State of the Discussion

Always great to see people standing up.

Of course, as soon as the MAGAts notice that people (who are not white people!) are undercutting their precious tariffs, the Native Americans will become targets as well. The treaties that the US government has with the various tribes notwithstanding -- abrogating treaties is a standard MO with these people.

Still, good on them for taking the initiative. I hope it makes them all filthy rich.

Historically, these sort of efforts (denazification, debaathfication) haven't gone so well. Lustration (the process of decommunization) was a mixed bag (Czechoslovakia good, Poland and Hungary, so/so, Romania pretty bad) but when you think that Czechoslovakia split and you see what has happened in Hungary and nearly failed in Poland, (and Romania is still a basket case) rooting out the Trumpist elements will probably not work. Spain offers another model (the "Pact of Forgetting" or Pacto del Olvido, but that would probably have folks here (including me) rip out our hair with the level of collective false memories that would be generated.

to get back to anything like a pre-Trump normal, we’re going to need some kind of national de-MAGA-fication. We will need to root the bastards out, along with their sick ideologies.

Do you see that happening? Do you think we can muster the political will to do it? Do you think a sufficient sector of the population even want it?

Agreed, it will be necessary to root them out. Fortunately, the ones in the Executive Branch are pretty much self-identified by their willingness to accept Presidential appointments from Trump. And, if one President can appoint them, another can fire them. That won't find all of them, but I would guess enough to start turning things around. The bigger challenge will be the massive loss of expertise the various agencies are experiencing.

Rooting them out of the Judiciary will be a lot harder. Easy enough to identify the Federalist Society members; that being, IMHO, a huge red flag. But establishing grounds to impeach and remove them would be an enormous challenge. I'm not sure how we go about neutralizing them otherwise. Beyond making sure none of them are in single judge areas, which makes venue shopping so easy at the moment.

Can we muster the political will? I think so. I think enough of the population will want it. The bigger challenge will be finding the leadership among politicians to step up. A bunch of officeholders are going to need to be primaried, I suspect. On top of those voted out in the General Elections. But I think it can be done.

Will that get us back to the status quo ante? No. That's going to take years of rebuilding the nation's soul. But I expect we will get there. Dispite the best efforts of the Daughters of the neo-Confederacy.

And the final target audience is the military.

The military at this point is the last guardrail. If they flip, it's game over.

And as far as domestic politics go, I generally (and gladly) agree that the level of basic integrity there is high. The oath to the Constitution is pretty deeply ingrained in that culture, especially the higher up you go.

I'd say the target of the "excuse" is, first, all those people who generally don't pay attention. The military going into an American city is a big enough deal to break thru to a lot of them. And their reaction will be along the lines of "Wait! What??? Why???" The excuse won't satisfy all of them, but he can hope that it satisfies enough.

Another target audience is the portion of the Republican Party that is not MAGA cultists. They have enough contact with reality to know that things can blow up in their faces. And that the necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) defense against that is a justification/excuse which sounds half-way plausible. They'll want to believe it; but they won't be on-board without it.

And the final target audience is the military. Most of them, even the very conservative ones, are clear that their oath includes supporting the Constitution. And, absent some kind of justification, military action inside the country are strictly forbidden there.

No doubt there are some who wouldn't care, even some who are devout MAGA cultists. You would have to put a lot of effort into selecting out those individuals. But if you just send in an existing unit, you need that justification.

Russell is a bit more familiar with Leslie than I am, but I have to ask, is his taking issue with Gay on civility related to a book that he is flogging about how much we need civility?

LOL

Full disclosure - my exposure to both Gay and Leslie is 100% the excerpt GFTNC cited. And knowing that Gay is second-generation adds context that clarifies her position on civility.

As Coates says, "welcome to black America".

So thank you for adding that.

Still, looking at where we were in, say, the early 1800s, I’d say that we’ve made significant progress over the last two centuries.

I agree with this.

That said, IMO Trump has exposed seious flaws in our Constitutional order. The guardrails - the courts, Congress, the mostly non-political administrative state - have failed or at least been undermined to the point where I'm not sure what things are gonna look like post Trump.

I don't know if there is a "there" to go back to. I don't think it's going to be the same country.

We've achieved Popper's paradox of tolerance. The intolerant have taken the reins. They will not surrender them willingly or gracefully, and are not interested at all in sharing power with anyone else. Maybe we will squeak out another legitimate election or two, and maybe that will be sufficient to allow a meaningful change of regime. That is far from guaranteed, but it's possible.

But even under that circumstance, some significant changes are going to be needed to make sure the same or similar thing doesn't happen again. And I don't know if the vision and the political will is there to make that happen.

I don't know where all of this goes, but I don't really have any confidence that we are going to return to any kind of pre-Trump normal, once he is somehow off the scene.

Plus, while we in the US are losing our minds and acting out the very worst in our national character, the rest of the world is moving on. So wherever we end up domestically, it's going to have to deal with a very different international context. At a minimum, we're shredding generations of good will. We're proving ourselves to be fickle, unreliable partners, prone to enormous changes in national policy and direction every four years.

I really don't know what comes next, but I don't think it's going to be as simple as regaining and restoring all the stuff that is being rolled back now.

I'm at a loss, to be honest.

Well, we are probably at the end of the line for talking about this, but I do subscribe to Descartes line that "the heart has reasons the mind will never know" so that may be what you are relating 'stakes' to. However, just because they are in the heart rather than the mind does not exempt those reasons from scrutiny, it should encourage us to investigate those as well. I'm not suggesting that people without visible stakes cannot participate, here's an example of people with no apparent stakes entering an issue and affecting a change
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O5yK7XiYQvU

https://secretireland.ie/grapefruit-ladies-ireland-the-tart-taste-of-triumph-how-dublins-fruit-rebels-cracked-apartheids-shell/

But that seems to me to be different from a Heritage Foundation flunky complaining about Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan or Vance and others complaining about the lack of civility. And in a blog, where people don't have to be forthcoming about how they are getting to their position, it can be a problem, so "stake" provides a useful rule of thumb. Like all rules of thumb, it's not perfect, but it works on the whole. For example, Russell is a bit more familiar with Leslie than I am, but I have to ask, is his taking issue with Gay on civility related to a book that he is flogging about how much we need civility?

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?)

--TP

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”.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

I think "bought the farm" for dead dates back to the days when small family farms lived precariously from one season to the next, always struggling to get their mortgage paid off.

"Drank the Kool aid" is relatively new.
Different places have different directions to indicate failure. "The deal went south" maybe comes from "being sold down the river" etc? I read somewhere that in Ireland your deal doesn't go south; it goes west. Does anyone know?

Sure, Leslie isn't implying that. But since Gay starts her essay with Vance's demand for civility, don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to summarize Gay's argument by not even noting that? Unfortunately, he starts off by taking issue with Gay in order to valorize civility when Gay places it in a particular context.

I found what is close to a transcript of Gay's TED talk here
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/02/bad-feminist-roxane-gay-extract

About stakes, I think it is worthwhile to work from cases we might all agree with and then move out to edge cases where we have to tease out things. So, a case that might serve would be the weaponization of anti-antisemitism. While I'm thinking of the Trump administration going after universities because of a claimed failure in dealing with antiseminism. I think, if you look at this in hindsight, you can draw a line to the antisemitism accusations against Labour and Corbyn. It doesn't absolve anyone from charges of anti-semitism, but recognizing that many of the people who are baying for blood have absolutely no stake in it, except as a way to undercut their political opposition is essentially a question of 'stakes'. Going back to civility, if the accusations were being made by a person who actually acknowledged how much their stake is, I think we would have some foundation for civility. But when it is done by someone who has no 'stake' in the issue, it means that civility is a sham.

I won't bring up recent events here, except to say that when someone drops in to specifically set people against each other, that is not linked to any definition of civility in my dictionary, and it would suggest that the person would argue the opposite side if they thought it would achieve their aims.

There is also the problem of fighting distant problems while turning a blind eye to problems closer to home. Chinese must feel this happens when they see people going on about Uyghur and Taiwan, or the usual suspects complaining about how women are treated in Islamic countries. These problems definitely exist, but looking at who has a 'stake' in it can be relevatory.

I've been reading the Memoranda of Conversations in the run up to Nixon going to China. Basically, Kissinger was throwing Taiwan under the bus in order to achieve a rapproachment with China
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d139

Now, Nixon had to take all this back to Congress and the China Lobby basically took out a lot of these things. Understanding US history and politics can make this understandable, but when viewed from the Chinese side, it seems like Taiwan is not something that the US is interested in unless it is a way to undercut China. I don't suggest that we cede Taiwan to China, though I'm not sure how far the US should go in defending it (cf Ukraine), but it reveals, at least to me, that people who make Taiwan their key point in opposing China are perhaps responding to prejudices they have about China rather than considering the actual history and circumstances.

If I were to speak to your particular situation, I'd need to have a pan-opticon view of your exchanges and ideas and the context of those, so yes, in the absence of having complete knowledge of that, one has to grant people principles that they feel they hold deeply. To transpose your example, Australians have been at the forefront of anti-racism efforts and the efforts by individual Australians, such as Peter Norman. But when politicians argue that somehow they, by being members of an Australian polity, are somehow anti racist, that seems a bit strained, not only given Australia's problems of race relations, but also in regard to specific policies and programs. Those principles can and should be examined to reveal places where they might not match up with other principles brought forward. And if those become the topic of conversation among individuals, folks should give the respondent the time and space to make their case, something that is not always easy or even possible. 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. Fortunately, we are all works in progress and we do have the possibility of change so ideally, in an environment that has civility, people will be able to change. However, if civility carries the demand that we have to reach agreement, it is, as Gay points out, performative.

Not quite Russell-esque in length and certainly not in content, but we do our best.

...the base of the GOP has decided that Democrats, and Democratic voting states, are on the enemy side of the friend/enemy distinction.

I've decided that Trump-enabling Republicans, which is most of them, are the enemy of humanity in general, and the United States in particular. So you could "both sides" that one.

But I see no reason to be uncivil.
__
I am anti-fascist.

nous, the "GOP and their core voters" and their base, and MAGAs, are clearly not available for civil discussion, and maybe they never will be. But some soi-disant conservatives, and not just outliers like wj, are, and maybe eventually the public discourse, Overton Window etc will shift back somewhat (when healthcare disappears from millions perhaps?), and the habits of civility will be useful among larger populations. One can hope, and try to keep the home fires burning....