Read on Twitter
This a genuine question re folks #politics. Following thread presents set of assumptions re Imaginary candidate X (X is not a proxy for a current candidate). Long thread but would love to know how folks might viscerally react to such a candidate holding specific issues aside (1
fundamentally decent human being, not saint, doesn’t pretend not to be “practicing politics”sincere & transparent re “Personally, of course I want goal X. don’t believe it’s possible immediately. i believe Y is possible, helps many people & moves us closer to X.”(2
Freely concedes inconsistencies in political record, notes cases where views changed based on new data/persuasion & where old vote was frankly needed for electionMakes no claim to always be right but gives everything trying to be. Values great outcome>being credited (3/
Would prefer high road & clear that won’t be the first to go low - but also clear that low may be met by low. has at least loose ideological consistency - but such may be rooted in, e.g. morality or pragmatism, not necessarily a traditional political POV. (4/
Does not meet puritanical ideological litmus tests & is clear on that & publicly disdains the notion of comprehensive litmus tests aspires to be President of whole country; demonstrable willingness to publicly be confronted by genuine strong opposition (5
but after close analysis of who is actually persuadable, focuses base-expanding efforts on that group fully recognizes the need for congressional majorities, as well as state & local level support (6
Willing to say “I think [opponent] makes an important point, which I’m grateful for & it’s worthy of debate”Willing to say, when needed, “I got that one wrong, period. I wish I had it to do over again but I don’t.I will do all I can to make it right here & after” (7
In discussing alternative viewpoints, rather than just bash, make an effort to broadly explain the basic rationale, what the goal is & freely admit goal may be admirable. I.e. show respect borne of careful study & thought & use that to pivot to preferred choice. (8
As often as needed, very publicly disapprove of “supporters” who cross boundaries of decency vis-a-vis supporters of opponents. Not wink wink - “you are not welcome in this movement. Save it for me & my opponent, we seek the office, w us it’s fair game. (9
Clear in recognizing that many folks actually cannot - and many desperately fear - they can’t survive w/o radical change. But also clear that revolutions also take a long time to scale up & have genuine proposals to help those in toughest spots at least be able to hang in (10
Ha if you’ve read this far, know it was long & without issue or party info, not expecting folks to speak to whether they’d certainly vote for X or not. More interested in if folks would/could be open to strongly supporting a candidate w those basic elements. #politics
