I’m watching the recent video discussion on gun violence and am loving much of it.
However, hearing Ken launch (as he often does) into the part where he describes the progressive part of the Democratic party in terms of a very mean and imbalanced version of the Green altitude, I keep feeling that this really does not jive entirely with the reality I am seeing:
Yes, as usual the evolutionary analysis of the Democrats and Republicans (emergence of green in the 60s and how it started splitting “liberals”), is amazing and rings true.
Yet–for example–listening to the Democratic debates and picking out the most progressive candidates, I do not hear ANYONE represent the views that Ken describes: anti free speech, wanting all outcomes to be entirely equal, calling people “racist” because they want “color-blindness”, etc.
It seems to me a bit that Ken is reacting to some kind of traumatization from certain college minorities, that he may have had to deal with. I am not saying that these “mean-green” types do not exist. I can see them in videos produced on the intellectual dark web or conservative pundits, but they seem to me to be small vocal minorities, usually extremely young and not represented in ANY candidates of the Democratic party.
I DO understand some of the deeper, more subtle (and therefor probably more powerful) problems of green (extreme relativism, etc.) and that they are an important philosophical problem to be aware of, but I really don’t see the extreme version of green he describes anywhere in actual politicians of the Democratic party–especially when it comes to actual policy and not just words or “dog-whistles” to a group of young voters that are on that extreme spectrum (Ha! The left can use “dog-whistles” too!)
Can anyone set me straight around this?