Latter-Day Whigs

Dehumanization portrays our own groups as enlightened and infallable, ordained from high, and others as blighted, cursed to be inhuman until of time. We are, whether anyone likes it or not, simply human.

Additionally, it is important to recognize the flaws in ourselves, and our own arrogance, while recognizing the *humanity* of those in opposition to us. Our own judgement can be flawed, and we must recognize our own ability to fall into reactionary traps.

We need to recognize dehumanization as what it is, an arrogant and purely *reactionary* tendency which beats down millions of nuances of intentions, and paints some broad and intrinsic groups as blighted, and some as heavenly enlightened

Of course we shouldn't be as naive as to assume every person will choose the better path.

It is important to recognize the humanity in those who are in opposition to us, and realize their potential, *while* realistically accepting that many people will choose, of their own accord, to reject becoming a better person.

It is important to recognize that any single person from any broad group could have either good or bad intentions, and any number of circumstances or conditions could compel them into believing or doing what they do.

We need to recognize *our own* capacity for evil, and *everyone else's* capacity for good.

You never have to agree with it, but understanding how any human ends up in any position, and what can lead them there, will only lead to greater knowledge -- rather than pretending certain groups of people are simply inherently blighted.

Instead of casting people into very broad boxes which do not fit them, which beat down the nuances of their lives and intentions, and which indict them with stereotypes and presumptions, we should be critically examining why people end up doing the things they do, why they believe what they do.

It ignores the nuances of the intentions of millions of people. It is an insult to nuance. It is philosophically absurd.

We are not a hivemind. We are not the Borg. It is simply ridiculous to paint yourself as some sort of enlightened savior, above the rest of humanity, summarizing opposition groups to be inherently lesser or less than human, incapable of good intentions.

Sure, *general trends* exist, but acting like these tendencies are a strict rule when it comes to such broad groups, with millions of people, each with their own nuances and lifestyles, is plainly absurd.

Is it not ridiculous to paint over the intentions of such broad groups, cointaining millions of people, and proclaim that they are all the same, all selfish or malicious to their core?

It is an insult to nuance. Is it not true that such broad groups have millions of people, each with their own background, intentions, and potential?

To pretend that very broad and cultural groups, like being a conservative or a liberal, being religious or an athiest, being queer or not, or being a member of a specific race, means that you are inherently less human, *below* the rest of us, *lacking* potential and humanity, is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, to me at least, to pretend that any specific group of people is especially enlightened, above the rest of humanity. It is further ridiculous to me to pretend that any individual group of people are inherently blighted, incapable of enlightenment or greater potential.

Any honest philosopher would recognize that any individual person has capacity to be generous, sincere, and sympathetic, and that any individual person has great potential to be selfish, ignorant, bigoted, and reactionary.

Evil is not alien, some invading force, it is *banal*, deeply rooted within humans, *ourselves*.

To dehumanize is to imply that certain beliefs, individuals or groups are less than human. But whether anyone likes it or not, the greatest villains to the human race have been *humans themselves*, and it is an insult to political philosophy to not recognize this.

𝐃𝐞𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

I have had several debates on dehumanization lately, and have collected my thoughts. In short, I am against it in all circumstances because it is philosophically absurd. Here is my reasoning why:

If the Democrats return and maintain the policies they once had under Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson, they will not only gain in Rural America and when regions they once did, but they will undoubtedly improve the lives of millions, instead of throwing them to the capitalist wolves.

Surrendering Rural America to Republican policy and officials not only denies the Democrats millions of votes every election, but more importantly, costs the people of Rural America, a good education, quality infrastructure, and basic rights and necessities.

It is ridiculous that liberals have abandoned Rural America as some sort of blighted conservative land. They must return to campaign in Rural America, and they must return to policies beneficial towards Rural America.

More crucially, they must deliver economic reform. We must deliver labor protections, welfare, expansive infrastructure, good education, and well-funded hospitals with enough resources to last.

More must be done, and more must be delivered. Democrats should be running scorched Earth campaigns through rural America, blaming the problems they face on the Republicans.

It is cowardly that they have let Rural America be fed to the wolves, while they preach from their pretentious liberal ivory towers. It is cowardly how callous many of them are towards Rural America.

The Democrats abandoned welfare in the 1990s, betraying the trust of poor communities and much of Rural America. For decades, they have dragged their faith and moderated on crucial policy which would help impoverished America.

I am not saying that winning rural America will be easy in the slightest, but *no* good things have ever been easy.

Some pundits say that we cannot campaign in Rural America, because it is a deeply Republican region. I find this argument to be beyond ridiculous. It is only Republican because we have let it be Republican.

Some liberal pundits love to dismiss rural America as poor, uneducated, uncivilized, or reactionary. To them, I ask, how did this happen? Did it just magically end up that way, or did it end up that way through the incompetence and inefficiency of liberal policy, the willful neglect of politicians?