I found this on The ZMan. I think the term would appeal to many who cannot, WILL not, consider whether the so-called Conservative side would be a better fit for their underlying principles.
What I have found is that political labels are remarkably long-lasting. If, as a youth, someone identified with Liberalism/Progressivism/Democratic/Other Labels, they have incorporated that identity into their sense of self.
To move on from that identity is to betray youthful principles, which many are loath to do.
The only way that people MIGHT consider shifting that self-identification is if they can convince themselves that another allegiance better fits their original principles. In other words, if another cause/identity/party has “moved on” to a better way of thinking that STILL incorporates that core belief system.
The other way is if they can be persuaded that their leadership has feet of clay; if they can be seen to have personally benefited from their work on “The Cause”, beyond a reasonable comfort level, a person MIGHT switch.
We’ve tried the first way. Trump and Elon, along with the rest of the team, are striking hard at the 2nd way.
Will it work?
Maybe – for SOME.
I remember reading David Horowitz’s Radical Son, in which he details the staunch Communist adherence of his parents.
And, after the truth about Stalin’s horrors began leaking out to the West, his parents paralysis of thought. They COULDN’T leave the party officially, but they could no longer support it with the fervor of their youth. They spent much of their remaining lives in a kind of Limbo; not OUT of the party, but no longer active.
Such is the strength of that personal entwinement with political affiliation; without that cohesive cause, the source of friends, allies, entertainment, quasi-family, who ARE they?
Be wary of the new causes those disaffected Leftists will glom onto. They very well may be WORSE than what they leave.
1 comments
Getting mugged is another way.