> I cannot think of a tradition the left holds in nearly religious sanctity. This might be a "fish can't see the water" thing, so I'd be happy to learn one.

"Diversity" comes to mind. But I think that only makes sense when you consider it in the loaded "only certain kinds of diversity are allowed" interpretation. There are definitely unwritten rules around what kind of diversity is allowed!

"Reality has a liberal bias" also comes to mind, along with its variations that all require heavy selection bias.

The Democratic left's obsession with academic superiority also comes to mind here. There's a deep-seated bias that someone who graduates from a institution of higher education must be smarter/better/etc than someone who does not, and this belief is held to an almost religious degree.

> You didn't list this one, but I will.

I didn't list this one because I think the left actually has the opposite problem: believing that intellectual reflection alone is sufficient, and/or is worth doing for its own sake.

The left loves to make perfect the enemy of the good.

> Has a modern Democratic official accused somebody of being treasonous for disagreeing on a political matter?

I don't know about a "modern Democratic official", but the left in general (especially the progressive left) loves to ostracize those who disagree with them on arbitrary things, even if those people are otherwise in general agreement with Democratic values. It's not treason in the "state" sense, but more so in the social sense. The "you're a traitor to the cause" sense.

Again, see my point any perfection being the enemy of the good.

> And no, "fear of MAGA" is not enough to qualify as fear of difference.

No, I think it does, because "MAGA" has just become a convenient label to slap on anyone who votes differently, even if it's for very good reasons (like feeling like Democratic policies aren't serving them!). Not all Republicans are "MAGA", and probably not even a majority of them are: but vocal Democrats readily substitute "MAGA" for "Republican" in rhetoric all the time.

> The left is sliding down this path with fears about the midterm elections.

I saw a ton of accusations about "Trump rigged the election" after 2024. I also see the "we won't have free and fair elections anymore" fear-mongering on a nearly constant basis from commentators on the left. I've even seen it here!

> Democratic officials have called this administration dumb, selfish, and cruel. But not weak.

I would dispute this, but I don't have any examples in mind. I certainly think I've seen examples of this in the past, from Democratic officials (especially since of the more... Outspoken ones). I definitely see this among the Democratic populous, though.

> After the assassination of Osama bin Laden, who was the enemy during the Obama years? That administration even had the laughable "reset" with Russia.

I mean, these days it's "MAGA", ICE, fascists, etc. I didn't interpret "the enemy" to only be external enemies (though China and Russia are constantly used as bogeymen by both sides), nor did I interpret "permanent warfare" to be literal warfare. The left has certainly cultivated a culture of perceived oppression, even though actual evidence of said oppression is often lacking.

To put it differently, the left loves to frame things through the lens of oppression, and oppression requires an oppressor. To me, that fills the same role as "permanent warfare", at least as far as rhetoric is concerned.

> I can't think of much evidence for or against this. Maybe it's just an American thing to lavish praise on "common people* doing amazing things.

Related to the above, I see a lot of glorification of "the oppressed". To the point where many folks seem encouraged to try to frame their own stories through such a lens, so as to receive greater acclaim.

> I'll have to read the original work to see what this term means.

I took this to mean "my populism is good and isn't really populism, but yours is bad and evil." Perhaps there's a deeper meaning here that I missed.

> I genuinely would like to know some leftist newspeak. Again, fish and water.

Oof where to even start with this. "Inclusion" is a good one. "Tolerance", maybe? "Fascist", probably. "Undocumented migrant"? Or just an unqualified "immigrant"?

I see lots of words that have specific meaning to the left, and where that specific meaning subtly differs from the word's actual denotation. Or, where certain phrasing is deemed "wrong", with a more "inclusive" replacement is offered (i.e. "illegal alien" -> "undocumented migrant"). I find these tend to be used in the service of a motte-and-bailey, or as shibboleths, etc. Maybe that isn't specifically newspeak, but it's a close sibling.

As someone who's probably on the spectrum, it makes conversation with folks on the left very difficult and fraught :( there are many unspoken layers to a lot of language used by the progressive left, and if your own language doesn't pass their sniff test, you very quickly find yourself excluded at best, and accused of being a fascist or Nazi at worst.

It's all rather divisive and exclusionary, from my perspective, which is why I find the relevant antonyms to be... Disingenuous at times. The parallels between the Left's selective application of "inclusion" and "diversity", and religious fundamentalists' selective applications of their beliefs is pretty straightforward to me.