Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in "war-ravaged" Portland without putting them in the context of what Trump has empowered ICE to do nationwide, which they are enthusiastically and in many cases illegally doing, in defiance of the states' wishes? And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the "evidence" of people like honeybadgermom? If Trump is what you say we all agree he is (I myself would add several adjectives, particularly "corrupt"), why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
Ah, I see from this Ian Leslie piece that Roxane Gay in the NYT(I hadn't read it) may have been making something like the argument that I was finding hard to get my head round from nous and russell. The piece by Leslie reflects at least some of what I think about it. (I have not ever tried to copy such a long piece on the new site before - let's see what happens).
Is Civility a Fantasy?
Maybe - But It's One That Democracy Depends On
Ian Leslie
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
This week: is there any point to civility? (Includes a brief jaunt through its history).
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, JD Vance hosted an edition of The Charlie Kirk Show. This is what America’s leading statesman do now, at moments of national crisis: rather than deliver a sober address from behind a lectern, they grab a mic and start frothing. In conversation with Stephen Miller, Vance said, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
It was the latest example of Vance’s frictionless hypocrisy. In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that a DOGE staff member had boasted, just last year, about being a racist. Vance defended the aide and attacked “journalists who try to destroy people”. He said, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.” So - cancel culture is bad, but if you see someone posting a dumb tweet about Kirk, it’s your patriotic duty to get them fired. This is before we get to the absurdity of claiming to believe in civility while acting as head boy to a president who glories in insulting opponents and using the f-word. You might suspect Vance of self-parody if he weren’t so joyless.
Last week the academic and essayist Roxane Gay denounced Vance’s words in a column for the New York Times. She didn’t just criticise his double standards; she denounced the idea of civility itself, calling it “a fantasy”. Often, people criticise a double standard without saying which of the two standards they prefer, which always strikes me as evasive, so I commend her boldness. But I think Gay comes down on the wrong side here.
Gay declares her argument in this paragraph:
Civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy. The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds, and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake.
She goes on to argue that demands for civility assume everyone operates from equal footing, ignoring actual inequalities. She says that civility is used to silence dissent and exercise social control. It requires marginalized people to be polite, even as their rights are stripped away.
Let’s start with what I agree with.
I agree with Gay that in what she calls the “beautiful mess” of a modern democracy, political protest can’t be cautious or demure. Even if I think there’s too much anger in politics at the moment, I don’t yearn for a world in which politics is a super-rational Oxford seminar. Politics entails disagreement over things we care about; it’s inevitably emotional and personal. It shouldn’t be a blood sport but it shouldn’t be bloodless. An emotional outburst can sometimes tell us more than a carefully constructed argument. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “Sometimes, a scream is better than a thesis.”
I also agree that the “fantasy” of a perfectly polite political conversation can be used to exclude whole groups of people from the realm of legitimate discourse. In fact, that was one of the original functions of civility. In England, the distinction between civilised and barbarous behaviour emerged around the same time - the early modern period - as Englishmen were asserting the right to invade, dominate and exploit other countries.
Society was also becoming less stratified, which led the upper classes to develop an elaborate and strictly enforced system of social etiquette, partly to keep vulgar tradesmen in their place. They then bequeathed these fine manners to genteel American Southerners, who used them to justify the exclusion of black Americans from the democratic commonweal.
To rebel against an established order has often meant rebelling against its version of civility. When Martin Luther took on the Catholic Church, he adopted the Trump-like tactic of using deliberately rude and offensive language, in order to signal that this wasn’t going to be business, or theology, as usual. He described his opponents as “the scum of all the most evil people on earth” and called Pope Paul III “dearest little ass-pope” and “pope fart-ass”.
But the post-Reformation era also shows us why Gay might be wrong to conclude that civility is unnecessary. Modern ideas of “diversity” and inclusion”, which I’d guess she supports, are rooted in habits of social behaviour which emerged during that time. As the Church splintered, people in Europe and the New World struggled to work out how to live alongside those they regarded as fundamentally alien, and wrong about everything. The rise of commercial society in the eighteenth century made this question more pressing, as did an unwillingness to return to the religious wars of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The profit motive bred respectful interactions across barriers of race and religion. Voltaire said of the London Stock Exchange: “Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith.” Civility ceased to mean just decorum, which was about maintaining distinctions of rank, and started to mean politeness, which was more democratic. The French novelist Mademoiselle de Scudry described it as “not wanting to be the tyrant of conversation.” As a woman in male society she would have appreciated norms which allowed quieter voices to be heard over louder ones.
Gay argues that civility is inauthentic, a mere “performance”. In almost Lutheran terms, she writes, “Civility obsessives love a silver-tongued devil, wearing a nice suit, sporting a tidy haircut, while whispering sweet bigotries.” It’s a perennial objection. Civility, in its various forms, has always been criticised as dishonest and hypocritical. Why can’t be just be true to who we are, and speak as we feel?
The problem is that if we always do that, we won’t be able to live with each other. Thomas Hobbes lived through England’s civil war, which he viewed as a religious war. and came to believe that a measure of pretence is vital to peaceful society. He found virtue in hypocrisy. Within the skull of each individual may be thoughts filthy, profane or sublime. We can’t necessarily control those, but we can control which thoughts we display to others. Civility helps us to govern this performance in accordance with the public good.
We ought to have learnt by now that too much ‘authenticity’ is harmful. Today’s hottest differences of opinion may not be religious in the traditional sense but they are hardly less fervent. One of the dangers of social media is that it allows us to see other people’s unvarnished inner monologues, which spreads conspiracy, hostility and distrust. (As John Podhoretz asks, how would American society have behaved if social media had existed on September 11, 2001?). Civility might be a fantasy, or at least a social fiction, but it’s one that democracy depends on. That’s why enemies of democracy disdain it.
It’s true that basic courtesies can ramify into a complex code that, like any code, hands an advantage to those who know it. But eighteenth-century English aristocrats are hardly the only culprits here. Modern codes of political correctness, ambiguous and ever-shifting, are used by the educated middle classes to hoard authority. If I can successfully label the words you use as “offensive” then I can stop people listening to you. Of course, some words and some views really are offensive and should be disqualifying. But narrowing the boundaries of civil discourse has long been a means by which the powerful silence undesirables, ever so politely.
The minimal sufficient response to anyone who argues against civility is, “Fuck you”. That would, of course, mean the end of the argument, but that’s the point. You cannot have any argument, you cannot have any politics, without some measure of civility. Nobody truly believes it to be unnecessary, otherwise they wouldn’t bother making an argument against it and certainly not in the august pages of the New York Times.
What we’re really debating is the form it should take. Yes, some forms stifle dissent and punish the weak; that doesn’t make civility itself any less essential. The problem with Vance and Trump is obviously not that they uphold civility too stringently; it’s the opposite. They are making war on civility. It’s odd that one of their passionate opponents should want to join the same side.
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
I suppose then that cladding the facility with plywood is just a design preference.
Something that happens to any office or sales premises from time to time which has been burgled. Doesn't seem to call for federal troops.
When vehicles need to enter or exit the facility and there are protestors, ICE personnel have to suit up and physically push the protestors back to make a path.
Given what ICE personnel are perpetrating around the nation, including on US citizens, this seems to be the least they can expect and will, probably, get worse in various places. Time for the government to go to war with the people, is it?
Some journalists who have been beaten to the point of brain injury may wish to quibble.
I believe that injuries by ICE are not unknown either, as well as deaths in ICE custody.
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots. Not so different from previous administrations, just more in your face with it. Though I’d admit, Trump is proving to be uniquely bad.
If this is actually how you see the big picture, it's really hard to know what the point is in discussing this with you.
The federal government has the right to protect the ICE facility.
Wow, the facility really needs it too - that broken door in June is crying out for federal protection. Or, what russell said. Honestly Charles, when you you look at the big picture and make these kinds of arguments, I seriously question what you actually believe and value, if anything.
What a fascinating exercise this has been. Congrats to nous and lj in particular, although I had no idea who Ethan Nordean was, so thanks to russell for that. So, Charles, is it the Libertarian (or your) position that sending in federal troops, contrary to the wishes of the state authorities, to deal with what respectable news sources show to be an annoying, smallish protest, is the right (or even acceptable) thing to do?
Pro Bono: the war between Armenia and Cambodia was a particular worry. And that was before he told hundreds of generals today that their troops would soon be carrying out an "internal war" in Chicago, San Francisco, LA (and I think also NYC), using those cities as "training grounds". How can the Nobel Peace Prize be far off?
Ha, I've only just parsed PB's last comment properly (I think) to see that he is throwing shade at Obama for torpedoing HRC's mandatory health care proposal in the cause of realpolitik. Now, I was a supporter of HRC, and (obviously) of that proposal, but on the other hand the US electorate wasn't (for various infinite mirror variations of reasons), and Obama managed to pass at least a watered down version of the ACA. So, incremental progress as a result of realpolitik, or a failure? Very hard to say in my opinion.
You can only get so far without having the deeper conversation. The harder conversation.
I suspect this is true. And in no way was I suggesting that either approach was better, or more moral, just maybe a difference in personality/temperament/turn of mind. russell, I've found your stories about events which changed your idea of America and its people very resonant. And (as I have said many times) it's not just America: we see similar manifestations of selfishness and punitiveness in lots of places, including the UK - the only difference so far being the enablement or otherwise by the government in power. My hope is that when and if economic conditions for the majority improve (which I take to be more likely under the Ds), certain kinds of empathy and human fellow-feeling may rebound, in which case the deeper conversations will no doubt provide the fertiliser and the seedbed.
You might be able to do that a la Ezra Klein, by trying to meet them halfway – “just run some pro-life (D)’s”. Or similar. But as Coates calls out, you can’t get very far with that without throwing some set of folks under the bus.
I suppose I was thinking that, in this example, to run some pro-life Ds or similar in red states, you might end up with various more D-type policies being enacted, and (since I'm assuming that many fewer Ds than Rs are pro-life), that this would not materially change federal laws about abortion, or perhaps eventually the makeup of the SCOTUS, so would not really end up throwing pro-choice folks under the bus (and anyone who has been reading my comments here for years knows I am militantly pro-choice). But maybe that's a bit of a stretch? I certainly don't know. But I can hope...
I agree with pretty much everything russell says @11.12 (the possible exception is to do with "power", and the necessity to win). But I find nous @5.56 extremely fascinating and thought-provoking, particularly the comparison with his college God squad and the whole concept of a transactional view of people. And when he says "I think the sort of tactical approach that Klein seems to want to take makes it nearly impossible to have a deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional" I really see what he means.
But, my problem is that (probably because of the personalities of who raised me and how) I find it hard to think about having a "deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional" while there are such deep, terrible practical issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency (I am thinking, for example, of the imminent loss of health insurance from millions of people). It's not that I think deep discussion about our shared issues is not worthwhile, it is that my instinct is to save the lives first, get the people vaccinated and fed etc etc, and that this should be the urgent priority. And that obviously to do this you need electability, and power.
Maybe it is a difference of personality type? Maybe some people are "problem-solvers", and some "theorisers" (loose terms)? And maybe both are necessary? I long for a world where immediate problems are not so urgent that polarisation and suspicion, even among people who share many essential attitudes, is not so automatic.
Although I do see where he's coming from. It's the same old debate: do you express ideas that only reflect exactly, purely what you believe, or do you modify your words so that people who might agree with most of what you believe do not feel demonised and despised, and collaborate with you and thereby help pass more progressive policies to benefit more of the people you care about. As Obama did.
There's no question that saying Kirk was "doing politics right" was a really careless and misleading choice of words (misleading even for what Klein meant), and I do totally see that someone like TNC from a historically (and currently) oppressed community might find it almost impossible to do that (although there are people who have managed it), but I think Klein's intention has a lot of merit if what you really care about is getting power, and using it to benefit the most people.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Charles, the thing that puzzles me at least, is that if that is what you think of Trump, how is it possible for you to lament the protests outside the ICE place in "war-ravaged" Portland without putting them in the context of what Trump has empowered ICE to do nationwide, which they are enthusiastically and in many cases illegally doing, in defiance of the states' wishes? And, as a side note, how come you are just accepting the "evidence" of people like honeybadgermom? If Trump is what you say we all agree he is (I myself would add several adjectives, particularly "corrupt"), why are you prepared to so staunchly defend some of the consequences of his actions, even when they conflict with principles you have always said you support?
"
Ah, I see from this Ian Leslie piece that Roxane Gay in the NYT(I hadn't read it) may have been making something like the argument that I was finding hard to get my head round from nous and russell. The piece by Leslie reflects at least some of what I think about it. (I have not ever tried to copy such a long piece on the new site before - let's see what happens).
Is Civility a Fantasy?
Maybe - But It's One That Democracy Depends On
Ian Leslie
Oct 04, 2025
∙ Paid
This week: is there any point to civility? (Includes a brief jaunt through its history).
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, JD Vance hosted an edition of The Charlie Kirk Show. This is what America’s leading statesman do now, at moments of national crisis: rather than deliver a sober address from behind a lectern, they grab a mic and start frothing. In conversation with Stephen Miller, Vance said, “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”
It was the latest example of Vance’s frictionless hypocrisy. In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that a DOGE staff member had boasted, just last year, about being a racist. Vance defended the aide and attacked “journalists who try to destroy people”. He said, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.” So - cancel culture is bad, but if you see someone posting a dumb tweet about Kirk, it’s your patriotic duty to get them fired. This is before we get to the absurdity of claiming to believe in civility while acting as head boy to a president who glories in insulting opponents and using the f-word. You might suspect Vance of self-parody if he weren’t so joyless.
Last week the academic and essayist Roxane Gay denounced Vance’s words in a column for the New York Times. She didn’t just criticise his double standards; she denounced the idea of civility itself, calling it “a fantasy”. Often, people criticise a double standard without saying which of the two standards they prefer, which always strikes me as evasive, so I commend her boldness. But I think Gay comes down on the wrong side here.
Gay declares her argument in this paragraph:
Civility — this idea that there is a perfect, polite way to communicate about sociopolitical differences — is a fantasy. The people who call for civility harbor the belief that we can contend with challenging ideas, and we can be open to changing our minds, and we can be well mannered even in the face of significant differences. For such an atmosphere to exist, we would have to forget everything that makes us who we are. We would have to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that the world is a fair and just place. And we would have to have nothing at stake.
She goes on to argue that demands for civility assume everyone operates from equal footing, ignoring actual inequalities. She says that civility is used to silence dissent and exercise social control. It requires marginalized people to be polite, even as their rights are stripped away.
Let’s start with what I agree with.
I agree with Gay that in what she calls the “beautiful mess” of a modern democracy, political protest can’t be cautious or demure. Even if I think there’s too much anger in politics at the moment, I don’t yearn for a world in which politics is a super-rational Oxford seminar. Politics entails disagreement over things we care about; it’s inevitably emotional and personal. It shouldn’t be a blood sport but it shouldn’t be bloodless. An emotional outburst can sometimes tell us more than a carefully constructed argument. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “Sometimes, a scream is better than a thesis.”
I also agree that the “fantasy” of a perfectly polite political conversation can be used to exclude whole groups of people from the realm of legitimate discourse. In fact, that was one of the original functions of civility. In England, the distinction between civilised and barbarous behaviour emerged around the same time - the early modern period - as Englishmen were asserting the right to invade, dominate and exploit other countries.
Society was also becoming less stratified, which led the upper classes to develop an elaborate and strictly enforced system of social etiquette, partly to keep vulgar tradesmen in their place. They then bequeathed these fine manners to genteel American Southerners, who used them to justify the exclusion of black Americans from the democratic commonweal.
To rebel against an established order has often meant rebelling against its version of civility. When Martin Luther took on the Catholic Church, he adopted the Trump-like tactic of using deliberately rude and offensive language, in order to signal that this wasn’t going to be business, or theology, as usual. He described his opponents as “the scum of all the most evil people on earth” and called Pope Paul III “dearest little ass-pope” and “pope fart-ass”.
But the post-Reformation era also shows us why Gay might be wrong to conclude that civility is unnecessary. Modern ideas of “diversity” and inclusion”, which I’d guess she supports, are rooted in habits of social behaviour which emerged during that time. As the Church splintered, people in Europe and the New World struggled to work out how to live alongside those they regarded as fundamentally alien, and wrong about everything. The rise of commercial society in the eighteenth century made this question more pressing, as did an unwillingness to return to the religious wars of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The profit motive bred respectful interactions across barriers of race and religion. Voltaire said of the London Stock Exchange: “Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith.” Civility ceased to mean just decorum, which was about maintaining distinctions of rank, and started to mean politeness, which was more democratic. The French novelist Mademoiselle de Scudry described it as “not wanting to be the tyrant of conversation.” As a woman in male society she would have appreciated norms which allowed quieter voices to be heard over louder ones.
Gay argues that civility is inauthentic, a mere “performance”. In almost Lutheran terms, she writes, “Civility obsessives love a silver-tongued devil, wearing a nice suit, sporting a tidy haircut, while whispering sweet bigotries.” It’s a perennial objection. Civility, in its various forms, has always been criticised as dishonest and hypocritical. Why can’t be just be true to who we are, and speak as we feel?
The problem is that if we always do that, we won’t be able to live with each other. Thomas Hobbes lived through England’s civil war, which he viewed as a religious war. and came to believe that a measure of pretence is vital to peaceful society. He found virtue in hypocrisy. Within the skull of each individual may be thoughts filthy, profane or sublime. We can’t necessarily control those, but we can control which thoughts we display to others. Civility helps us to govern this performance in accordance with the public good.
We ought to have learnt by now that too much ‘authenticity’ is harmful. Today’s hottest differences of opinion may not be religious in the traditional sense but they are hardly less fervent. One of the dangers of social media is that it allows us to see other people’s unvarnished inner monologues, which spreads conspiracy, hostility and distrust. (As John Podhoretz asks, how would American society have behaved if social media had existed on September 11, 2001?). Civility might be a fantasy, or at least a social fiction, but it’s one that democracy depends on. That’s why enemies of democracy disdain it.
It’s true that basic courtesies can ramify into a complex code that, like any code, hands an advantage to those who know it. But eighteenth-century English aristocrats are hardly the only culprits here. Modern codes of political correctness, ambiguous and ever-shifting, are used by the educated middle classes to hoard authority. If I can successfully label the words you use as “offensive” then I can stop people listening to you. Of course, some words and some views really are offensive and should be disqualifying. But narrowing the boundaries of civil discourse has long been a means by which the powerful silence undesirables, ever so politely.
The minimal sufficient response to anyone who argues against civility is, “Fuck you”. That would, of course, mean the end of the argument, but that’s the point. You cannot have any argument, you cannot have any politics, without some measure of civility. Nobody truly believes it to be unnecessary, otherwise they wouldn’t bother making an argument against it and certainly not in the august pages of the New York Times.
What we’re really debating is the form it should take. Yes, some forms stifle dissent and punish the weak; that doesn’t make civility itself any less essential. The problem with Vance and Trump is obviously not that they uphold civility too stringently; it’s the opposite. They are making war on civility. It’s odd that one of their passionate opponents should want to join the same side.
"
Sorry, cross-posted with nous because of tedious copy-editing! The only thing I need to add, having read his, is that I see no necessity for an "artificial [or even non-artificial] levelling of the sides". Arguing about something does not preclude one calling it immoral, or dangerous.
"
There's something I'm missing here.
There’s no way to structure things in a way that looks even and balanced when the right has decided that they don’t need to listen to, work with, or care about anything and anyone on the other side.
Why do we need to "structure things in a way that looks even and balanced"? Any discussion we have on a blog surely just needs to be argued reasonably civilly, without tricks or ignoring the context - the kinds of things "the right" might argue here will not necessarily change their unwillingness "to listen to, work with or care about anything and anyone on the other side", but if they're commenting here there's presumably some reason for it, and as we have often seen in the past, such discussions can provoke interesting exchanges.
The problem, as nous notes, is that the “two sides” aren’t really comparable at this point.
Alas, this is inarguably so. But surely that is exactly what our discussions highlight? Most of us have already acknowledged that we do not or cannot have these conversations in real life. But isn't there some benefit to continuing to have them here, even if it is only (and I don't think it is) as a way to vent some of our feelings? After all, we still talk to Charles, and he still talks to us, even though his opinion of Ubu has (glacially slowly) somewhat changed?
"
nous: well, I don't think we need to have things be (or look) even and balanced to want someone who is arguing in good faith to acknowledge that while approving of some things the government is doing, they also acknowledge that those things may pale into insignificance compared to some of the other things it is doing.
When Charles says "I agree with most of the criticisms of Trump. I don’t feel compelled to reiterate them.", but still argues in favour of suppression of the ICE protests in Portland, while ignoring for example what is fuelling the anti-ICE movements nationwide, I think that this shows a certain amount of bad faith (whether intentional or not). The context of the anti-ICE protests, including but not limited to the unwillingness of the states to have them operate in these ways, is an important element, surely? It is still possible to have conservative (and I am supposing libertarian) voices discuss how they do not disagree with everything the government is doing, but still despise and condemn others of their actions. You see it with people like David Frum, and the Lincoln Project people, for example. I do not think we should give up on aspiring to have rational, good faith discussions with people of opposing opinions.
"
Exactly what russell said.
And Charles, that was what I was getting at by asking if you had read that link: you were arguing in favour of the need for the feds to fight small numbers of "Antifa" protesters outside an ICE facility, in a state which had rejected their "help", while ICE and other DOJ forces are going after often harmless, blameless people because they look brown or speak Spanish, irrespective of any grounds for suspicion of illegality.
This is explicit, unlawful, and unaccountable state violence – in some cases extreme – toward harmless people.
***
It’s terrorism, by the government, directed toward peaceful residents, both legal and not. It’s not something we have seen here at this level, and as far as I can tell we have no means of curbing it
That is the point.
"
Charles, did you actually read russell's link at 7.35? Is that necessary, or OK with you?
"
I suppose then that cladding the facility with plywood is just a design preference.
Something that happens to any office or sales premises from time to time which has been burgled. Doesn't seem to call for federal troops.
When vehicles need to enter or exit the facility and there are protestors, ICE personnel have to suit up and physically push the protestors back to make a path.
Given what ICE personnel are perpetrating around the nation, including on US citizens, this seems to be the least they can expect and will, probably, get worse in various places. Time for the government to go to war with the people, is it?
Some journalists who have been beaten to the point of brain injury may wish to quibble.
I believe that injuries by ICE are not unknown either, as well as deaths in ICE custody.
The big picture is that, at best, Trump and his cronies are a bunch of idiots. Not so different from previous administrations, just more in your face with it. Though I’d admit, Trump is proving to be uniquely bad.
If this is actually how you see the big picture, it's really hard to know what the point is in discussing this with you.
"
The federal government has the right to protect the ICE facility.
Wow, the facility really needs it too - that broken door in June is crying out for federal protection. Or, what russell said. Honestly Charles, when you you look at the big picture and make these kinds of arguments, I seriously question what you actually believe and value, if anything.
On “Jane Goodall RIP”
A life well spent
Few better, I'd say.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
What a fascinating exercise this has been. Congrats to nous and lj in particular, although I had no idea who Ethan Nordean was, so thanks to russell for that. So, Charles, is it the Libertarian (or your) position that sending in federal troops, contrary to the wishes of the state authorities, to deal with what respectable news sources show to be an annoying, smallish protest, is the right (or even acceptable) thing to do?
On “Japan unleashed”
Also, RIP Jane Goodall.
"
That's quite a story, Michael. You did a good thing.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
"War-ravaged"
LOL.
"
Pro Bono: the war between Armenia and Cambodia was a particular worry. And that was before he told hundreds of generals today that their troops would soon be carrying out an "internal war" in Chicago, San Francisco, LA (and I think also NYC), using those cities as "training grounds". How can the Nobel Peace Prize be far off?
On “Ad futurum”
cleek, you are as much of a mensch as ever!
"
What Tony P said, in both comments!
On “Ezra Coates DESTROYS Ta-Nehisi Klein!!!”
Ha, I've only just parsed PB's last comment properly (I think) to see that he is throwing shade at Obama for torpedoing HRC's mandatory health care proposal in the cause of realpolitik. Now, I was a supporter of HRC, and (obviously) of that proposal, but on the other hand the US electorate wasn't (for various infinite mirror variations of reasons), and Obama managed to pass at least a watered down version of the ACA. So, incremental progress as a result of realpolitik, or a failure? Very hard to say in my opinion.
"
You can only get so far without having the deeper conversation. The harder conversation.
I suspect this is true. And in no way was I suggesting that either approach was better, or more moral, just maybe a difference in personality/temperament/turn of mind. russell, I've found your stories about events which changed your idea of America and its people very resonant. And (as I have said many times) it's not just America: we see similar manifestations of selfishness and punitiveness in lots of places, including the UK - the only difference so far being the enablement or otherwise by the government in power. My hope is that when and if economic conditions for the majority improve (which I take to be more likely under the Ds), certain kinds of empathy and human fellow-feeling may rebound, in which case the deeper conversations will no doubt provide the fertiliser and the seedbed.
You might be able to do that a la Ezra Klein, by trying to meet them halfway – “just run some pro-life (D)’s”. Or similar. But as Coates calls out, you can’t get very far with that without throwing some set of folks under the bus.
I suppose I was thinking that, in this example, to run some pro-life Ds or similar in red states, you might end up with various more D-type policies being enacted, and (since I'm assuming that many fewer Ds than Rs are pro-life), that this would not materially change federal laws about abortion, or perhaps eventually the makeup of the SCOTUS, so would not really end up throwing pro-choice folks under the bus (and anyone who has been reading my comments here for years knows I am militantly pro-choice). But maybe that's a bit of a stretch? I certainly don't know. But I can hope...
"
No edit button! last sentence contains annoying double negative!
"
Hi Marty!
I agree with pretty much everything russell says @11.12 (the possible exception is to do with "power", and the necessity to win). But I find nous @5.56 extremely fascinating and thought-provoking, particularly the comparison with his college God squad and the whole concept of a transactional view of people. And when he says "I think the sort of tactical approach that Klein seems to want to take makes it nearly impossible to have a deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional" I really see what he means.
But, my problem is that (probably because of the personalities of who raised me and how) I find it hard to think about having a "deep conversation about our shared issues that does not turn transactional" while there are such deep, terrible practical issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency (I am thinking, for example, of the imminent loss of health insurance from millions of people). It's not that I think deep discussion about our shared issues is not worthwhile, it is that my instinct is to save the lives first, get the people vaccinated and fed etc etc, and that this should be the urgent priority. And that obviously to do this you need electability, and power.
Maybe it is a difference of personality type? Maybe some people are "problem-solvers", and some "theorisers" (loose terms)? And maybe both are necessary? I long for a world where immediate problems are not so urgent that polarisation and suspicion, even among people who share many essential attitudes, is not so automatic.
"
Meanwhile, this (also in today's NYT) talks further about the effect Kirk's glorification is having on the groups he denigrated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/magazine/charlie-kirk-rhetoric.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pU8.E_Qk.vE_VAYwg6Chi&smid=url-share
"
Although I do see where he's coming from. It's the same old debate: do you express ideas that only reflect exactly, purely what you believe, or do you modify your words so that people who might agree with most of what you believe do not feel demonised and despised, and collaborate with you and thereby help pass more progressive policies to benefit more of the people you care about. As Obama did.
There's no question that saying Kirk was "doing politics right" was a really careless and misleading choice of words (misleading even for what Klein meant), and I do totally see that someone like TNC from a historically (and currently) oppressed community might find it almost impossible to do that (although there are people who have managed it), but I think Klein's intention has a lot of merit if what you really care about is getting power, and using it to benefit the most people.
"
I'd just finished reading it myself when I saw this. Very interesting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ta-nehisi-coates.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pU8.aWZg.aGJWstjBZKnl&smid=url-share
"
Funnily enough I'd just finished reading it! Here's a gift link - I hope it gives the transcript, i think ive had trouble with that before:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/28/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ta-nehisi-coates.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pU8.aWZg.aGJWstjBZKnl&smid=url-share
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.