The inherent danger of the "Big Tent" is that those who only occasionally or casually pay

[Atticus]

attention to politics may come to the conclusion that we don't really "stand for" anything.

If anything between genuine communism and fascistic autocracy are "acceptable" in our party, won't the independents and casual voters see our policies as "meh"?

Please don't start accusing me of suggesting a "purity test" and don't ask me to spend hours detailing what I believe Democrats "should" believe. Generally speaking, I think our approaches and policies may certainly differ, but our GOALS should be pretty much in agreement.

My purpose is not to offend or exclude anyone. I just want to hear what some of you folks think.

[tirebiter]

1. That's why we have platforms that have changes noted

Whereas the Republican platform has been unchanged since 2016, at least.

[Beastly Boy]

2. There is a great deal of virtue in "meh".

Especially when the rule of the land has its foundation in representative democracy. "Meh" is the enemy of extremism, which is by definition antithetical to consensus. Of course, there are different flavors of "meh" that attract different kinds of people, but I doubt many of them will be, in the long run, more attracted to goose stepping in uniforms and showering various dearest leaders with compulsory praises.

Sure, it lacks the adrenaline rush of a bungee jump, but you can't really expect to find consensus in the virtues of bungee jumping.