So completely unconscious of such a grave ideological condition

A fascinating unconscious affirmation of the very problem which the author is alarmed about: the promotion of ideological interest above human interest.  From A Warning From a Democrat in a Red State by Silas House.  The subheading is:

Democrats need to see beyond an electoral map to acknowledge that people are pushing for liberal ideas even in the reddest of areas.

I clicked through hoping to find a humanist essay about the importance of universal humanism and perhaps an epistle against demonizing others because they have different priorities and objectives than oneself.  But no.  It is an ideologue ceding nothing.  What is the warning?

Tens of thousands of us here in Kentucky are fighting for progressive causes, even as we are forced to defend ourselves against other liberals in the country who should be supporting us. I’m not organizing a pity party. Instead, I’m issuing a warning: Everyday Democrats need to see beyond the electoral map to acknowledge the folks pushing for liberal ideas even in the reddest of areas. If they don’t, the cultural divide will grow only wider.

So the warning is along the lines of - 'Stop ignoring the fact that not all residents of Kentucky are knuckle dragging deviants.'  As far as warnings go, that is pretty self-serving and transparent of a non-inclusive, authoritarian spirit.  Indeed, House seems more interested, way more interested, in achieving political power than he is in better serving the needs and interests of Kentuckians.  Just another ideological partisan hack.  The Atlantic used to be a wonderful diversity of topics and styles and issues and facts.  Now it is an anemic hodgepodge of ideological nattering.

The essay is loaded with self-contradictions and revelations of narrowness of vision.  

Complaining that his fellow progressives traffic in group identities and stereotypes - "Many of these people ask why we’ve kept Mitch McConnell in office for almost 36 years. They take their anger at him out on me."  Hmm.  Maybe quit dealing with group averages and deal with individual humans?  Like Classical Liberals?

Complaining about his fellow progressives and their inclination to impose group punishments - "Once, a fellow writer told me I shouldn’t have been invited to a literary conference because of my state’s complicity in McConnell’s obstructionism during Barack Obama’s presidency. 'Aren’t you ashamed to be a Kentuckian?' he asked, spittle flying from his lips."

Complaining about his fellow progressives and their tendency to hold people guilty of crimes they haven't committed - "Recently, during a virtual event while I was discussing the theme of forgiveness in my novels, a woman typed into the comments: “I guess we’ll just have to forgive you for Mitch McConnell.”"

Indulging in emotional extremism - "I can’t blame them for hating McConnell." Hating?  Really?  Hating a human over policy differences? 

Manufacturing baseless claims - "Hardly anyone [McConnell] has done more to impede our democracy, and empower Donald Trump, than him. "  Investigating an incoming elected President based on manufactured hoax collusion claims?  As a for instance from a very long list of progressives undermining norms and institutions.  

Refusal to deal with legitimate differences in objectives - "The latest example of his constant failure of the American people came last week when he blocked a vote on $2,000 in stimulus money, denying low-income and middle-class Americans an increase in much-needed aid."   Since household income has not fallen near as much as anyone anticipated owing to the success of existing policies AND the very real danger of inflation and economic contraction from running historical deficits, AND the very real danger of entrenching establishment/commercial entitlements somehow means that a refusal to increase the deficit is a failure?

Refusal to see that what he complains about is exactly the sin Classical Liberals lodge against Progressives like House -  "Sometimes it feels as though all citizens of red states are lumped together, as if everyone here, especially those in rural areas, is the same."  Oh, like assuming all Whites are privileged and culpable for historical events?  Judge every person based on their circumstances and their actions, not their geography or skin or heritage!  It is so much easier.  And moral.  Change from an authoritarian repressive exclusionary Progressive back to a Classical Liberal.

Judging actions based on ideological advantage rather than ethical value - "Social media is not known for its decorum, but what troubled me more than the hashtag was the way Kentuckians were painted with broad strokes as hicks, hillbillies, and a host of derogatory terms who live in “the armpit of America” and who wouldn’t deserve pity even if we were “ravaged by COVID.” These volatile responses trouble me, not only because I don’t like being reduced to a stereotype, but also because that response feeds the GOP rhetoric I hear at home: The liberals just think you’re deplorable, so why not flex your muscle any way you can to spit in their faces?"  He is not worried that his fellow progressives are demonstrating vile regional and group hatred.  He is worried that vile regional and group hatred might make it harder to turn Kentucky blue.

Judging people based on their voting patterns rather than who they are as humans -  "I will defend the state to all outsiders, even as I complain about its flaws.  Those flaws feel glaring after I see election returns."  If these very same people had voted blue, he would be fine with them.  Ugh!  Absolutely no self-awareness of his refusal to treat people as individuals.

Assuming that people are simply ignorant when they vote differently from his preferences - "I used to think it was because many Kentuckians were working so hard just to make ends meet that they didn’t have time to be informed enough about what McConnell was doing."  Translated into the vernacular: 'I used to assume they voted wrong because they are stupid.'  No allowance for differences in values and perspectives.

Raising differences in political opinions to an existential survival - "As a gay man, I left home to feel safer and more comfortable. I think of the 4,883 there who are fighting back, and I am thankful for each one."

To be fair, House is not all prejudice, ignorance and ideological anger.  

All I know is that we don’t always vote Republican. Bill Clinton easily won Kentucky two times. Our state has had only six Republican governors in the past 100 years, and none of them was elected to a second term. Our current Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, has become a hero to many of us, even across party lines, with his tireless leadership through the pandemic. 

So Kentuckians are not ideological robots, they vote across party lines for politicians most likely to deliver on their individual interests and goals.  That seems like a pretty robust and healthy form of democracy.  Sure seems hard to figure out why Silas House is so angry about that.  Except for the need to impose his own goals and objectives on everyone else.  The very antithesis of the great compromise which is the democratic process.  

Thank goodness I unsubscribed from The Atlantic this past year.