I'm going to read into that--seems very interesting. And you're right, very similar to what I'm arguing here.
The only difference I would note based on my brief research is that my argument is to limit multiculturalism only at the level of openness, tolerance, and the capacity for criticism and change — not at the level of religious, legal, or other deeper cultural practices for its own sake or any other.
> And while each contained grains of truth, none seemed fully sufficient to explain the more fundamental ideological shift to the right America has seen in the last decade.
Has America shifted right ideologically in the last decade?
> Yglesias has been urging Democrats to widen their tent. When Elon Musk broke with the Trump administration, for instance, Yglesias was one of the first to suggest welcoming him into the Democratic coalition. Similarly, he tried to call attention to the bipartisan unpopularity of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” as a way to build consensus. A noble effort.
Elon has some disagreements and some agreements. Perhaps the agreement-disagreement ratio would have been positively impacted had he been more welcomed on the left.
I think Yglesias’ idea is that the moderate members should more openly talk about their disagreements, and that having the far-left faction yell at them publicly will in fact make the moderates more popular since the median voter will see them as distinct from more extreme factions. My question is: why don’t moderate members just do that? Maybe they don’t think they can pull it off rhetorically. In the case of Biden and Kamala specifically, I’m not sure they are wrong. I think strategy starts by nominating people who can meet the minimum bar of clearly articulating themselves.
> Jeffries rightly recognizes that this kind of messaging can have negative effects on the broader coalition. The phrase is widely understood to mean, at best, a call for the destruction of the state of Israel, and at worst, an incitement to violence against Jews worldwide. In either case, Jeffries saw that such rhetoric would be unacceptable to many within the Democratic coalition.
In terms of national elections, yes it has shifted rightward ideologically. Check out the New York Times' 2012-2024 EC demographic analysis they did to see the best visuals.
I think you're right about the first portion of Yglesias' arguments, but not the second part: I don't think leftists yelling at center-left libs "helps" libs. They've been doing this and it hasn't worked, see my example of Harris/Biden campaign rallies. No one thought the moderates looked better, just that they were weak in the face of intolerance.
I think your point on articulation is completely fair. And yes, I think moderates yelling at progressives more would help--but only if its due to their intolerance of those who are inside and who may want to join the coalition, not simply due to disagreement.
Negative views of Israel isn't the same as globalize the intifada, nor failing to criticize the phrase. The phrase is one of intolerance. Democrats like Jefferies must get those in the party to relinquish this toleration of intolerance. This is what I'm trying to get across: its not about popularism. Things that are popular should be tolerant to tolerant views and intolerant to intolerant ones. If some idea or policy is popular but it doesn't fit this requirement, no one should be repping it and everyone should be criticizing it.
Thanks so much for reading and providing some interesting points!
"And though policy is important, it ignores how difficult it is to build a big tent when that tent includes people who make others want to leave."
Well said.
Your comment about the paradox of tolerance reminded me of a similar and fascinating piece, "Boutique Multiculturalism" by Stanley Fish.
I'm going to read into that--seems very interesting. And you're right, very similar to what I'm arguing here.
The only difference I would note based on my brief research is that my argument is to limit multiculturalism only at the level of openness, tolerance, and the capacity for criticism and change — not at the level of religious, legal, or other deeper cultural practices for its own sake or any other.
> And while each contained grains of truth, none seemed fully sufficient to explain the more fundamental ideological shift to the right America has seen in the last decade.
Has America shifted right ideologically in the last decade?
> Yglesias has been urging Democrats to widen their tent. When Elon Musk broke with the Trump administration, for instance, Yglesias was one of the first to suggest welcoming him into the Democratic coalition. Similarly, he tried to call attention to the bipartisan unpopularity of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” as a way to build consensus. A noble effort.
Elon has some disagreements and some agreements. Perhaps the agreement-disagreement ratio would have been positively impacted had he been more welcomed on the left.
I think Yglesias’ idea is that the moderate members should more openly talk about their disagreements, and that having the far-left faction yell at them publicly will in fact make the moderates more popular since the median voter will see them as distinct from more extreme factions. My question is: why don’t moderate members just do that? Maybe they don’t think they can pull it off rhetorically. In the case of Biden and Kamala specifically, I’m not sure they are wrong. I think strategy starts by nominating people who can meet the minimum bar of clearly articulating themselves.
> Jeffries rightly recognizes that this kind of messaging can have negative effects on the broader coalition. The phrase is widely understood to mean, at best, a call for the destruction of the state of Israel, and at worst, an incitement to violence against Jews worldwide. In either case, Jeffries saw that such rhetoric would be unacceptable to many within the Democratic coalition.
In this case, the problem is Jeffries’. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-americans-view-israel-and-the-israel-hamas-war-at-the-start-of-trumps-second-term/ Among dems, negative views of Israel are popular and increasing. Mamdani holds the more popular opinion in terms of a Dem primary electorate.
In terms of national elections, yes it has shifted rightward ideologically. Check out the New York Times' 2012-2024 EC demographic analysis they did to see the best visuals.
I think you're right about the first portion of Yglesias' arguments, but not the second part: I don't think leftists yelling at center-left libs "helps" libs. They've been doing this and it hasn't worked, see my example of Harris/Biden campaign rallies. No one thought the moderates looked better, just that they were weak in the face of intolerance.
I think your point on articulation is completely fair. And yes, I think moderates yelling at progressives more would help--but only if its due to their intolerance of those who are inside and who may want to join the coalition, not simply due to disagreement.
Negative views of Israel isn't the same as globalize the intifada, nor failing to criticize the phrase. The phrase is one of intolerance. Democrats like Jefferies must get those in the party to relinquish this toleration of intolerance. This is what I'm trying to get across: its not about popularism. Things that are popular should be tolerant to tolerant views and intolerant to intolerant ones. If some idea or policy is popular but it doesn't fit this requirement, no one should be repping it and everyone should be criticizing it.
Thanks so much for reading and providing some interesting points!