Huh. If you want to know what color food is, I can tell you.
If this is a reference to something, or a figure of speech, I don’t get it! If you’re just saying I’m being naive, then that’s okay, I understand your point but I choose to remain optimistic about my fellow humans (and hippos). 
I am kind of channeling Will Rogers’ “I am not a member of any organized political psrty, I’m a Democrat” – there is such a breadth of divers opinions and attitudes in the Party that the only legitimate belief one can ascribe to them is “Republicans suck, or, at the very least, promote bsd policy”.
Ahh, I understand. Good point. Yes, there are enormous diversity of opinions within the Democratic party, from Ocasio-Cortez to Manchin and beyond. I expect @HoneyBadgerDC’s views probably fit reasonably well within some slice.
The problem is that the R party is fairly strict, and while there is some amount of play in their ideals, their anti-diversity message is more powerful than their internal ideological variance. It is easier to push behind othering than it is to push against it, so the Rs are perceived as holding a strong position. Profitability resonates better than decency and responsible business practices, for at least as long as business retains control of media and finance.
And the Ds have to operate within the economic environment that favors the Rs, so it is very difficult for them to advance a decency agenda. I am not entirely convinced that the D party offers a reasonable atlernative to the Rs, as they are heavily constrained by the system tilted in favor of the Rs. In my perception, the Ds just want to maintain the stability of a broken system while the Rs are intent on making it more broken.
Both parties are in serious decline, the Rs on a vector that will put them consistently in the 23~20% range in the 30s, the Ds maybe 4 points above that. This is a serious problem for real democracy, when the levers of power are held by a shrinking minority, and will lead to increasing social instability – at least until the asteroid hits.
If you were going to become conspiracy-minded (and hell, who isn’t these days?) you might wonder what big corporate money is doing in the Democratic Party. I’m sure there is some in there - whatever’s left over after they finished buying the entire Republican party.
I suspect what it may be doing is identifying Democratic candidates who are good at making strong economic arguments for social support given to ordinary citizens, and then quietly supporting all their Primary rivals
I can report from the (R) side that some of the more conspiracy-minded among Republicans felt vindicated during Mr. Biden’s state-of-the-union address - the conspiracy being that Democrats are in the pockets of big corporations and “pay their fair share” is lip service.
At one point in the speech, the President praised Intel for opening a new factory. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, “We have the CEO of Intel here today. They’re waiting on you to pass this bill and they’ll invest another $100 billion in manufacturing. Send it to my desk and I’ll sign it. And this isn’t just Intel. Ford and GM are doing good things, investing billions in electric vehicles. We have 300,000 new manufacturing jobs, powered by people like [name drop union steel worker who I can’t remember].” After touting hundreds of thousands of factory jobs and thoroughly praising big corporations, the President immediately pivoted to his points about factories closing and inflation being too high and prescription drugs being too expensive - and suddenly the President is saying big corporations are in fact doing bad things and need to pay their fair share.
“We come from the land of corporate America” was a great line for the conspiracy-oriented.
I personally think the President’s coalition (the Democratic party) is too broad for him to communicate a coherent message.
~Max
Sorry, but I don’t see how it’s a contradiction that businesses are vital to job and economic growth, and that said businesses shouldn’t be taking advantage of an international crisis to gouge their customers.,
It’s not a contradiction, but still mixed messaging to go from touting corporations to criticizing their practices.
Like imagine if Germany denounced Russia for invading Ukraine but still touted the Nord Stream pipeline in the same speech. You lose a lot of the rhetorical thrust trying to appeal to everyone, and conspiracists will think the politician is giving lip service to them.
~Max
It’s an utter waste of time to address conspiracy thinking, because all proof counter to the conspiracy is taken as proof of the cover-up, and proof of the cover-up is proof of the conspiracy. “It’s just lip service” is a good example of this.
If one had the remotest intention to give Biden’s remarks a good-faith hearing, one could easily apprehend the point that companies are capable of both good and bad things, and smart governance involves incentivizing the good at the expense of the bad. This is generally considered an uncontroversial statement, but it’s incomprehensible to people with certain intellectual habits (conspiracy thinking, black-and-white thinking, etc).
It may be a waste of time to address conspiracy thinking, but you can mitigate it to some extent by choosing your words carefully. I think the President may have improved his speech at least a little by talking about factories closing before touting Intel/Ford/GM’s new factories, rather than the other way around. If you move from problem to solution it presents a more coherent flow, that the speaker has a sense of direction.
~Max
Here’s a concept that will blow your mind, but if a speech was misunderstood by people who were a priori determined not to understand it, it’s actually not a reflection on the speaker.
In fact, is it even possible to speak for an hour without giving your opposition spin-fodder? I am thinking that no matter how eloquent you are, the word-twisters are better, simply by dint of numbers.
No, you can’t.