what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do?
I don't want them to do anything. Trump shouldn't be mobilizing the National Guard against the wishes of the state. But the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances certainly give him an excuse.
P.S. the “forum similar to this one” 10-15 years ago wasn’t the old ObWi, was it?
No, the forum was one of several over the years used by a small group of people I first encountered in 1998.
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was it?)
Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation’s founding the boogie man was the Germans.... I won’t be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice.
I went to high school just west of South Omaha. The sequence of ethnic groups there that became, or are becoming "white" was Irish, Italian, Central/Eastern European, and now Hispanic. Blacks overlapped those at first, but were basically pushed out to the north side of Omaha proper.
My guess is that South Asians don't become outsiders because there are a lot of them already here in high-skill positions -- engineering, medicine, etc. Maybe if there's a "flood" of poor climate refugees. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are 1.9B people in an area that will experience* early climate disasters.
* Arguably, Pakistan already is experiencing them, in the form of now-regular catastrophic monsoon flooding.
ps By the way, I completely agree with what Pro Bono says @11.44. And, about Ian Leslie, on reading more of his Wikipedia entry I see it says he is a "writer on human behaviour", and that "Leslie also writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, The Economist, The Guardian and the Financial Times." which to me at least gives slightly more context than the extract from his website “communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication”.
Ah, I think I'm finally getting what you mean by "a stake" in this context, lj. If I understand correctly, you mean that people who have constructed (or subscribe to) an intellectual or ideological framework with many intersecting parts, can be so personally invested in it that they feel called to dispute any questioning of any element of it. In which kind of case, of course their arguments should be examined (like everybody's) for logic and evidence. But my view is that often people's views are complex, and that sometimes one can object to (and find logical or moral fault with) some of the elements, but not all, and that occasionally discussion along these lines can throw up interesting or productive ideas as well as being an example of treating other people with respect (i.e. civility).
It is much the same with the tendency to dismiss someone's opinions or arguments based on e.g. their profession or their past work, rather than engaging with their actual ideas or arguments. Very tempting, sometimes, but surely extremely reductive. I know almost nothing of Ian Leslie (have no idea why I get his newsletter - I think someone else subscribed me), but I think this quotation from his Wikipedia entry has a lot to recommend it:
"Open, passionate disagreement blows away the cobwebs that gather over even the most enduring relationships . . . It flushes out crucial information and insights that will otherwise lie inaccessible or dormant inside our brains. It fulfils the creative potential of diversity".
On the whole question of civility, I have been marvelling at the idea that it could mean a necessity to agree with one another. Is this a widespread idea, I wonder? If so, it could certainly explain why there is so much neglect of and resistance to it. But when Charles talks upthread about a site he used to frequent:
One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
I think the opposite of this is the real definition of civility (and I would have thought the normal one): treating other people (even those with whom one vehemently disagrees) with politeness and respect. After all, if you hate their views in their entirety, and find them completely morally repugnant in every respect, nobody forces you to interact with them. Choosing to insult them, attack them and ascribe views to them which they have not stated or have even denied surely says more about the person doing it than the person on the receiving end.
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
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. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
wonkie, I would note that, at least in the US, the pattern has included an additional phase: the group of outsiders is moved into Our Nation, and then a new group of outsiders emerges. Currently the primary group of outsiders seems to be Hispanics. (Arguably it may be more like brown Hispanics. Except that the Spanish language features so prominently.). Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation's founding the boogie man was the Germans.
I won't be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice. Aided by the difference in religion; Hispanics, at least, are Christians.
Nous and Pro Bono are having a much more interesting conversation about what shape post Trump America could take if it were to avoid running off the cliff and with that in mind, these two LGM posts from Dan Nexon and Paul Campos are worth your time.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/10/is-our-constitution-learning
and
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/10/notes-for-next-time-2
I especially appreciate the gallows humor in the title of Campos' post.
I've read a good bit of Gay, (my daughter recommended her book Bad Feminist which led me to her other books) but Ian Leslie wasn't a name that I was familiar with. However, it was niggling at the back of my mind about their backgrounds. I see that Leslie is a British author who was originally "communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication" https://ian-leslie.com/about/
He also has just come out with a book titled Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together. I haven't read that, but his wikipedia bio says "The second half of the book is devoted to ten "rules of productive argument", which Leslie deduces from encounters with specialists in interrogation and hostage negotiation," which has me wonder if he considers civility a useful ruse in order to get to an outcome you want. Which is obviously something you want to do if you are negotiating with a hostage taker, (and that might be a good description of a lot of the right), but it's not really a ringing endorsement for civility.
On the other hand Gay is a second generation Haitian-American, so I'm marvelling a bit at a white British writer who was a corporate communication strategist telling a Haitian American, in Oct 2025 after an election where Haitians in the US legally were accused of eating pets, that she's wrong about civility. Perhaps Leslie is blissfully unaware of Gay's ancestry, but I am not, and I think it should be noted.
I get the same vibe from the earlier Klein-Coates interview. Klein is wondering how it can be possible that these ideals of respect for others humanity can be so debased and Coates says well, welcome to Black America. Maybe I'm being too hard on both Leslie and Klein, but that's where I'm sitting now.
That’s because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That’s not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
Trump is evil, and Republicans who enable his malevolence are evil-doers. There is no room for compromise on this.
When I speak of civility, I do not mean that we should not speak frankly about what is wrong. I mean that people who do wrong are people nonetheless.
I disagree profoundly with Anthony Kennedy when he says that the Supreme Court minority should be more respectful in dissenting against the fascist-enabling majority's patently wrong rulings. I think the minority has shown remarkable restraint, which I would wish to emulate, while stating plainly what is right.
Oh, I forgot the 'clear and present danger' doctrine that Hitler invoked after the 'Night of the long Knives' and that has also been a tool of abuse by US governments.
The Nazis never officially abolished or even changed the Weimar constitution. Elections still took place (with of course only one party on the ballot) etc.
Hitler ruled through the Enabling Act of 1933. Although this law was in violation of the constitution, it was passed (like its lesser known pre-Hitler predecessors) with majorities that would have been sufficient to change the constitution itself, so legal theory at the time considered such laws as legitimate.
In the US SCOTUS has in essence declared that Nixon's 'if the president does it, it means it is not illegal' is the law of the land (of course with the stated caveat that SCOTUS can and will revoke the doctrine the moment POTUS is not of the 'movement'*) and also made clear that it sees itself as the Vaticanum I pope free to ignore any tradition or holy scripture based on 'because I say so'**. No need to change the quaint piece of paper. Btw the Bible His Orangeness promotes and that Oklahoma has just made a mandatory school textbook leaves out most of the amendments with the given reason that those were not approved by the founders themselves and are thus of no interest.
*when I hear that, it automatically triggers original Nazi soundbytes about the "Bewegung"
**this included an official interpretation that the pope could order people to commit sins because obedience to the pope was more important than abstaining from sinning.
It's improbable that 'bought the farm' comes from here but it's the literary illustration of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_Land_Does_a_Man_Need%3F
bobbyp - I read your link and I will admit that I have thought the same thing about our situation more than once.
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it, and a lot of pushing through structural changes to shore up the weakest parts that are making it so hard to prevent the willful vandalism and disregard of the rule of law. I don't think that their critics are wrong to say that they used extra-constitutional means to achieve their ends, but part of their end in both cases was not just to preserve the union, but to preserve the constitution and keep continuity of government.
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
My fear is that this time the current GOP will force a suspension of the constitution and turn tyrant with the intent of undoing the constitution and replacing it with a Christian Nationalist authoritarian government. If so, then I don't know how the union is going to hold.
About a decade and a half ago, I used to pursue and comment on a form similar to this one. One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
I was glad to see the "outcasts" included because they are almost always part of the mix. A lot of them have serious mental and psychological issues. They include folks like the guy that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed for the crime of throwing a bag at him.
Geriatrics are much easier (and less negatively) to explain than Kruse's characterization - they (i.e., we) show up because we're retired and don't have jobs and kids to deal with. Which is to say, we have the time.
Kruse describes folks affected by ICE activity as "out for retribution", which strikes me as wrong. I wonder if she actually knows anyone, or has talked with anyone, who has actually been affected - had friends or family members incarcerated or deported. In my experience they just want to bear witness to their own experience, they aren't out to "get" anybody.
Kruse's characterization of antifa seems extreme, even a bit cartoonish. "They all dress in black and will kill to suppress dissenting views" - again, I have to ask if she has ever actually been around real live antifa or antifa-adjacent people. Some fit the strict definition of domestic terrorism as defined in US law, some don't. And "domestic terrorism" is a very dangerous label to toss around in the current climate.
To the degree that I understand it, at its heart antifa are people who believe many hard core right wingers are fascists and are violent and unreasoning people, who will not respect the law and institutions of governance and so must be met with force. It's not an approach I agree with or support - I think they are basically poking the bear and giving Trump et al an excuse to double down. But neither are they completely wrong about their opponents.
Stakes:
I attend two churches pretty regularly. One is an Episcopal church whose congregation is about 60% Latino. They hold two services a week, one in English, one in Spanish, with a bilingual service once a month. The other is a UU church that has a significant population of gays as well as some trans people. We just hired a minister who is a lesbian.
I live in a very white bread town that is adjacent to towns with sizeable immigrant populations. Dominecan Republic, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Haiti, Russia and Eastern Europe, Ireland. When I say "adjacent" I mean these towns are within 2 or 3 miles of my home. The city of Salem is literally around the corner from me. Most of my daily is in and around Salem, which is about 15% Dominican. I contribute to and have volunteered at a local food bank whose clientele is primarily immigrants.
I make a somewhat haphazard but continual effort to follow a spiritual path that is very much centered on concern for less privileged people - the poor, immigrants, outcasts of any type. By "haphazard" I mean I'm not great at it, mostly because I am temperentally irascible, judgemental, impatient, and have a kind of restless and unruly mind. Nonetheless, I cannot escape the overwhelming and consistent message that god, whoever and whatever that personage is, loves everyone but really really really cherishes and champions less fortunate people.
I often wonder what judgement this country is storing up for itself. Not in the sense of some kind of supreme being throwing bolts of lightning at us, but just in the sense of karma. I really do believe we will pay a price for the crap that is going on here right now.
Ultimately, for me it comes down to a really simple thing - we are obliged to treat other people as fellow human beings, deserving of respect and consideration. "Obliged" not necessarily for some religious or spiritual motivation, but just freaking because. Because there they are, a person like yourself. Treat them as you would be treated, at minimum.
So that's where I'm at with all of this. I spend a lot of time spinning my mental and emotional wheels trying to understand how to live in this moment. I really don't know where it's all gonna lead.
I appreciate having ObWi as a place to vent and work through my own thoughts about all of it. And I appreciate all of your forbearance while I think out loud, at length. Mental flailing, but I'm grateful to have a venue for it.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
Are we really to get our panties in a bunch based on the (cherry picked) actions of a small number of anti-fascist demonstrators? THEY ARE NOT THE ONES STEALING OUR LIBERTY!!!!
About stakes, we all have our individual ones. A lot of people seem to have a stake in the I/P conflict that demands they support Israel, but if examined closely, that crumbles. And if one has discussions about this, it's a point to consider.
But I also think of the phrase 'it's not always about you'. People are influenced by not only their past, but also to lots of other things that are happening in their life. People also hold positions on lots of things that they don't directly affect them. My feeling is that if that is the case, they need to be careful to make sure that their arguments can be checked for their logic and their facts can be verified. Charles posting about the Portland ICE facility reveals that the damage happened in June, before Operation Overpriced Kombucha was even an unformed notion in the Dear Leader's mind seems like one of those things that people can be doubtful as to what it represents. It could be said that I am being uncivil in pointing this out, but I think Charles has enough of a record lauding libertarian ideals of taking the government out of everything that one has to wonder when he applauds unrequested military intervention to protect 4 month old broken doors.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women. And if one has that as a main focus or even an important focus, that's fine. But when you have people using that as a justification for intervention, if they don't examine their motivations, they can't be surprised if someone else does it for them, perhaps unfairly. The answer to me is [the generic] you need to examine your motivations and set them out or have it done for you.
In Afghanistan, for example, consider how Trump signed the withdrawal in May 2020 and ordered a RIF down to 2,500 5 days before Biden's inauguration. Biden carried it out and was accused of neglecting the rights of women, like in this Heritage Foundation piece by Anthony Kim
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/the-tragic-betrayal-afghan-women-year-after-bidens-botched-troop-withdrawal
There were some on the left who complained about this, and I'd take what they said seriously. But when conservatives who supported Trump come up with that, really?
Now, Anthony is not here, but if he were, couldn't we wonder about his other positions and how they mesh? And do we serve civility by pretending to take all his comments at face value?
This is one reason I'm so noisy about providing links rather than 'I read this on X and [opining]' I realize that not everyone has time to do this, and information has gotten a lot more diffuse so it can sometimes be impossible to reference something seen in passing, but that should demand a lighter touch in presenting it as evidence, imho.
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
Sorry, the penultimate paragraph was supposed to be a clear quotation!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do?
I don't want them to do anything. Trump shouldn't be mobilizing the National Guard against the wishes of the state. But the failures of the local authorities to enforce the law and ordinances certainly give him an excuse.
P.S. the “forum similar to this one” 10-15 years ago wasn’t the old ObWi, was it?
No, the forum was one of several over the years used by a small group of people I first encountered in 1998.
"
TonyP: I meant on the blog! But, FWIW, I am in general completely in sympathy with your approach.
"
wj, I don't know about you, but "20-30 years from now" there's a good chance I will not be around to "look back". One might say I don't really have a "stake" in what 2055 America will look like. For many of "we" here, the long run is becoming less relevant every day.
GftNC, sometimes it's not true that "nobody forces you to interact with" people whose views are "morally repugnant". And I'm not talking about the obvious case of fascist ICE "agents" vis a vis anti-fascist protesters. I'm talking about ordinary social situations in which you'd be called uncivil if you argue with the MAGAts present, and uncivil if you decline to attend. The shameless can always take advantage of "civility".
CharlesWT, if "two wrongs don't make a right" does that mean that 3 wrongs do? In the Portland context, I ask you again: what would you want the Guard or the Army to actually do? And, not incidentally, what do you imagine Herr Trump wants them to do? (P.S. the "forum similar to this one" 10-15 years ago wasn't the old ObWi, was it?)
--TP
On “The DIY party”
Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation’s founding the boogie man was the Germans.... I won’t be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice.
I went to high school just west of South Omaha. The sequence of ethnic groups there that became, or are becoming "white" was Irish, Italian, Central/Eastern European, and now Hispanic. Blacks overlapped those at first, but were basically pushed out to the north side of Omaha proper.
My guess is that South Asians don't become outsiders because there are a lot of them already here in high-skill positions -- engineering, medicine, etc. Maybe if there's a "flood" of poor climate refugees. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are 1.9B people in an area that will experience* early climate disasters.
* Arguably, Pakistan already is experiencing them, in the form of now-regular catastrophic monsoon flooding.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
ps By the way, I completely agree with what Pro Bono says @11.44. And, about Ian Leslie, on reading more of his Wikipedia entry I see it says he is a "writer on human behaviour", and that "Leslie also writes about psychology, culture, technology and business for the New Statesman, The Economist, The Guardian and the Financial Times." which to me at least gives slightly more context than the extract from his website “communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication”.
"
Ah, I think I'm finally getting what you mean by "a stake" in this context, lj. If I understand correctly, you mean that people who have constructed (or subscribe to) an intellectual or ideological framework with many intersecting parts, can be so personally invested in it that they feel called to dispute any questioning of any element of it. In which kind of case, of course their arguments should be examined (like everybody's) for logic and evidence. But my view is that often people's views are complex, and that sometimes one can object to (and find logical or moral fault with) some of the elements, but not all, and that occasionally discussion along these lines can throw up interesting or productive ideas as well as being an example of treating other people with respect (i.e. civility).
It is much the same with the tendency to dismiss someone's opinions or arguments based on e.g. their profession or their past work, rather than engaging with their actual ideas or arguments. Very tempting, sometimes, but surely extremely reductive. I know almost nothing of Ian Leslie (have no idea why I get his newsletter - I think someone else subscribed me), but I think this quotation from his Wikipedia entry has a lot to recommend it:
"Open, passionate disagreement blows away the cobwebs that gather over even the most enduring relationships . . . It flushes out crucial information and insights that will otherwise lie inaccessible or dormant inside our brains. It fulfils the creative potential of diversity".
On the whole question of civility, I have been marvelling at the idea that it could mean a necessity to agree with one another. Is this a widespread idea, I wonder? If so, it could certainly explain why there is so much neglect of and resistance to it. But when Charles talks upthread about a site he used to frequent:
One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
I think the opposite of this is the real definition of civility (and I would have thought the normal one): treating other people (even those with whom one vehemently disagrees) with politeness and respect. After all, if you hate their views in their entirety, and find them completely morally repugnant in every respect, nobody forces you to interact with them. Choosing to insult them, attack them and ascribe views to them which they have not stated or have even denied surely says more about the person doing it than the person on the receiving end.
"
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it,
....
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
What you're actually saying is that the necessary changes won't be permanent fixes. Which is not that surprising -- the authoritarians, given enough time, will find new weak points.
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. The reactionaries are trying to roll all those back. But I expect that, the closer they get to realizing their dream, the more massive will be the resistance.
In the end, they will once again fail. We will, temporarily, lose some ground. But only some. And a lot of people will get hurt along the way.
Still, 20-30 years from now (yeah, totally just spit balling on the time frame) we will look back on today rather like most of us look back on other periods in our history where the reactionaries made gains. Asking, "What were they thinking???". But naively confident that we won't go there again. Until the generations that live thru it have passed from the scene.
On “The DIY party”
wonkie, I would note that, at least in the US, the pattern has included an additional phase: the group of outsiders is moved into Our Nation, and then a new group of outsiders emerges. Currently the primary group of outsiders seems to be Hispanics. (Arguably it may be more like brown Hispanics. Except that the Spanish language features so prominently.). Before that, it has been Italians, and before that the Irish. At our nation's founding the boogie man was the Germans.
I won't be astounded if, down the road, South Asians replace Hispanics as the outsiders of choice. Aided by the difference in religion; Hispanics, at least, are Christians.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
...thought I'd pass this on to those of you who like to assess our current political travails in light of wider themes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/05/opinion/west-europe-america-lost.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rE8.064G._2GkKn5zEX4W&smid=url-share
Resillience is not a catchy tune, but is might be the way to go.
"
Nous and Pro Bono are having a much more interesting conversation about what shape post Trump America could take if it were to avoid running off the cliff and with that in mind, these two LGM posts from Dan Nexon and Paul Campos are worth your time.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/10/is-our-constitution-learning
and
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/10/notes-for-next-time-2
I especially appreciate the gallows humor in the title of Campos' post.
"
I've read a good bit of Gay, (my daughter recommended her book Bad Feminist which led me to her other books) but Ian Leslie wasn't a name that I was familiar with. However, it was niggling at the back of my mind about their backgrounds. I see that Leslie is a British author who was originally "communication strategist for some of the world’s biggest brands, at ad agencies in London and New York; he still advises companies on workplace culture and strategic communication" https://ian-leslie.com/about/
He also has just come out with a book titled Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together. I haven't read that, but his wikipedia bio says "The second half of the book is devoted to ten "rules of productive argument", which Leslie deduces from encounters with specialists in interrogation and hostage negotiation," which has me wonder if he considers civility a useful ruse in order to get to an outcome you want. Which is obviously something you want to do if you are negotiating with a hostage taker, (and that might be a good description of a lot of the right), but it's not really a ringing endorsement for civility.
On the other hand Gay is a second generation Haitian-American, so I'm marvelling a bit at a white British writer who was a corporate communication strategist telling a Haitian American, in Oct 2025 after an election where Haitians in the US legally were accused of eating pets, that she's wrong about civility. Perhaps Leslie is blissfully unaware of Gay's ancestry, but I am not, and I think it should be noted.
I get the same vibe from the earlier Klein-Coates interview. Klein is wondering how it can be possible that these ideals of respect for others humanity can be so debased and Coates says well, welcome to Black America. Maybe I'm being too hard on both Leslie and Klein, but that's where I'm sitting now.
"
That’s because you are seeing Republicans as people who have a different worldview and position, and trying to understand them in order to live with them as a part of your community. That’s not the way that the core of the GOP thinks about Democrats. To them we are not Americans with a different point of view that must be negotiated. To them we are not really Americans, and their job is to protect America from us.
Trump is evil, and Republicans who enable his malevolence are evil-doers. There is no room for compromise on this.
When I speak of civility, I do not mean that we should not speak frankly about what is wrong. I mean that people who do wrong are people nonetheless.
I disagree profoundly with Anthony Kennedy when he says that the Supreme Court minority should be more respectful in dissenting against the fascist-enabling majority's patently wrong rulings. I think the minority has shown remarkable restraint, which I would wish to emulate, while stating plainly what is right.
"
Oh, I forgot the 'clear and present danger' doctrine that Hitler invoked after the 'Night of the long Knives' and that has also been a tool of abuse by US governments.
"
The Nazis never officially abolished or even changed the Weimar constitution. Elections still took place (with of course only one party on the ballot) etc.
Hitler ruled through the Enabling Act of 1933. Although this law was in violation of the constitution, it was passed (like its lesser known pre-Hitler predecessors) with majorities that would have been sufficient to change the constitution itself, so legal theory at the time considered such laws as legitimate.
In the US SCOTUS has in essence declared that Nixon's 'if the president does it, it means it is not illegal' is the law of the land (of course with the stated caveat that SCOTUS can and will revoke the doctrine the moment POTUS is not of the 'movement'*) and also made clear that it sees itself as the Vaticanum I pope free to ignore any tradition or holy scripture based on 'because I say so'**. No need to change the quaint piece of paper. Btw the Bible His Orangeness promotes and that Oklahoma has just made a mandatory school textbook leaves out most of the amendments with the given reason that those were not approved by the founders themselves and are thus of no interest.
*when I hear that, it automatically triggers original Nazi soundbytes about the "Bewegung"
**this included an official interpretation that the pope could order people to commit sins because obedience to the pope was more important than abstaining from sinning.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
It's improbable that 'bought the farm' comes from here but it's the literary illustration of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_Land_Does_a_Man_Need%3F
On “The DIY party”
Quite an old one that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus
On “Where are the 5 words?”
bobbyp - I read your link and I will admit that I have thought the same thing about our situation more than once.
I think that the constitution could be saved, but it would take another Lincoln or FDR to do it, and a lot of pushing through structural changes to shore up the weakest parts that are making it so hard to prevent the willful vandalism and disregard of the rule of law. I don't think that their critics are wrong to say that they used extra-constitutional means to achieve their ends, but part of their end in both cases was not just to preserve the union, but to preserve the constitution and keep continuity of government.
Of course both ended up having their work undone, and here we are again.
My fear is that this time the current GOP will force a suspension of the constitution and turn tyrant with the intent of undoing the constitution and replacing it with a Christian Nationalist authoritarian government. If so, then I don't know how the union is going to hold.
"
About a decade and a half ago, I used to pursue and comment on a form similar to this one. One of the regular participants would occasionally cross the line with ad hominem attacks, insults, and general nastiness. When called to task, he would complain bitterly about the Civility Brigade.
"
Here’s another breakdown of the protestors.
Seems sort of accurate.
I was glad to see the "outcasts" included because they are almost always part of the mix. A lot of them have serious mental and psychological issues. They include folks like the guy that Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed for the crime of throwing a bag at him.
Geriatrics are much easier (and less negatively) to explain than Kruse's characterization - they (i.e., we) show up because we're retired and don't have jobs and kids to deal with. Which is to say, we have the time.
Kruse describes folks affected by ICE activity as "out for retribution", which strikes me as wrong. I wonder if she actually knows anyone, or has talked with anyone, who has actually been affected - had friends or family members incarcerated or deported. In my experience they just want to bear witness to their own experience, they aren't out to "get" anybody.
Kruse's characterization of antifa seems extreme, even a bit cartoonish. "They all dress in black and will kill to suppress dissenting views" - again, I have to ask if she has ever actually been around real live antifa or antifa-adjacent people. Some fit the strict definition of domestic terrorism as defined in US law, some don't. And "domestic terrorism" is a very dangerous label to toss around in the current climate.
To the degree that I understand it, at its heart antifa are people who believe many hard core right wingers are fascists and are violent and unreasoning people, who will not respect the law and institutions of governance and so must be met with force. It's not an approach I agree with or support - I think they are basically poking the bear and giving Trump et al an excuse to double down. But neither are they completely wrong about their opponents.
Stakes:
I attend two churches pretty regularly. One is an Episcopal church whose congregation is about 60% Latino. They hold two services a week, one in English, one in Spanish, with a bilingual service once a month. The other is a UU church that has a significant population of gays as well as some trans people. We just hired a minister who is a lesbian.
I live in a very white bread town that is adjacent to towns with sizeable immigrant populations. Dominecan Republic, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Haiti, Russia and Eastern Europe, Ireland. When I say "adjacent" I mean these towns are within 2 or 3 miles of my home. The city of Salem is literally around the corner from me. Most of my daily is in and around Salem, which is about 15% Dominican. I contribute to and have volunteered at a local food bank whose clientele is primarily immigrants.
I make a somewhat haphazard but continual effort to follow a spiritual path that is very much centered on concern for less privileged people - the poor, immigrants, outcasts of any type. By "haphazard" I mean I'm not great at it, mostly because I am temperentally irascible, judgemental, impatient, and have a kind of restless and unruly mind. Nonetheless, I cannot escape the overwhelming and consistent message that god, whoever and whatever that personage is, loves everyone but really really really cherishes and champions less fortunate people.
I often wonder what judgement this country is storing up for itself. Not in the sense of some kind of supreme being throwing bolts of lightning at us, but just in the sense of karma. I really do believe we will pay a price for the crap that is going on here right now.
Ultimately, for me it comes down to a really simple thing - we are obliged to treat other people as fellow human beings, deserving of respect and consideration. "Obliged" not necessarily for some religious or spiritual motivation, but just freaking because. Because there they are, a person like yourself. Treat them as you would be treated, at minimum.
So that's where I'm at with all of this. I spend a lot of time spinning my mental and emotional wheels trying to understand how to live in this moment. I really don't know where it's all gonna lead.
I appreciate having ObWi as a place to vent and work through my own thoughts about all of it. And I appreciate all of your forbearance while I think out loud, at length. Mental flailing, but I'm grateful to have a venue for it.
"
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women.
And yet somehow that kind of confrontation never seems to get applied to Saudi Arabia. Which, be it noted, has a worse recond on the subject than any other Islamic country (with the possible exception of Afghanistan).
Making Iran under the mullahs, for example, look like a bastion of liberalism is no mean feat. But the Saudis manage it. With impunity.
"
Are we there yet?
https://outsidethebeltway.com/has-the-constitution-failed/
Are we really to get our panties in a bunch based on the (cherry picked) actions of a small number of anti-fascist demonstrators? THEY ARE NOT THE ONES STEALING OUR LIBERTY!!!!
jfc
"
About stakes, we all have our individual ones. A lot of people seem to have a stake in the I/P conflict that demands they support Israel, but if examined closely, that crumbles. And if one has discussions about this, it's a point to consider.
But I also think of the phrase 'it's not always about you'. People are influenced by not only their past, but also to lots of other things that are happening in their life. People also hold positions on lots of things that they don't directly affect them. My feeling is that if that is the case, they need to be careful to make sure that their arguments can be checked for their logic and their facts can be verified. Charles posting about the Portland ICE facility reveals that the damage happened in June, before Operation Overpriced Kombucha was even an unformed notion in the Dear Leader's mind seems like one of those things that people can be doubtful as to what it represents. It could be said that I am being uncivil in pointing this out, but I think Charles has enough of a record lauding libertarian ideals of taking the government out of everything that one has to wonder when he applauds unrequested military intervention to protect 4 month old broken doors.
In the example of Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries), a lot of justification of confronting those countries is based on their approach to the rights of women. And if one has that as a main focus or even an important focus, that's fine. But when you have people using that as a justification for intervention, if they don't examine their motivations, they can't be surprised if someone else does it for them, perhaps unfairly. The answer to me is [the generic] you need to examine your motivations and set them out or have it done for you.
In Afghanistan, for example, consider how Trump signed the withdrawal in May 2020 and ordered a RIF down to 2,500 5 days before Biden's inauguration. Biden carried it out and was accused of neglecting the rights of women, like in this Heritage Foundation piece by Anthony Kim
https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/the-tragic-betrayal-afghan-women-year-after-bidens-botched-troop-withdrawal
There were some on the left who complained about this, and I'd take what they said seriously. But when conservatives who supported Trump come up with that, really?
Now, Anthony is not here, but if he were, couldn't we wonder about his other positions and how they mesh? And do we serve civility by pretending to take all his comments at face value?
This is one reason I'm so noisy about providing links rather than 'I read this on X and [opining]' I realize that not everyone has time to do this, and information has gotten a lot more diffuse so it can sometimes be impossible to reference something seen in passing, but that should demand a lighter touch in presenting it as evidence, imho.
On “WTF moments at cultural borders”
Another oddity: "turn and burn."
Reputed to originate regarding air force dog fights. But the most common occurrence, in my experience, regards truckers (or anyone else driving any long distance). Meaning to arrive somewhere and immediately head back in the other direction. In that context, the "turn" is obvious. But the "burn"? Not so much.
"
A bit of color on your comment. Japan is interesting (and this transfers to other places) in that if you went back to before Meiji, everyday Japanese would probably never even define themselves as Japanese, they were from their fiefdom. And before the unification of Japan as what we think of as a nation state (1615), that was even more the case. However, the Meiji Restoration made a goal of creating a a polity that exhibits the characteristics that wonkie mentions.
One of the things they did was make it part of education extend the notion of nationhood back thru time. In fact, every Japanese student learns the historical date of 1192 as ii kuni skuro which is a goroawase, a mnemonic peculiar to Japanese. It marks the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate and means 'let's make a beautiful country', even though the idea of a nation-state is ahistoric. But it helps solidify an 'our nation' ethos that you see not only in Takaichi's philosophy, but more generally among the Japanese population. (ed to fix the italics, cause it really bugs me...)
On “Where are the 5 words?”
But rather than pretend that we will reach agreement, I think civility demands that we accept that there are going to be points that we just disagree on
Sorry, the penultimate paragraph was supposed to be a clear quotation!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.