Why do progressives seem so bad at building coalitions, while the American right — which has its own share of internal divisions — has done so effectively? That’s been the subject of endless debate over the years. But in late February, sociologist Jessica Calarco — author of “Holding It Together: How Women Became America’s Safety Net” (Salon interview linked below) — boiled the essence of the problem down to a few key points in a Bluesky thread:
The right has united around a rejection of government as the solution to social problems. Which means they can generally agree to block new policies and programs. The left is united in its desire for government solutions. But that means they have to face the harder task of agreeing on what to do.
For related reasons, the right can also unite people around shared enemies. Because even if people don't trust government to solve their problems, they still want someone to blame when they're struggling. And the right gives them scapegoats in spades.
The right also blocks the left's efforts toward solidarity. Because if the right's default is to block everything, then the left has to make harder choices about what to try to push through. Which means there's only money/time/energy for some factions to get the new programs/policies they want.
And notably, where the right does agree to implement some new program or policy, it's usually a policy or program that: 1) attacks the scapegoats they've built their solidarity around, and/or 2) pushes the cost onto those least able to fight back.
