, which is their reason for becoming Independents like you are. lol. They also say that they want Trump to succeed as president for the "good of the country" and so far give him at least a "C" grade overall for the job he is doing as president. Can you believe this nonsense? Trump doesn't deserve anything close to a passing grade.

What about centrists like Manchin and Chris Cuomo saying that the Democratic Party and liberals today have gone too far to the left?

But what about moderates like Washington and Lincoln and center-left leaders like FDR?

There is mainstream conservatism, mainstream centrism, and mainstream liberalism. but I get your point. What was once an unthinkable or radical form of progress eventually becomes mainstream.

We had a federal assault weapon ban passed in Congress in the 1990s during Clinton's presidency with the 1994 crime bill that was sponsored by then Senator Biden. Sadly, it only lasted for 10 years. Bush actually wanted to renew that law but never got the support he needed in Congress for it. Federal law banned the civilian transfer and possession of new machine guns as of May 19, 1986, through the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).

Then, we have to somehow replace the 2nd amendment with a new amendment and/or overthrow the radical right-wingers on SCOTUS to ban most guns for all civilians except for hunting guns, federal level gun permits, and major federal level background checks.