Read on Twitter
When I officially became a democrat, I had no idea that the party was divided into sub-groups. It wasn’t until 2015 that I learned that Hillary Clinton wasn’t considered a progressive. I was so confused. How could such a trailblazer and someone with decades of advocacy for 1/
for the marginalized not be considered a progressive? I mean, the woman was fighting for universal healthcare in the 90s FFS! There’s an obvious flaw in this division of these monikers and I want no part of it. To this day, I refuse to align myself with any sub-group of Dems. 2/
I’m all of them. I’m a liberal, a progressive, a moderate, a radical and whatever else is out there. (Except a “justice democrat”. Of course, I want racial, economic and climate justice but the group who officially claimed that title seem, in general, to be a bit naive and 3/
naive and arrogant which is a bad combination for progress. Hard pass.) We all have the same goals. Debating how we get there is imperative but dismissing someone’s experience based on a category will just hold us back.
Footnote: my feeling is that the “far left” are not 4/
Footnote: my feeling is that the “far left” are not 4/
considered Dems so I haven’t included them in the list of sub-categories. I believe that the majority of them are either independent or non-voters.
There’s a degree of comfort & power when subscribing to “tribalism” but it seems counterproductive to me in general. /5
Thoughts?
There’s a degree of comfort & power when subscribing to “tribalism” but it seems counterproductive to me in general. /5
Thoughts?
