this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
118 points (83.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

3102 readers
257 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
118
The phrase "purity test" was popularized by establishment Democrats only recently, as a thought-terminating cliché to shut down criticism of the party's drift towards the Right. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 days ago by skisnow@lemmy.ca to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

As the party fielded more and more candidates who championed economic-right policies in order to attract corporate donations, the idea of "purity testing" was turned into a stock phrase to attack critics using labels, instead of justifying it on its own terms.

Phrases like "moral purity" now serve two functions: firstly, to dismiss criticisms from the Left wholesale without having to discuss them directly, and secondly, to blame them for the rise of fascism.

In theory it was also supposed to serve a third function of bullying the Left into voting Democrat, but that didn't work.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

https://github.com/aarongable/purity

12 years ago it was about sex

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It's a new label but it's not a new concept at all. Factional bickering that weakens a broadly appealing platform has been happening since we invented partisan politics. Just on the left, look at the French Revolution and the socialist splintering in the early 20th century.

It's not a thought terminating cliche either, it's a real and tangible problem. The rise of the internet has made targeting and widening these fractures easy and effective. Any bad actor can trivially propogate a message to any number of people, making them naturally coalesce into opposing echo chambers. This chart may as well track social media use during election years.

It's true that "purity testing" is often used as a bludgeon to stifle criticism of obviously regressive policies, but it's unfair to completely ignore the kernel of truth about the opposite end of the spectrum. When a bloc of voices is lodging criticisms with no constructive platform, there's no value being added and they may as well be opposition.

It's often not that hard to tell when that line is crossed either. If your claim is candidate X is vile but you have no real option Y as a substitute, then your attack can only be strengthing the opposition. There is a political reality you have to operate in; the system of election and popular opinion automatically limit your options. Being vehemently opposed to a subset of policies does not mean supporting that candidate is automatically the wrong political play.

If you're truly a bright-eyed idealist and can't stomach the political sausage making then you'll have to find another approach. If you want to use the system in place (for example, USA's FPTP and electoral college) then you have to put in a ton of work and political maneuvering. If you don't believe in the reformist approach then you have no skin in the game and shouldn't be complaining.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

If you don’t believe in the reformist approach then you have no skin in the game and shouldn’t be complaining.

Deeply unserious person

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago

It’s not a thought terminating cliche either, it’s a real and tangible problem.

When the problem it describes about faction splitting and party policy is being discussed in good faith, the phrase rarely gets used. It's only seen when someone wants to invoke an appeal to emotion.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

😵‍💫All Heil Israel

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Purity test just means "has principles" instead of just a D next to their name.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The Dems absolutely do use the phrase to manipulate conversation. But it's also a real problem on the left - it's one of the ways we divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups leaving us powerless to actually drive policy. I see it happen online every single day.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah I'm pretty far left and I've used the phrase unironically when frustrated by dialog. There are people, even in this thread that I've encountered before, that act like the exact version of leftism they believe in is the only kind that is correct and every other version makes you evil. I could agree with them on 95% of policy, but if that other 5% doesn't align I am literally Satan and so are all the candidates I support. There are people on lemmy that will act like AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, and Warren are right wing simply because they understand politics involved consensus building.

[–] eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My impression is this is primarily an issue in online spaces, without a clear goal in communication. When you meet leftists involved in a specific project, bigger-picture disagreements tend to fade away into focus and concern around a shared goal. It's a lot easier to stay focused on the things that are immediately relevant when the route to making a real impact is right in front of you.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely true, I fear that some here don't understand that distinction and stay away from left leaning activism because they are so paralysed in online spaces.

[–] eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I could see it, yeah. I like Lemmy for a lot of reasons but it's still social media. Commenting here isn't activism and it doesn't represent the irl dynamics of leftist circles. Engagement via comments and votes are the only things shown here, there's no way to track the number of people that see a comment and think "you're maybe not wrong, but you're definitely splitting hairs..." and then move on. IRL, though, the dead air in the room would be deafening. (and could be a learning experience!)

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely agreed and that has been my online experience too. And as far as consensus building - a lot of people don't seem to understand what it takes to create a coalition that has actual policy power in the USA. And they also don't seem to understand that when you don't have a bloc with political power you're never going to get the respect, much less policy consessions, that you'd like to get.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

"They just don't understand what it takes to create a coalition!" I cry, as I fail to create a coalition.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Special thanks to the users at .ml for being the best at dividing the left

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 minutes ago

I do not understand how you managed to type that out without realising the irony.

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's because "the dems" aren't leftists. It doesn't matter if we subdivide or not, your "leftist" party is a moderate center party drifting right year after year.

Of course you're going to have trouble gathering leftist support.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean you're totally right, anywhere else in the western world the Dems are a center right at best. But Trump turned the GOP into his party in less than ten years. If we on the left banded together with a common cause with deliberate action we could change the Dems similarly. But instead we'd prefer to fight ourselves.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The left keeps coming up with policy that excites voters and centrists keep kicking them to the curb and whining about those unreasonable leftists wanting to do things other than sell weapons for the genocide that centrists love so fucking dearly.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You still need a majority to create policy, everyone 50% +1 is your ally, or you're not part of the conversation. You don't have to like them, but until we can get a majority of support for true leftist ideas, you have to work with people you disagree with, or you don't actually believe in democracy.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately, this "working with" is always a one-way street. Never do centrists say, "well, we just have to support the progressive cause to maintain party loyalty."

[–] stickly@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Uh... Why would they? Progressive policies are on the far end of the left spectrum by definition. If they had the political weight to carry the party then they would no longer be progressive.

What you're actually complaining about is the window of modern politics being dragged so far to the right, which is due to external factors and separate from any party loyalty concerns.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Because we're supposed to be one party. The centrists will pull more towards the right, the progressives to the left. But there's supposed to be a mutual give-and-take. Centrists can't pass anything without the progressive wing; the progressives can't pass anything without the centrists. We're supposed to support each other and compromise when needed. And the centrists can't just compromise with liberal Republicans, as that era of politics ended quite awhile ago.

The problem is this is a one-way street. Progressives will support centrists, but then centrist turn around and stab progressives in the back.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world -1 points 13 hours ago

What are you on about? There is no progressive wing. The center doesn't need the left to get anything done, as evidenced by the last 50+ years. All they need is the permission of the right.

Again, you're complaining that there's no space for your platform but that has nothing to do with centrists secretly favoring the right. In the USA (and most 21st century democracies, to some extent) we have a rigged spectrum with only Center, Center-Right and Hard Right.

If you want to play the political game as it stands then you're submitting yourself to the Center. It's not back stabbing, you just have no political weight to merit anything but lip service. Gaining the clout to influence policy isn't going to come from the good will of the Centrists, it has to be built independently.

It's arguably an insurmountable task but it starts by making policy that appeals to voters across the current spectrum. That means a hard focus on economic solutions for the wage-earning class. Look at the success of Bernie, AOC and Mamdani, their focus is generally-to-exclusively economic. Once you build that Center-Left you sap some life from the right and can build from there.

Of course, all of this is going against coordinated establishment attacks. You can see those headliners getting it from all media outlets, but as long as they stay on message they have success. Attacking them for not being progressive enough is silly when they're actively pushing the limits of what the system allows. That is the essence of the "purity test".

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Does anybody "work with" us on the left or are we the only ones that need to sustain this fallacy and always compromise, to the point we no longer are even being represented?

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

What is there to work with though? There's no cohesive movement on the left to speak of so which of the umpteen factions would they start with? We'd need to think and vote as a much bigger bloc for the left to get the kind of representation we want.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Who is "us", are they supposed to reach through your computer screen? I've done activism on and off for years, every time I put in the effort it yields results from the Dems, left leaning or not. If you want our side to win, you have to put in the work. You can't expect the Dems to work with you if you're not along side them doing the work as well. Your responsibility doesn't start and end at the voting booth.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The Dems absolutely do use the phrase to manipulate conversation.

Would be nice if they would quit capitulating to every purity test the right throws their way.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They are more afraid of the right than the left and we need to change that

[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Case in point: the entire post.

[–] duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Do you have any better evidence of this other than your opinion and your interpretation of a Google trend?

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don't have a brown envelope marked "Top Secret Evil Plans" that I swiped from the DNC offices if that's what you're after. What I do have is literally every single news piece from the last decade where the phrase came up. Every article containing the phrase invariably relates to one of a right/centrist policy, a centrist candidate, or, attempts to secure funding from billionaire donors.

I could paste a long list of URLs here but it'd basically be the same as the results page for https://duckduckgo.com/?q=democrat+purity+test+news

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Exactly. No one ever accused Manchin or Lieberman of "purity testing" for refusing to support non-conservative positions. When a centrist digs in their heels and refuses to compromise, they're just "being pragmatic." When a progressive does it, they're "purity testing." "Vote blue no matter who" is a farce.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you've never encountered the phenomenon, introspect.

[–] duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh I have. I just wanted to see more evidence for the claim that it was establishment Dems pushing it. I always felt it was more an issue of the terminally online leftists who treat political alignment as a social group and an identity instead of a consistent worldview. It's a big claim, and big claims require big evidence. What was provided was not persuasive, and I'd like to be persuaded if it's actually the case.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I always felt it was more an issue of the terminally online leftists

Oh look. An additional thought-terminating cliche.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly, anyone who uses "purity test" is just letting you know that they have no standards and expect you to abandon any you have.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah. Generally speaking if you're using a positive value as a pejorative, you're probably on the wrong side of history.

The Right did it with "political correctness", "Woke", "inclusion" and "equality", and now they're in the DNC doing it with "moral purity".

[–] muzzle@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

The only purity test I'm willing to take: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/purity

[–] barkingspiders@infosec.pub -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a term I've used. All 320 million of us Americans have to get along on some terms. We're a big country with a lot of subcultures and variance in needs, experience and standards of living. Defeating fascism will take a majority of those 320 million people agreeing on a complex set of values that aren't fascistic.

We need to be focusing more on finding allies that share anti-fascist beliefs than subdividing into smaller and less powerful factions. The crime of American politics is that we can't more closely align our beliefs with our representation. We are vastly under-represented for our size and technological prowess.

Look for allies, not enemies. It's always easy to find enemies, it's what the Republican messaging system excels at. Find the people who agree that fascism is wrong and grow a big enough tent to defeat it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Find the people who agree that fascism is wrong and grow a big enough tent to defeat it.

Maybe democrats should start agreeing that fascism is wrong instead of enabling it every chance they get.

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like MAGA or ML nonsense

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Yes, yes, everyone to your left is maga.