> I know TLDR , and if you got this far , thank you for listening to my rant. what you said is so much what I think , it stoked a fire. You're welcome WD. Reddit and other platforms of that nature are absolutely trash. I do encourage people so inclined to continue using them simply because it interrupts their echo chamber. Even small victories are victories. Like most of the people still let on air, or given a platform, Hewitt is probably in place to act, unwittingly or wittingly, as the fall guy, as the other half of the "aisle", to mirror the other side's argument. It's one party, pandering to both 'sides'. I mostly use left/right, conservative/liberal still out of habit, but you're correct that it isn't all that productive. The progressive party (standard DNC+GOP machine combine) likes to slide society one way because they're focused on the policy outcome of values, while the public is focused on the labels, and I think its important to inject some chaos there and start forming microparties of 2-3 issues, inverting the "party->policies / public->labels" arrangement of politics. The power of the gun lobby for example is strongly related to policy/issues and not identity which is why it keeps confounding the progressive party and forcing the progressive's right-wing to pander and pretend to support gun rights, and this I think is a winning move: microparties of 2-3 issues like I wrote, staunchly unyielding on the issues. If it were arranged correctly, it would force the progressive party to genuinely split through political deadlock over issues they "must" support in order to not lose credibility with their own base. By doing this we could maneuver washington into a stalemate with the public and middle class, that would lead to a power vacuum, destabilizing their quid-pro-quo arrangement between the "parties", and causing the state and its unelected bureaucracy to lose long-term policy momentum