First there has to be movement against immense friction, to get to where Breitbart says Jim Carrey says Democrats should own up to what is what.

It is Breitbart without second sourcing, but take the premise of the item and analyze it.

It is not to own up to being "socialist," but to move to where it would be an honest assessment. Right now, no way, not Tom Perez, not the DCCC.

In the trenches, at the grassroots level, some want the evolution, some oppose it, but the best want "triangulation" down the toilet. Some less than the best persevere, otherwise directed. Money flows are a factor.

If you've got a security-blanket need to have a Bogeyman word for what's wrong in today's political arena and deserving of high disdain, try "dominionism." You surely know it when you see it, even in those using a dog whistle to communicate it. Set Doug Wardlow's campaign website aside and pay attention to the loudest purest of the barking dog tones.

source

That's right, not Ted Nugent, who's somebody's bad joke imitation of a dominionist. Go for the brass ring and consider one who most loudly hears and echoes the bark of aggregated money, etc.

You will know it when you read of it, or read it directly.

And if you click the image to the left to enlarge and read it, the UPDATE part, consider this; what limit may there be to the reach compromise can have among zealots to where what others do can be rationalized multiple ways or stonewalled, if the wrongful conduct is from those benefiting them in advancing dominionism and careers? Is conscience elastic, to stretch to fit all sizes day-to-day? What - Babble about hate the sin but not the sinner, genuflect, and have a corpulent supper? All in, for the cause?

____________UPDATE____________
While not pretending to be a believer in much beyond science and secular humanism; some merit a little education on point:

The Pharisees and the Sadducees were both religious sects within Judaism during the time of Christ. Both groups honored Moses and the Law, and they both had a measure of political power. The Sanhedrin, the 70-member supreme court of ancient Israel, had members from both the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

The differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees are known to us through a couple of passages of Scripture and through the extant writings of the Pharisees. Religiously, the Sadducees were more conservative in one doctrinal area: they insisted on a literal interpretation of the text of Scripture; the Pharisees, on the other hand, gave oral tradition equal authority to the written Word of God. If the Sadducees couldn’t find a command in the Tanakh, they dismissed it as manmade.

Given the Pharisees’ and the Sadducees’ differing view of Scripture, it’s no surprise that they argued over certain doctrines. The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8), but the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection. The Sadducees denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death, but the Pharisees believed in an afterlife and in an appropriate reward and punishment for individuals. The Sadducees rejected the idea of an unseen, spiritual world, but the Pharisees taught the existence of angels and demons in a spiritual realm.

The apostle Paul shrewdly used the theological differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees to escape their clutches. Paul had been arrested in Jerusalem and was making his defense before the Sanhedrin. Knowing that some of the court were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, Paul called out, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6). Paul’s mention of the resurrection precipitated a dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, dividing the assembly, and causing “a great uproar” (verse 9). The Roman commander who watched the proceedings sent troops into the melee to rescue Paul from their violence (verse 10).

Socially, the Sadducees were more elitist and aristocratic than the Pharisees. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and to hold more powerful positions. The chief priests and high priest were Sadducees, and they held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees were more representative of the common working people and had the respect of the masses.

[...] Because the Sadducees were often more concerned with politics than religion, they ignored Jesus until they began to fear He might bring unwanted Roman attention and upset the status quo. It was at that point that the Sadducees and Pharisees set aside their differences, united, and conspired to put Christ to death (John 11:48–50; Mark 14:53; 15:1).

Flocking together. All in, for the cause.