Sadly the group that has changed in this formula is the left. They used to (ie, 30-40 years ago) spend a lot of focusing on eliminating and underplay difference between groups. Today I often see the modern left making fun of those times as naive experiment.
From what I can tell, in general the left of the US is constantly making an attempt to be all inclusive. I'd agree that there hasn't been enough work to help people see that they have common cause with people who look different and live in different places. That's really whats needed, but it's never been clear to me how to help someone who is severely bigoted to understand that their views are born of ignorance.
From what I can tell, the Right uses positions to drive wedges between people, such that someone can literally hate something which is clearly benefiting them personally because they have turned the issue into an Us vs Them argument. The only thing I see the Left consistently use as a wedge issue is class and money... Whereas the Right uses every possible thing they can come up with to convince people that follow them that they should all be afraid of what the Left is going to "take" from them.
An other example would be collage kids. 30-40 years ago we had the political debate around private gender segregated college vs communal gender mixed college. The argument was that by mixing genders people will be more inclusive and less rigid in their group thinking. In modern left politics we instead see a lot of talk about women only school as an effective way to protect women and get more women into professions that is dominated by men. The idea is that they society should include them by giving them an exclusive safe space.
On the topic of religions I can also see a similar change in theme. Old left were more atheism leaning (through possible less so in the US) and regarded what people did in private as private and not part of group identity. Modern left is more focused in giving each religion equal space and promoting the different groups that self-identify as belong to one. It consider it especially important that society give each group the unique consideration that they need/demand.
The general theme here is that the old left either explicit or indirectly downplayed self-identified groups (gender, religions, and sexual orientation) by simply welcoming in everyone to join in the greater common goal (mostly against money/power in some version or other), and the group that did get promoted was the left movement itself. The right during this time acted in direct opposite by highlighted the multiple "others" in order to strengthen the self-group. Both the old and modern left movement focus on inclusion, but its the method used here and the side effects of those that is in stark contrast between new and old.
If you think about how the economic system works, it will very quickly become obvious why this is the only way a leftist state can ever work : idea is that 2 things motivate people, one is richness and one is ideology. Since richness is taken away (that's the very goal of leftism), ideology is the one remaining. Given that, you cannot give freedom of ideology and expect something like communism to work. Even limited communism.
Assuming the goal of the left is still communism (even the ones of the "eventually" persuasion), I would still agree this is true, and therefore should have the "real" moniker.
In my opinion the "new left" has as a defining characteristic "globalism at any cost". The global free movement of people, and (because it's a necessity of movement of people) capital, and ideology is the central principle. This has somehow become what traditionally leftist parties stand for these days.
This is an extreme subversion of leftist thought, because, firstly, it is an extreme laissez-faire market idea, and should thus be classified as extreme-right. Secondly, it's self-destructive, as it allows the owners of means of production to use that movement of people, and especially to abuse it. Why ? To create ridiculous concentrations of wealth that are the very opposite of what leftism stands for. Needless to say, this abuse of people movement is happening on a large scale as a result. "Strongholds" of leftist thoughts (like the Bay Area and especially San Francisco) have become the main examples of what's wrong with capitalism, as gets frequently complained about on this very forum. And yet, most everyone from there professes to hold socialist ideals.
Even on a larger scale this is true. The republican party is currently about as left/right as the democrats (which is, I think, a large part of the reason for Trump's win), and democrats are moving to the right, republicans to the left. It's baffling to see, but every year requires more of a squint not to see it.
In these articles, one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control. It is rare to find articles that I would feel comfortable sharing with conservative friends or family, as their tone is so contemptuous of conservatives. If it were not for the acerbic tone, many of these articles might become powerful tools of persuasion. But I guess it is just too much fun to taunt the "basket of deplorables."
To quote an article that nicely summarizes a Lincoln speech:
> When Abraham Lincoln was 33 years old, he gave a speech inside a Presbyterian church to a temperance society. His message: The assembled ought to be nicer to drinkers and sellers of alcohol, rather than shunning them, or denouncing them as moral pestilences. Indeed, they ought to use “kindly persuasion,” even if a man’s drunkenness had caused misery to his wife, or left his children hungry and naked with want.
> For people are never less likely to change, to convert to new ways of thinking or acting, than when it means joining the ranks of their denouncers.
> To expect otherwise, “to have expected them not to meet denunciation with denunciation ... and anathema with anathema, was to expect a reversal of human nature,” Lincoln explained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-can...
I literally bloodied my head face-desking after the exchange...
Aren't these in fact lightning rod issues between conservatives and liberals in general?
The right for women to choose what to do with their bodies is generally a liberal sentiment. The right to be free of religions in every day life, again is a liberal (and constitutional) view. Gun control, is again a liberal desire (though probably not as stalwart as the others).
Why should liberals relax their views on these things? Liberals have relaxed on are some issues: economics, corporate policy, healthcare, etc.
[Written from an obvious US viewpoint.]
What people really want is for their group to beat other groups. It's always been that way, and always will.
This factionalization can occasionally be overcome by great leaders or external enemies. But now, with this 'party over country' attitude that we have, it'll can't be. Shame on us.
Maybe that came to be cause you cant discern anymore your pals on here as on the street where you see who he is by his looks.
The reality of the situation seems obvious to me, even if the edges are not clearly defined. I don't think it's very difficult to work out what is going on (with climate change etc.)
To me this is not about people getting access to good data, or being otherwise properly educated. It's about people identifying with "their group", and attacking the "others". And such battle lines are fought around various issues and language, and labels. But it's not actually about those issues or language or labels. It's about self and other. My people, and those other people. So this is what needs to be healed, this separative egoness.