I disagree with some of this. Abolishing capitalism was definitely a stance of the hard-leftists in the party. It was hidden behind ideas like the tax on unrealized gains that are just Marxist to the core. Wealth distribution has been in the discourse of the Democrats for years now. When Occupy Wallstreet occurred in 2008, this was one of the moments we started to see a shift in the Democratic party.
Likewise, the entire climate change agenda adopted by the party is rhetoric that while there is a legitimate discussion underlying it, has become a rallying cry that was not present 20 years ago. Civil Rights protections are not radical indeed, but I also don't think they were a bigger issue than Abortion which is a more established leftist debating point.
So, while the Democrat do not embody all of the characteristics of the hard-left as you describe it, they display enough of them with such a magnitude that it cannot be mistaken for anything else imo. A subset of the party are loud activists that spout ideas that unfortunately were a reason that cost Kamala Harris this election.
I don't agree. The United States has no direct public stake in their relationship. Ukraine is not an ally nor a NATO country. Similar to the Iraq War, neocons and warmongers are spinning up any justification they can to constantly involve the country in a war. In 2014 after the coup and after Ukraine was named one of the most corrupt countries in the world by our State Department, American citizens could not bother to care about the country. Ukraine became a polarized topic the moment Trump was Pro-Putin. As I've stated many times, the US and Russia are more like rivals and not enemy countries. This should have never been a political hill to die over, as most of the country does not support it.
Fair. I refer to it as tribalism in short-hand because I do not want to spend a lot of time discussing the nuances of a greater issue that I'm assuming you're familiar with. But that isn't an outright dismissal of the arguments. I refer to it that way because what evolved from arguments of intersectionality a decade ago is what this has become. You are either for all of the issues of the party, or you are a Republican/anti-Democrat. You cannot agree with just some of the political objectives. There are times people DO argue the misrepresentation of issues that Republicans/conservatives do. But rarely is that the case because discussions get sidetracked by ad-hominem attacks before the real fundamentals can be spoken about.
I see where you're coming from. And while I don't fully agree with your analysis, I think it's worth looking at the nuances behind these issues to clarify the differences in our perspectives.
Wrt the Democratic Party's ideology, I think there's a distinction to be made between activist rhetoric and the party's actual policy platform. You're right that movements like Occupy Wall Street brought progressive ideas like wealth redistribution into public discourse, and that it may have influenced some segments of the party. However, it's also important to note that these ideas have not become the central planks of the party's platform. For example, while a tax on unrealized gains has been discussed by some progressives, it's far from being mainstream Democratic policy. The Biden administration has focused instead on more traditional tax reforms, like raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes. These are policies that reflect a centrist approach.
I also see your point about climate change gaining prominence in the party's priorities. You're right that this wasn't as central 20 years ago, but I would argue that this shift reflects a broader societal and scientific consensus rather than a radical ideological pivot. Addressing climate change is now widely recognized as a global necessity, and many of the policies proposed, such as investing in renewable energy, have bipartisan origins and economic benefits.
On civil rights and abortion, I think both have been longstanding priorities for the Democratic Party rather than newer, competing points of emphasis. Civil rights protections, like addressing systemic racism and ensuring voting access, have always been integral to the party's mission. Similarly, abortion rights have been a cornerstone issue for decades. I don't see these as trade-offs but as complementary parts of the party's broader commitment to social justice.
Wrt Ukraine, I understand your skepticism about US involvement, especially given past conflicts like Iraq. However, I think the situation is different in one key way. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances, including from the US. Supporting them now is partly about upholding those commitments. That said, I agree that's it's fair to question the extent and scope of American engagement, as well as the political dynamics surrounding it.
Finally, on your use of "tribalism" to describe the Democratic coalition: while I agree that party politics can sometimes feel rigid, I think this cohesion is necessary to achieve shared goals in a system that often requires unity to pass legislation. However, I don't think disagreement within the party equates to exclusion or outright dismissal of diverse views. Political movements thrive on compromise, even if those processes can be messy.
