In any case, the point about writing down the red lines was a good one.

I wonder if anyone did and what they were.

1) They are doing it for opportunistic reasons. They can't afford to be enemies with Trump.

2) They legitimately changed their opinion about a wide array of things they used to believe enough to outspoken about.

3) They believe that while Trump's core beliefs are not aligned to theirs, the alternative is worse. And potentially they believe there is a need for some sorm of over-correction to fix what has happened over the last 4 years.

I've tried that, not demonizing trump voters. They won't be on your side because you were kind to them. They will demonize you and join the side that they consider the strongest position.

Benjamin Netanyahu is planning for 500 years from now when it won't even be a memory that there was a population of Arabs in Israel.

"Project 2025" began in 1971 [1]

On the other hand, Democrats decided to dump Biden for Harris at the last minute possible. Sam Altman is saying we have to draw a line in the sand now. Peter Thiel has been drilling his well all this time. The center right paper The Economist, founded to advocate for free trade in 1843, is politically homeless in today's UK.

There is no effective counter-movement against the far right; one can hypothesize reasons for that, one of them is that people like Altman should have been trying to make common cause with people who are further to the left than hecould stomach ten years ago, yet there is no promise that those people could get behind any movement at all. (I have to write up my experiences with "vanguardism", I too used to believe that I could fly a flag and stake out a consistently radical position on every issue and people would group behind it, the leader of a black nationalist group gave me some tough love -- yet something similar seems to work for the right)

[1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-me...

[2] https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-01-08/renee-dires...

We need a 90s google like company that is in the ai ml business, not the ads business. It may not make billions, but it will surely make millions and push our society together in a meaningful way.

The trouble with all of this was that it required a sustained lie. Anyone who said "Wait a minute, that might be a tad too far," or "Wait, that policy will actually harm more people than it helps" became an enemy to crush and step atop. It is this hollow power-seeking that people revolted against. The stated ideals of personal freedom, of protecting the interests of the underdog, turned into curbing freedoms and attempting to create new underdogs.

One further critique; the constant identification of traditional conservative values, and center-right values, as far right extremism made any policy that began with this assumption suspect from the beginning. Start with such a lie, and the whole foundation is unsound, and this becomes obvious to the public over time.

An example: Declaring that opposition to open borders is racism (open borders was a thing first proposed by neocons, IIRC), when the argument is on the grounds of security and rule of law, is foolish at best and often, when deliberate, a malicious take. Finding a way to help the people looking for a better life is a noble goal. Staking the ground that the way to do this is to throw open the nation for the taking is a radical position. Declaring that people opposed to this policy are evil and racist as a way to jam the policy home, is evil.

So this is as much about the method as it is the policies themselves, not the least of which, you end up eliminating other possibilities along the way. Solving corruption and poverty in Central and South America is extremely difficult. The solution is not to bring the people and their problems here. Satisfying the wildest redistributionist fantasies still won't solve this problem. But the environment of discourse created by the radical left made it so that we can't even discuss these problems.

If the Left could stop trying to force belief (which is how the worst faces of religion have acted) and persuade with reason and articulation, which requires debate, they'd have something. The Left doesn't debate anymore. Calls to violence, calls to silence "enemies," calls to harass and demonize, are all hallmarks of extremism. Where does the Left draw the line? "This is too much. This we will not do." Because the conservative right and the center-right have those lines. The mainstream right knows and does not except actual far right extremism.