I know, I’m yet on another island here. But, I think there’s an important case to make for the radical difference between the lame-ass center and the all too violently disposed right.
Boiled down, this is it:
The Center does little to nothing to actually improve lives or save the environment, and all too often turns a blind eye to aggressive efforts on the right to do serious damage to both. This gives us abundant reason to be pissed off at centrists and moderates. But there is still an important difference between the two portions of the political spectrum. The most significant is in the way they seek to deflect from the absence of any viable program of aid or remedy.
The Center tends to counter criticism with “We can’t move fast or go big on this, or we’ll lose political support.” The right counters their own empty agenda with endless lies to whip up their base into a frenzy of hate and fear. The assault on the Capitol, and the various smaller, targeted assassination attempts, is the result.
As in, the Center relies on a sense that they’re basically helpless to do what needs to be done. This is of course a lie. But they virtually never seek to pit Americans against one another, or whip them up into an endless frenzy of fear and hatred. The right, OTOH, realizes they have no other method, whatsoever, to get through to their base. They offer them less than zero on economic or any other grounds, so they have to spin their base up into permanent frenzy. They can never let them spin down, calm down, or they’d lose them.
To me, the danger in the two methods is rather obvious, and the effects are clearly quantitatively and qualitatively different. One stands in the way of progress, is all too lame, all too cowardly. But the other is an existential threat to all of us.
Both demand strong leftist critique, but that critique, IMO, and the time spent on that critique, should be proportionally in accord with effects, dangers, etc. etc.
Your thoughts are more than welcome.