Lived in a city that had a “Food Bank” like operation. The founder declared to want to “end hunger in the city”, by giving away food. His “proof” of the “need” was the mass of people lining up every day.

What struck me with the approach is the complete misunderstanding of the economic model of their/his approach.

“Free” has unlimited demand. It creates those massive line ups.

The “proof” is probably a conflation those who are “truly needy” with those who may well be living near the margins but couldn’t turn down such a “bargain”.

Incidentally, he was also looking for “public funding” from the city.

Nobody really wants people to go hungry, but the man cleverly put anyone into the difficult position of looking “heartless” in opposing public funding for his home grown program, especially in a world where they are already many government programs aimed at this problem directly and indirectly.

So, yes, seems like social signalling and perhaps (minor) empire building.

The premise of the question that the dems are more consistently “united” than conservatives is flawed, as it may be more a frame of view than actual measurable fact.

From our side of the fence, it may seem so, perhaps because we here (as more politically interested individuals) are more focused on and personally bought into the conservative positions and legislative outcomes.

But, talk to those who are on the other side, and they’d observe that conservatives seem more “united” (at least the ones I encounter).
.

We can come up with all kinds of explanations for what we see from our side. No doubt it makes some sense. But, IDK how accurate it all is.

Just did a search on the topic and near the top was this, making the opposite case to our premise…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/16/democrats-policies-are-more-popular-but-republicans-are-more-ideologically-unified/

Evidently, there is readily available info that may refute or make rather debatable our premise about the “unitedness” of dems.

GB: Be still my beating heart!

Back in the late 70s/early 80s I was a true-blue Werner Erhard kiddie out to share the gospel of transformation.

Werner used that Hugo quote to launch the Hunger Project intended to end world hunger by 1996, though later amended to 2000.

Ending world hunger was close to my heart but quickly I learned the Hunger Project was not about feeding people, but doing massive PR to “create a context” for ending world hunger. Plus, not so incidentally, to burnish Werner’s credentials as a good guy.

I was one of the early shock troops getting people to sign cards and make donations. But it was a bridge too far and the beginning of the end of my involvement.

Sort of. I think it’s more precise to say, as a couple of people say above, that it *is* a religion, in practical terms. But they don’t see it as one. That’s part of why it’s so powerful. It’s so much a part of the way they see the world that they don’t realize they’re doing anything but looking at simple obvious reality.

As for the unity question: I don’t know whether the Dems as a party are or are not more unified than the Republicans, but I do know that every single liberal-leftist I know is very proud and confident of him/herself as an independent thinker. The unconsciously-held religion is part of the reason that they can think so. They all just happen to come to the same conclusions because these are the conclusions that smart people naturally come to, because they are true.

My take is Trump considers Obamacare such a clusterf*** that he just wanted to get past it while he gets on with jumpstarting the economy.

If the bill had passed, fine. It would give Trump time and a rationale for tax cuts. If not, he’s content to let Obamacare blow up — you can count on that — then pick up the pieces later.

New religions that seize the public’s fancy, burn fiercely.

The liberal left, in abandoning Judeo/Christian precepts was faced with a vacuum and human nature must have something beyond itself to believe in with ‘progressive’ Marxist-socialism the only ideology that was available to act as a substitute.

That it is inherently totalitarian and unsustainable is a truth relentlessly refused, since having rejected religious belief, the remaining alternative is nihilism. While scapegoats can always be found to excuse its repeated and invariable failures. Nothing is as inviolable as a religion’s dogmas because they form the foundational pillars upon which its theology rests.

I’d bump the “religion” aspect up to #1 because the left is a secular religion which infected then absorbed the liberal Democratic Party.

You can’t get pithier than Iowahawk:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.