this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
939 points (98.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
2190 readers
1088 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't align with their views; that's the whole problem. Liberals carry water for the DNC even though they hate the nonsense it does as much as everyone else. At least I don't think I've seen anyone around here say that Biden supporting genocide* or not going after price gouging were good things. It's always excuses, "lesser" evils and false dichotomies to make sure the Democrats are always just good enough to not throw aside. That's why I likened it to the Stockholm Syndrome.
*well Zionists think so but screw them
That's still not analogous to MAGA extremism, Democrats have much more favorable social policies, which is what most Americans care about. Voting for the party that does more about the values you care about is not a death cult unless you think basic LGBT rights are a death cult.
Now that I think about it I was using liberal to mean DNC supporter and I'm pretty sure that's a misnomer (though there likely is significant overlap) so I'll say DNC supporter from now on. Also what I personally call blue MAGA is only a subset of DNC "supporters" (since most of them are closer to willing hostages, at least around here). My personal blue MAGA line is actually thinking the DNC is a competent or honest political party despite being shown evidence to the contrary or has some kind of right to people's votes. "America didn't vote for them so they have no duty to act/America clearly wants fascism" rhetoric and thinking accepting genocide was competent electoral strategy (again despite being shown evidence to the contrary) also fall under this. They also like to claim Bernie's losses in 2016 and 2020 were "the will of the voters" rather than the result of DNC tampering. Edit: Seeing a headline about genocide in Palestine and writing something to the effect of "Gaza voters bad" is also a pretty clear tell.
The blue MAGA comparison isn't about extremism; it's about other hallmark MAGA traits like tribalism, enforcement of ideological homogeneity, vilification and mocking of critics and uncritical support for "us" over "them". For what I consider emblematic blue MAGA behavior, remember how in the lead up to the election everyone critical of Biden and later Harris or the DNC was called a Russian troll or MAGA in disguise? Yeah, it's that. So yeah, they're called blue MAGA because they're perfectly willing to imitate MAGA when it suits them. Fortunately the number of blue MAGAs (as opposed to willing hostages) shrunk since then, but you'll still see a few of them around.
Within the context of the Western, and especially American, slide into fascism, people who want to stop that must do what works and ditch what doesn't work. Well, we call argue all day about what works, but voting for the DNC and in DNC primaries doesn't. Bernie 2020 and their abandonment of Jamal Bowman are all proof needed for that. And what do you call a group of people who insist on and defend walking a path down which only their misery lies? Because I call that a death cult. Whether one realizes that (the willing hostages) or chooses not to (blue MAGA) is irrelevant.
Your definition of BlueMAGA is still intellectually dishonest then.
Intellectually dishonest? Why?
Because it would be more honest, within your definition, to call them DNC partisans. What you wish to ascribe to them is not distinctive of MAGA, so using MAGA to degrade them is not only inaccurate but dishonest because it specifically makes a comparison that is unfit, and ultimately only serves to degrade the meaning of MAGA by making it applicable to any run of the mill party hack.
Blue MAGA is naturally an opposite of red MAGA. Are democrats such nice people that their radicals are insignificant in comparison, or is it just a bad comparison?
I feel that doesn't quite capture the nuance of calling everyone they disagree with a Russian troll so they can ignore them (which is more evocative of MAGAs calling everyone to the left of Donald Trump a woke libtard agent).
I'll admit I'm not exactly an expert on MAGA, but to me the distinctive features of MAGA is their hatred of dissent, intellectual dishonesty and lack of empathy for outsiders. Those are what I see as their main characteristics outside all the far-right nationalism stuff; they characterize the vessel in which you put the far-right nationalism to get MAGA.
Now I'm just now learning the term party hack, so would a person X described only as a Democrat party hack habitually call critics Russian agents and react to news of Israel committing more genocide against Palestinians with "we did it Patrick, we saved Palestine" or "leopards ate my face"?
The comparison emerged from exchanges in which DNC hacks/proto blue MAGAs were responding to legitimate criticism or predictions with accusations of the critic being a Russian troll/MAGA in disguise, so the nuance has always been more along the lines of "uh... you're acting awfully MAGA right now yourself", with the idea being that being not MAGA the DNC hack should be better than that. It's about the vessel of MAGA, not the contents.