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.
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.
Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
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
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.
On “Precursors”
Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.