NOTE: Marxian doesn't mean Marxist. It is an academic term, and here it means something like pseudo-Marxist or Marxist-like.
The recent poor treatment of Tulsi Gabbard by prominent members of the left, in the aftermath of her appearance on The Rubin Report, raises that question once more: is the left mean? Does the left like to eat its own? Tulsi certainly isn't alone in getting a taste of left-wing friendly fire. Another 2020 candidate, Marianne Williamson, whose Rubin interview was well received on the left and often used by leftists as an example of what they would have wanted Tulsi to say, has herself made comments about some people on the left being mean to her, which have been widely circulated in conservative circles. Furthermore, the recent drama surrounding left-wing YouTube icon ContraPoints shows that, you can be very left-wing and also a minority, and they can still turn on you like you're the enemy.
So why does the left like to turn on its own members so much? Some leftists think it's a natural result of always striving for more justice, while some conservatives think it's because the left is inherently disordered and chaotic. As a neutral observer, I disagree with both these stances. Instead, I propose that the answer can be found in the 'conflict theory of sociology', which has increasingly influenced leftist culture since the radical 1960s. Basically, this branch of sociology is heavily influenced by Marxian ideas, and sees the world in terms of group-based dominance, power and oppression, with conflict the inevitable result. Consensus is often seen as subjugation under the dominant class. On the other hand, conflict is welcome, because it is thought of as the driver of change. In this worldview, to create consensus is to continue oppressive dynamics, and to create opportunities for conflict is to create change and overturn oppression.
This worldview logically leads to a distain for anything that sounds vaguely bipartisan. I think this is why Tulsi Gabbard's friendly attitude towards people who are skeptical of the left, including Dave Rubin, Tucker Carlson and some others, has led to the conflict theory faction of the left not liking her so much. For these people, politics is an all-out battle between the oppressors and the oppressed, and negotiating with the oppressors is a bad look. They simply can't appreciate the constructive bridge-building Tulsi is doing. Furthermore, conflict theory people have a habit of over-focusing on history, which perhaps explains why they are still discussing Tulsi's past anti-gay comments, even though they were from 15 years ago. Similarly, even though Marianne Williamson is perhaps more consistently left-wing than Tulsi, her leftism is based in love and spirituality, and she refuses to think of the right as enemies or oppressors. This attitude also frustrates a lot of conflict theory leftists.
Rather than to say that the left loves to eat its own, I think it's more accurate to say that conflict theory is eating the left, one personality at a time. At this rate, conflict theory may as well end up eating all of the left one day in the not too distant future, like a maladaptive virus that kills its host. The only chance to avert this is perhaps for the left's immune system to kick in, and clear this virus from its system.
