Originally a comment by Sackbut at Miscellany Room.

Matthew Yglesias writes at The Argument magzine:

Bigots in the tent

The article serves mostly as a rejoinder to a sentiment common on the US political left, “Some people don’t want a tent so big that it includes bigots”. Yglesias points out, correctly, that Americans are divided in inconvenient ways on certain topics, and demanding ideological purity on every issue tends to alienate almost everyone.

He ends up concluding: “Yes, I do want a tent so large it contains a lot of bigots. That’s the only tent that ever wins.”

However, nowhere does he ever question the whole wisdom of calling all people who disagree with you “bigots”. He doesn’t consider that, maybe, just maybe, they have a point or a perspective that differs from yours, and maybe it isn’t so magnanimous to say “Hey, bigots are welcome here”.

For a key example, he writes of the gender ideology (my words) issue:

According to Gallup, 69% of Americans and 41% of Democrats believe that transgender athletes should be required to play on teams that match their birth sex. In Pew Research Center’s data, the conservative position is slightly less popular overall but also less polarized, such that 45% of Democrats agree.

The fact that virtually no Democratic Party elected officials or associated elites publicly hold a view that is overwhelmingly popular with the public — and not particularly unpopular with their own base — is a testament to the power of progressive persuasion, successful intracoalitional politics, and, frankly, bullying.

Those who secretly hold less-progressive views and those who are sympathetic to the plight of trans people but are worried about winning elections are hesitant to speak more plainly for fear of being cast out of the tent. Instead, they quietly hope that someone else will solve this problem.

These views are “popular with the public”, and are “less-progressive”, or perhaps pandered to by politicians “who are sympathetic to the plight of trans people but are worried about winning elections”. These views are not considered valid ways of thinking about the issue except as a political tool. He is eager to be “sympathetic to the plight of trans people” but apparently doesn’t understand the conflict between that stance and the rights of women; his use of the phrase “birth sex” is further indication. But he doesn’t appear ready to consider that maybe he doesn’t understand the issue, and he slaps the label “bigot” implicitly on people who do understand the issue and disagree with his stance.

I want a tent so large it contains people who have some significant disagreements, and isn’t managed by those who call everyone who disagrees with them a “bigot”. Is that too much to ask?