So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans’ dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn’t make the argument right.
I didn't find Gay's argument to be growing from her rage, her discussion was rational and straightforward. If I were her, I'd be a lot angrier. And if I were to talk to Leslie, I might ask, as Coates did of Klein, wasn't silence a possibility?
While it may be just 'textual analysis', Gay notes We are at such a dangerous and delicate moment in American history. The onus is on all of us to reject the fantasy of civility in favor of repair. This country is broken, but that need not be permanent.
So you and/or Leslie are claiming that Gay rejects civility, but it seems to me that Gay is saying instead that civility is something that the other side is only doing performatively and so is something we (may?) have to forgo (or at least acknowledge how it can be used for bad aims) if we want to repair what has been broken in the US.
I'm sure that you disagree, which is fine, but for me, rather than the paragraph Leslie takes as summing up Gay, I take this one as being key Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Gay's essay exists in a context where immediate calls for civility have been ways that those in power have been trying to control a narrative, especially in the wake of the Kirk assassination. Gay's essay is two weeks after the event so to transpose it to some sort of eternal 'civility is fantasy' is a misreading.
It's also important to note what happened in those two weeks. Accused of not being civil, the left has been protesting that everyone has been 'civil' with no one burning Kirk in effigy or organizing protests. It seems to me that the 'incivility' has been people expressing opinions on social media, where it is not clear if they are saying something to others or just expressing a level of frustration that is off the charts. However, the right response is oh no, not all of you are civil so all of you are uncivil. Efforts to assert that civility is something that is somehow lacking really just plug into the push of the right to claim the left is 'uncivil', and no amount of performance of civility will change this. So it is important at least for me, to understand that civility, in this case, is simply the right demanding a kowtowing to things they claim are true.
CharlesWT's tut tutting about the broken door at the ICE facility is of a piece with this. That broken door was presented as a synecdoche for a massive level of violence and destruction carried out by 'antifa', but closer examination reveals it is nothing of the sort. I feel like the accusation that Gay is rejecting civility forever and ever has a similar feel.
lj: I certainly don't think one should ignore someone's history if, like Kirk, they have a consistent record of saying the same kind of thing. But if they make good or interesting arguments, while being not particularly offensive, I consider it an irrelevant distraction to use their nationality, their previous professional experience or their ideological difference from oneself to discredit them or make their argument suspect, rather than something actually in the argument itself. It seems to me the very recipe for constructing a bubble around oneself.
On the other hand, I certainly consider it relevant in certain circumstances to consider someone's background to explain why they might make an argument with which one disagrees, because emotional past experiences certainly affect one's opinions, even if not in logically justifiable ways. So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans' dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn't make the argument right.
I often think this when bereaved relatives make understandably heart-rending arguments against their family member's murderer receiving parole, or life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Their suffering is real, and a life sentence. But, IMO, that does not and should not triumph over a rational attempt to do the right thing. And, again IMO, civility (respect and politeness not agreement or capitulation) is an essential ingredient for the possibility of continuing meaningful debate and even sometimes change.
Buttigieg? Pritzker? I’d prefer either of them
As a note, in Kamala Harris' recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was 'asking too much of America' (if I remember the quote correctly). I'm not second guessing that, I'm just imagining an America where it wouldn't be asking too much.
wj- <i>I’d vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.</i>
Buttigieg? Pritzker? I'd prefer either of them. Don't know where I'd stand on Beshear vs Newsom. Beshear seems like exactly the sort of person that Klein is dreaming of for The Great Centrist Messiah, and I mistrust that instinct immediately.
And despite all this, I am happy that Newsom is taking the stands he's taking and poking the old, gouty, amber colored badgers that he's poking. Newsom is the Killian's Irish Red of American politics, he looks fancy and he's better than a bland American pilsner, but he's still coming out of a big dollar brewery despite the fancy looking label.
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc.
This is interesting in light of a lot of the conversation, both here and out in the world. A lot of the martydom of Kirk requires overlooking his origins and past statements. The discussion between Klein and Coates features Coates pointing out the history behind a lot of this and Klein basically wanting a clean slate, which has him suggest that that if the Democrats would just run pro-life candidates in Nebraska, everything would be fine.
Newsom is an interesting case, he's setting himself up as anti-Trump, but his whole history is one of virtually limitless ambition and very much wanting to be President. In an ideal world, people wouldn't be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
Still, I don't have to post his memes or start fighting with people who do (at least I don't think I need to) From the Marshall quote, a distinction I'd make is that when Marshall is talking about commentators, he means people with a mass audience, like Klein, who have a tightrope to walk because their livelihood depends people following and agreeing with their arguments.
For us everyday folks, I realize it might be tiring to have to keep up with this, and we all dream of being able to set aside the history. It's an alluring fantasy to think that we can separate ourselves from history and rely on our expressed good intentions. Part of the fury at 'woke' is that it may seem like good intentions mean nothing, and it just becomes history all the way down and for some people, there is a glee in pointing out these things. But it seems like an important part of the puzzle that Gay is Haitian-American and Leslie is British and it illuminates (at least for me) a good bit of why, though the UK has not gotten as bad as the US, Starmer is flailing so badly in regards to Reform.
Another possibility, from Thomas Geoghegan in the Guardian.
I don't follow it all but basically Geoghegan seems to be proposing / calling for "blue" states to declare an emergency and, under the provisions of US Constitution Article I, Section 10, propose changes to federal law as a counter to Trump's extra-consitutional and illegal actions.
Such a proposal would go to Congress, which in its current form can hardly be expected to do anything with it. But the marker would be laid.
The federal government is, as we speak, broken. Trump and his crew are running roughshod over the Constitution and the law. They are doing whatever the hell the want, and at the federal level nobody is doing anything effective to stop them. Trump is losing some court cases, but that isn't blunting the overall effect of his regime.
Somebody else needs to step up. We have a nominally federal system, states have some limited but real authority. Time for them to act in whatever ways they can.
To speak candidly, I live in MA, and we send not quite $5K per capita more to the feds than we get back. Basically, because people in MA on the whole make more money than people in other states. I don't need that to be evened out, I just figure I'm lucky to live here.
But as a simple, pragmatic matter, I'm sick of paying for this crap.
If you look at the list of complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, it's almost laughable how minor many of them are compared to what we're putting up with every single freaking day.
There's a limit to what people will put up with, and we're approaching it.
But weirdly the bit that made me sit up related to some of the difficulties I have had here posting things by people who then get dissed by virtue of some of their past policies, jobs etc:
There’s a sort of dance I see among commentators reacting to Newsom’s various engagements with Donald Trump. Praise his fight but don’t praise it too much because then one gets looped into whatever list of things this or that group doesn’t like that Newsom has done in the past, gets branded as a Newsom advocate, gets involuntarily associated what what I guess is best labeled as Newsom’s politician’s “slickness.” I realized I was giving too much weight to these things, even as I told myself I wasn’t.
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc. Not that those things are irrelevant, and context is always valuable, but I do believe that an argument should mainly be evaluated on the strength of its actual argument, rather than the history, character or other attitudes of the person making it. I wonder if this was what Donald was getting at when he talked about (using Chomsky as an example) having to cast about and find alternative sources to quote for an argument, that would not generate distracting conversation about their other views.
Denazification both did and didn't go well: many Nazis slipped through the cracks, were quietly let back into the fold or even more or less openly embraced (operation paperclip / south America). However, from the mid-sixties onwards a Nazi-past was pretty much a kiss of death in the public eye (though that was 20 years too late).
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
Historically, these sort of efforts (denazification, debaathfication) haven't gone so well. Lustration (the process of decommunization) was a mixed bag (Czechoslovakia good, Poland and Hungary, so/so, Romania pretty bad) but when you think that Czechoslovakia split and you see what has happened in Hungary and nearly failed in Poland, (and Romania is still a basket case) rooting out the Trumpist elements will probably not work. Spain offers another model (the "Pact of Forgetting" or Pacto del Olvido, but that would probably have folks here (including me) rip out our hair with the level of collective false memories that would be generated.
Took me a while to find this. I thought someone owned an obwings domain that redirected to the typepad site and maybe it would be redirected here, but that approach didn't yield any results.
Luckily, googling "Obsidian Wings Blog" eventually led me here. You might consider reaching out to some bigger blogs and asking them to give a post, or at least a social media mention, telling people this place has moved and where to find it now.
Also, I've been doing WordPress stuff for nearly 20 years now, so I'd be happy to give you a little help if you need it.
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
The military at this point is the last guardrail. If they flip, it's game over.
And as far as domestic politics go, I generally (and gladly) agree that the level of basic integrity there is high. The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I’d say that we’ve made significant progress over the last two centuries.
I'll try again, and will make it short.
We have made progress. But to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we're going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
I wish I could say I had some confidence that that could happen, but I can't.
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans’ dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn’t make the argument right.
I didn't find Gay's argument to be growing from her rage, her discussion was rational and straightforward. If I were her, I'd be a lot angrier. And if I were to talk to Leslie, I might ask, as Coates did of Klein, wasn't silence a possibility?
While it may be just 'textual analysis', Gay notes
We are at such a dangerous and delicate moment in American history. The onus is on all of us to reject the fantasy of civility in favor of repair. This country is broken, but that need not be permanent.
So you and/or Leslie are claiming that Gay rejects civility, but it seems to me that Gay is saying instead that civility is something that the other side is only doing performatively and so is something we (may?) have to forgo (or at least acknowledge how it can be used for bad aims) if we want to repair what has been broken in the US.
I'm sure that you disagree, which is fine, but for me, rather than the paragraph Leslie takes as summing up Gay, I take this one as being key
Calling for civility is about exerting power. It is a way of reminding the powerless that they exist at the will of those in power and should act accordingly. It is a demand for control.
Gay's essay exists in a context where immediate calls for civility have been ways that those in power have been trying to control a narrative, especially in the wake of the Kirk assassination. Gay's essay is two weeks after the event so to transpose it to some sort of eternal 'civility is fantasy' is a misreading.
It's also important to note what happened in those two weeks. Accused of not being civil, the left has been protesting that everyone has been 'civil' with no one burning Kirk in effigy or organizing protests. It seems to me that the 'incivility' has been people expressing opinions on social media, where it is not clear if they are saying something to others or just expressing a level of frustration that is off the charts. However, the right response is oh no, not all of you are civil so all of you are uncivil. Efforts to assert that civility is something that is somehow lacking really just plug into the push of the right to claim the left is 'uncivil', and no amount of performance of civility will change this. So it is important at least for me, to understand that civility, in this case, is simply the right demanding a kowtowing to things they claim are true.
CharlesWT's tut tutting about the broken door at the ICE facility is of a piece with this. That broken door was presented as a synecdoche for a massive level of violence and destruction carried out by 'antifa', but closer examination reveals it is nothing of the sort. I feel like the accusation that Gay is rejecting civility forever and ever has a similar feel.
"
lj: I certainly don't think one should ignore someone's history if, like Kirk, they have a consistent record of saying the same kind of thing. But if they make good or interesting arguments, while being not particularly offensive, I consider it an irrelevant distraction to use their nationality, their previous professional experience or their ideological difference from oneself to discredit them or make their argument suspect, rather than something actually in the argument itself. It seems to me the very recipe for constructing a bubble around oneself.
On the other hand, I certainly consider it relevant in certain circumstances to consider someone's background to explain why they might make an argument with which one disagrees, because emotional past experiences certainly affect one's opinions, even if not in logically justifiable ways. So, in e.g. the case of Gay, the fact that she is a second generation Haitian immigrant could certainly make one understand why in the wake of a lifetime of discrimination and recent accusations that Haitians have been eating Americans' dogs and cats, she might be enraged enough to make an argument that civility is unnecessary, or a mistake. But it doesn't make the argument right.
I often think this when bereaved relatives make understandably heart-rending arguments against their family member's murderer receiving parole, or life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Their suffering is real, and a life sentence. But, IMO, that does not and should not triumph over a rational attempt to do the right thing. And, again IMO, civility (respect and politeness not agreement or capitulation) is an essential ingredient for the possibility of continuing meaningful debate and even sometimes change.
"
Buttigieg? Pritzker? I’d prefer either of them
As a note, in Kamala Harris' recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was 'asking too much of America' (if I remember the quote correctly). I'm not second guessing that, I'm just imagining an America where it wouldn't be asking too much.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
I think that if you choose Newest instead of Oldest at the top, you should see what you are responding to.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
wj- <i>I’d vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.</i>
Buttigieg? Pritzker? I'd prefer either of them. Don't know where I'd stand on Beshear vs Newsom. Beshear seems like exactly the sort of person that Klein is dreaming of for The Great Centrist Messiah, and I mistrust that instinct immediately.
And despite all this, I am happy that Newsom is taking the stands he's taking and poking the old, gouty, amber colored badgers that he's poking. Newsom is the Killian's Irish Red of American politics, he looks fancy and he's better than a bland American pilsner, but he's still coming out of a big dollar brewery despite the fancy looking label.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
The first issue I notice (and it's as much because it's something different) , I supposeis that new comments are entered at the beginning. Rather than at the end.
I think I prefer to write responses, especially in long threads, at the end. If only so I can flip back and forth to check the comment I am responding to.
And just found another. Apparently wj as a name doesn't fit the (not specified) format. Trying variations until I find one that works
On “What do you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?”
Testing the wpDiscuz plugin
On “Where are the 5 words?”
In an ideal world, people wouldn’t be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
I'd vastly rather look to someone else. But that requires there be someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
"
I"m on a Zoom call right now with the ACLU. They're providing a briefing for folks who are planning to attend the No Kings rallies on 10/18.
There are 11,000 people on the call.
So there's that.
"
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc.
This is interesting in light of a lot of the conversation, both here and out in the world. A lot of the martydom of Kirk requires overlooking his origins and past statements. The discussion between Klein and Coates features Coates pointing out the history behind a lot of this and Klein basically wanting a clean slate, which has him suggest that that if the Democrats would just run pro-life candidates in Nebraska, everything would be fine.
Newsom is an interesting case, he's setting himself up as anti-Trump, but his whole history is one of virtually limitless ambition and very much wanting to be President. In an ideal world, people wouldn't be looking to him or people like him for leadership, but it may be all we have.
Still, I don't have to post his memes or start fighting with people who do (at least I don't think I need to) From the Marshall quote, a distinction I'd make is that when Marshall is talking about commentators, he means people with a mass audience, like Klein, who have a tightrope to walk because their livelihood depends people following and agreeing with their arguments.
For us everyday folks, I realize it might be tiring to have to keep up with this, and we all dream of being able to set aside the history. It's an alluring fantasy to think that we can separate ourselves from history and rely on our expressed good intentions. Part of the fury at 'woke' is that it may seem like good intentions mean nothing, and it just becomes history all the way down and for some people, there is a glee in pointing out these things. But it seems like an important part of the puzzle that Gay is Haitian-American and Leslie is British and it illuminates (at least for me) a good bit of why, though the UK has not gotten as bad as the US, Starmer is flailing so badly in regards to Reform.
"
Another possibility, from Thomas Geoghegan in the Guardian.
I don't follow it all but basically Geoghegan seems to be proposing / calling for "blue" states to declare an emergency and, under the provisions of US Constitution Article I, Section 10, propose changes to federal law as a counter to Trump's extra-consitutional and illegal actions.
Such a proposal would go to Congress, which in its current form can hardly be expected to do anything with it. But the marker would be laid.
The federal government is, as we speak, broken. Trump and his crew are running roughshod over the Constitution and the law. They are doing whatever the hell the want, and at the federal level nobody is doing anything effective to stop them. Trump is losing some court cases, but that isn't blunting the overall effect of his regime.
Somebody else needs to step up. We have a nominally federal system, states have some limited but real authority. Time for them to act in whatever ways they can.
To speak candidly, I live in MA, and we send not quite $5K per capita more to the feds than we get back. Basically, because people in MA on the whole make more money than people in other states. I don't need that to be evened out, I just figure I'm lucky to live here.
But as a simple, pragmatic matter, I'm sick of paying for this crap.
If you look at the list of complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, it's almost laughable how minor many of them are compared to what we're putting up with every single freaking day.
There's a limit to what people will put up with, and we're approaching it.
"
Josh Marshall has an interesting post today about fighting this/getting back from this. This should be a gift link:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/power-is-the-order-of-the-day-and-other-beds-trump-has-made
But weirdly the bit that made me sit up related to some of the difficulties I have had here posting things by people who then get dissed by virtue of some of their past policies, jobs etc:
There’s a sort of dance I see among commentators reacting to Newsom’s various engagements with Donald Trump. Praise his fight but don’t praise it too much because then one gets looped into whatever list of things this or that group doesn’t like that Newsom has done in the past, gets branded as a Newsom advocate, gets involuntarily associated what what I guess is best labeled as Newsom’s politician’s “slickness.” I realized I was giving too much weight to these things, even as I told myself I wasn’t.
And I suppose I quote this to show why I think it worth zeroing in on the arguments people actually make, rather than those people’s origins, past statements etc. Not that those things are irrelevant, and context is always valuable, but I do believe that an argument should mainly be evaluated on the strength of its actual argument, rather than the history, character or other attitudes of the person making it. I wonder if this was what Donald was getting at when he talked about (using Chomsky as an example) having to cast about and find alternative sources to quote for an argument, that would not generate distracting conversation about their other views.
"
Denazification both did and didn't go well: many Nazis slipped through the cracks, were quietly let back into the fold or even more or less openly embraced (operation paperclip / south America). However, from the mid-sixties onwards a Nazi-past was pretty much a kiss of death in the public eye (though that was 20 years too late).
On “What do you mean ‘we’, kemosabe?”
good point
https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/why-the-lone-rangers-anachronisms-make-its-history-lessons-hard-to-swallow-127703/
"
For the benefit of the non-Americans, you might want to add a footnote explaining the quote that is the title. Just a thought
"
Always great to see people standing up.
Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.
Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.
On “Ad futurum”
woo hoo! Great to see you Chuchundra! I'll be in touch in a couple of weeks for advice.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Historically, these sort of efforts (denazification, debaathfication) haven't gone so well. Lustration (the process of decommunization) was a mixed bag (Czechoslovakia good, Poland and Hungary, so/so, Romania pretty bad) but when you think that Czechoslovakia split and you see what has happened in Hungary and nearly failed in Poland, (and Romania is still a basket case) rooting out the Trumpist elements will probably not work. Spain offers another model (the "Pact of Forgetting" or Pacto del Olvido, but that would probably have folks here (including me) rip out our hair with the level of collective false memories that would be generated.
On “Ad futurum”
Took me a while to find this. I thought someone owned an obwings domain that redirected to the typepad site and maybe it would be redirected here, but that approach didn't yield any results.
Luckily, googling "Obsidian Wings Blog" eventually led me here. You might consider reaching out to some bigger blogs and asking them to give a post, or at least a social media mention, telling people this place has moved and where to find it now.
Also, I've been doing WordPress stuff for nearly 20 years now, so I'd be happy to give you a little help if you need it.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.
Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.
Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.
Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.
"
The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
And, importantly, the higher up you go in the NCO ranks, not just the officers. Those are the folks that actually make things happen or not happen. As any officer worth his salt realizes.
"
And the final target audience is the military.
The military at this point is the last guardrail. If they flip, it's game over.
And as far as domestic politics go, I generally (and gladly) agree that the level of basic integrity there is high. The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.
"
Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I’d say that we’ve made significant progress over the last two centuries.
I'll try again, and will make it short.
We have made progress. But to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we're going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.
Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?
I wish I could say I had some confidence that that could happen, but I can't.
"
I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.
Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.
And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.
No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.
"
"Knowing that Gay is second-generation *Haitian*".
I do miss the preview. Now I'll have to start paying attention to what I write!
:)
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.