bc - My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response.
He's already done that when he mobilized the National Guard and deployed them in LA. We've seen that line crossed before. The people protesting aren't acting on pollyanna instincts. We've seen what the response could look like.
We've also seen what they will do if funds are withheld. But the fact that withholding funding won't stop this administration doesn't mean that there is no point in doing it. The Democrats in congress have to choose if they would rather be seen as having stood up to this wave of federal violence against their communities, or if they want to be seen as resignedly accepting that this administration and their enablers in congress and the courts will not be deterred.
Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn’t part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
The idea that if they are defied it will provoke a more violent response, and that the response is then the defiers' fault is what you see in the family members growing up with an abuser in authority. The abuser only wants to help the family. If everyone just did what he asked then no one would get hurt. Why do you keep provoking him?
The only ways to break that cycle are to leave the abuser or to stand up, knowing that the violence will happen, but also knowing that when it does it's no one's fault but the abuser's.
The narrative has to be broken before the cycle can be broken.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
What revolutionaries and battered family members bargain for is a chance for some change in an unlivable situation - hostage to the threat of violence. They choose to resist knowing what is likely coming.
I've been teaching classes about war and civil unrest long enough to not have any illusions about what could happen.
3 days ago
...so I guess this adds a second formula to the one that Snarki outlines. Sometimes it is the "zoom out until the particulars blur" tactic. This time it's the "tight focus to leave others off camera" tactic.
Either way, it saves face for the people who continue to facilitate this push to authoritarian illiberalism.
3 days ago
GftNC - However, on the subject that you and Snarki raise of his having an “unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position”, it seems to me that the whole piece is a really scathing denunciation of Trump’s character, conduct, motivations etc etc. And given, as we all see, that the GOP as a whole has cravenly and pathetically bent the knee to him, enabled him, acceded to his power grab from Congress and been totally mealy-mouthed about his attacks on the constitution, I think it’s odd to say that he is supporting the GOP.
I'd say that he's lending cover to the GOP as a whole when he writes:
Of these four, the unraveling of Trump’s mind is the primary one, leading to all the others. Narcissists sometimes get worse with age, as their remaining inhibitions fall away. The effect is bound to be profound when the narcissist happens to be president of the United States.
When you look at the things currently being done in the US, the majority of them are in line with what the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been working to get done for a lot longer than Trump has been on the scene. This administration is not acting on the whims of a mad king, they are taking advantage of the noise and foment that Clementine Caligula provokes to advance their own agenda. Brooks' heaping of all this on He Who Slumbers head is some fine scapegoating. At the end of the day it allows him to put all the sins of the GOP on one man's head and usher him into the desert, sins forgiven after having momentarily succumbed to a fever.
But really, the institutions are okay, and the people still believe in democracy in their hearts.
But I do know that events are being propelled by one man’s damaged psyche. History does not record many cases in which a power-mad leader careening toward tyranny suddenly regained his senses and became more moderate.
See? No one else in frame. No lackeys. No institutional agendas. No long assault on the judiciary to facilitate this takeover. No discussions of illiberal democracy and wishing for a Red Caesar. It's all one madman dragging everyone else with him.
4 days ago
wj's response to Brooks's ritual performance of balance calls to mind one of the books I read early in my Ph.D. studies when I was building my Media Studies chops: Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization, by Alexander Galloway. The central idea there being that what makes the modern networked world continue to function is not deregulation, nor is it centralization - it's the informal and changeable rules that negotiate the conflicts between those two poles, which Galloway identifies as protocol.
In the US, that protocol was largely a function of what we call The Deep State. Congress makes laws. Private citizens make products. The Market exists as a fluctuating hologram of the shifting dynamics between those two. The Deep State oversees the negotiations between those two in order to steer the overall system and keep it functioning within acceptable parameters for both sides. (His digital analogy for this is the system of protocols that allowed TCP/IP to work with the DNS system to facilitate information exchange.
Galloway was, like most of the Media Studies people writing in the moment between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, a bit of a utopian technolibertarian. He did point out that the authoritarian nature of DNS
allows whole realms of the Web to be blacked out with the flip of a switch, but the belief was that those things would self-correct as protocol adjusted to keep the system moving.
We are living in the moment when protocol has been destroyed in order to prevent the system from moving to preserve the privilege of the powerful. Without the federal bureaucracy, and with the legislative branch neutered, we have only the executive and the judicial, operating top-down with no negotiation.
Anyway, thought I'd mention the book in case any of the (more) tech savvy (than me) here wanted to find it and take a look.
6 days ago
The next few lines too, which I love for how they render the mess of us.
...
I hate it, I always hated it, and I am
A part of it myself.
And a part of you,
For my part is the chorus, and the chorus
Is more or less a borderline between
The you and the me and the it of it.
bc - My point is that by defunding ICE, you do give Trump what I think (I’m doing a bit of mind reading here) you fear: that he will militarize the response.
He's already done that when he mobilized the National Guard and deployed them in LA. We've seen that line crossed before. The people protesting aren't acting on pollyanna instincts. We've seen what the response could look like.
We've also seen what they will do if funds are withheld. But the fact that withholding funding won't stop this administration doesn't mean that there is no point in doing it. The Democrats in congress have to choose if they would rather be seen as having stood up to this wave of federal violence against their communities, or if they want to be seen as resignedly accepting that this administration and their enablers in congress and the courts will not be deterred.
Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law. Those that think the obstruction isn’t part of and the cause of much of the violence (and intentionally so) are naive IMO.
The idea that if they are defied it will provoke a more violent response, and that the response is then the defiers' fault is what you see in the family members growing up with an abuser in authority. The abuser only wants to help the family. If everyone just did what he asked then no one would get hurt. Why do you keep provoking him?
The only ways to break that cycle are to leave the abuser or to stand up, knowing that the violence will happen, but also knowing that when it does it's no one's fault but the abuser's.
The narrative has to be broken before the cycle can be broken.
Take the resistance far enough and what you end up with may not what you bargained for. Or maybe some are bargaining for that response in search of the revolution.
What revolutionaries and battered family members bargain for is a chance for some change in an unlivable situation - hostage to the threat of violence. They choose to resist knowing what is likely coming.
I've been teaching classes about war and civil unrest long enough to not have any illusions about what could happen.
...so I guess this adds a second formula to the one that Snarki outlines. Sometimes it is the "zoom out until the particulars blur" tactic. This time it's the "tight focus to leave others off camera" tactic.
Either way, it saves face for the people who continue to facilitate this push to authoritarian illiberalism.
GftNC - However, on the subject that you and Snarki raise of his having an “unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position”, it seems to me that the whole piece is a really scathing denunciation of Trump’s character, conduct, motivations etc etc. And given, as we all see, that the GOP as a whole has cravenly and pathetically bent the knee to him, enabled him, acceded to his power grab from Congress and been totally mealy-mouthed about his attacks on the constitution, I think it’s odd to say that he is supporting the GOP.
I'd say that he's lending cover to the GOP as a whole when he writes:
When you look at the things currently being done in the US, the majority of them are in line with what the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been working to get done for a lot longer than Trump has been on the scene. This administration is not acting on the whims of a mad king, they are taking advantage of the noise and foment that Clementine Caligula provokes to advance their own agenda. Brooks' heaping of all this on He Who Slumbers head is some fine scapegoating. At the end of the day it allows him to put all the sins of the GOP on one man's head and usher him into the desert, sins forgiven after having momentarily succumbed to a fever.
But really, the institutions are okay, and the people still believe in democracy in their hearts.
See? No one else in frame. No lackeys. No institutional agendas. No long assault on the judiciary to facilitate this takeover. No discussions of illiberal democracy and wishing for a Red Caesar. It's all one madman dragging everyone else with him.
wj's response to Brooks's ritual performance of balance calls to mind one of the books I read early in my Ph.D. studies when I was building my Media Studies chops: Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization, by Alexander Galloway. The central idea there being that what makes the modern networked world continue to function is not deregulation, nor is it centralization - it's the informal and changeable rules that negotiate the conflicts between those two poles, which Galloway identifies as protocol.
In the US, that protocol was largely a function of what we call The Deep State. Congress makes laws. Private citizens make products. The Market exists as a fluctuating hologram of the shifting dynamics between those two. The Deep State oversees the negotiations between those two in order to steer the overall system and keep it functioning within acceptable parameters for both sides. (His digital analogy for this is the system of protocols that allowed TCP/IP to work with the DNS system to facilitate information exchange.
Galloway was, like most of the Media Studies people writing in the moment between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, a bit of a utopian technolibertarian. He did point out that the authoritarian nature of DNS
allows whole realms of the Web to be blacked out with the flip of a switch, but the belief was that those things would self-correct as protocol adjusted to keep the system moving.
We are living in the moment when protocol has been destroyed in order to prevent the system from moving to preserve the privilege of the powerful. Without the federal bureaucracy, and with the legislative branch neutered, we have only the executive and the judicial, operating top-down with no negotiation.
Anyway, thought I'd mention the book in case any of the (more) tech savvy (than me) here wanted to find it and take a look.
The next few lines too, which I love for how they render the mess of us.
...
I hate it, I always hated it, and I am
A part of it myself.
And a part of you,
For my part is the chorus, and the chorus
Is more or less a borderline between
The you and the me and the it of it.