The right is no better and can tend toward abusive and unfair advantages.
Neither is side correct or better, we all need to feel our way on this edge and be clear minded enough not to fall into a tribal LEFT > RIGHT or RIGHT > LEFT.
It might be more accurate to say, scarcity issues are worst when neither party advocates for abundance.
In housing, neither party advocates for densification nor deregulation on the front of zoning; instead party lines revolve around subsidized housing, mortgage industry regulation, etc.
In medicine neither party talks about increasing the supply of doctors(or the ability for hospitals to deliver care more efficiently without being hamstrung by insurance), party lines are fought over who pays for it.
In education the two sides might bicker over affirmative action and how Harvard decides which high school seniors get to attend; but not whether it’s OK that the worlds foremost university accepts only 2000 undergrads a year.
None of these are easy problems to solve, but the common theme is that both parties accept the status quo. Housing is scarce, desirable education is scarce, medical care is scarce.
On the other hand, food or gas prices start moving and it becomes a priority political issue for the current administration guaranteed. It’s night and day.
Imagine you are someone who does not want the healthcare problem to be solved. Wouldn't you want to pay both sides of the aisle to drum up pointless bickering?
Transparently stalling browser standards over privacy stuff but couched in different language.
You seem to be implying that private companies--BigPharma--are more interested in keeping conditions chronic with medication than curing people.
They seem equally shit in my book
I’d say all in all the progressive left sub party could be considered pro density but doesn’t wield enough power to do anything about it except in small municipalities like Somerville MA.