Indeed. Safe spaces are comfortable, and allow one to be seduced by slogans and easy answers. But political coalitions to achieve fundamental conservative change are ephemeral, fragile things, which once gone may never present themselves again. That's the WSJ's take on the Freedom Caucus - their ideological blinders rendered a body blow to an historic chance for conservatives.
You're fighting a losing battle,
@Jazzhead. You're trying to change perceptions, and that's not easy to do.
The problem I see with a lot of people over toward the left of the spectrum is that they tend to see people's problems and don't much care about the practicality of going about helping them. Thus Obamacare: a heap of regulations built on the sand of economic fantasies.
And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law. It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not. Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.
There's a middle ground, of sorts, where the people and practicalities should be considered at the same time, but it's a very delicate balancing act. And yet that is where political compromise has to be found. If the Freedom Caucus cannot admit the consequences of their policies, or the "moderates" cannot accept the economic realities of their concerns, then no good changes are possible -- and we're left with the fetid mess that is Obamacare.
