Let me thank all of you for your extremely thoughtful comments. I’ll offer a few thoughts of my own at this point, take your questions, and respond to your comments.
First, I don’t think it will come to civil war. Our governing institutions are still strong. Most of our media is still responsible, in terms of reporting facts. Most of our political, nonprofit, and business leaders are doing their jobs as best they can. Even careless talk about civil war can be dangerous and destructive.
But I do think we are in a civic crisis. Trump is the symptom. The underlying cause is that many Americans — mainly those without college degrees and living in the heartland — have been abandoned. The bottom 10 percent by income is still struggling but by-in-large are better off than they were 40 years ago. But the 40 percent just above them have been losing ground. That has made them susceptible to someone like Trump — claiming to be an anti-establishment “strongman” who can turn their despair and humiliation into hope and pride, even though he is pure bombast and narcissism.
Why hasn’t the Democratic Party responded better to the needs of the working class? Even before it went on life support, “Build Back Better” had been whittled down to the point where it would do little or nothing for the bottom half. I’m old enough to remember when the Democratic Party attracted those with less education and the Republican Party attracted those with more. Today, people with less education vote for Republicans and those with more vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party has gone from being a worker party to a party of intellectual and professional elites. Since the Republican Party continues to cater to the needs and wants of business on economic policy, this has left millions of working people without any effective political voice. Hence, policies that would change the structure of power are opposed by the likes of Joe Manchin, the senior Democratic senator from West Virginia.
We won’t have a civil war, but we are in imminent danger of losing our democracy to a dangerous alliance of big business oligarchs, on the one hand, and Trump-like populist-fascists on the other. To me, that’s the fight ahead of us — to foster a countervailing alliance of the poor, working class, and middle class that will make our democracy and economy work for them as well.
Professor Reich, I have a question for you. IF, in 2024, the nightmare scenario unfolds of Trump (or another Trumpist) winning the Presidency by, say, three red states commandeering the electoral process and sending their own slate of electors, what would you do? No thinking person of integrity wants civil war or violence of any kind. But if all of a sudden the fatal stab to democracy was starring us all in the face, what would you do? I, for one, just couldn’t sit here and do nothing. I don’t own a gun; I’m non-violent; I’m old; and have had a good life. My daughter, however, has many years ahead and needs to live in a free and fair country, as do all of us. To say, “Oh, well, we’ll vote’em out next time”, would become meaningless. It would be an existential crisis, with uncertainty about how to proceed. I can see myself and my wife protesting at our state capitol, but I can also see heavily armed right wing forces showing up to crush such protests. At that point, we’re all in dangerous uncharted waters with our feet planted firmly in mid air. So, what would you do?
AG Garland gave a completely thorough and hard-hitting speech that lasted most of an hour, and I'm greatly reassured that the Justice Department will root out, charge and seek justice not just for everyone who attacked the police and the Congress and our democratic processes on January 6 of last year but also those who by any means threaten or have threatened or acted upon the threat of physical violence or gruesome death to teachers, airline staff, politicians, journalists, judges and law enforcement officers. He made a point of saying that no one, no matter how rich or poor, highly placed or not, is above the law.
Garland also made it clear that in terms of legal action against the 700+ individuals charged thus far for crimes on January 6, those with misdemeanor charges will be gotten out of the way first as DOJ works up the chain of perpetrators of this assault on our democracy.
I thought it a good speech, and was also reassured by it. But I would like him to say explicitly and clearly: "no one who has served as president is above the law, and if that person is guilty of criminal acts he will be prosecuted."
For once I can't agree with you, because he studiously avoided reaching outside his job description and making political or divisive statements, and he stayed with that throughout and, I'm sure, on purpose.
Discussing the potential prosecution of the Former Guy, he would put that guy and all of his followers on notice that he's considering his prosecution, and Garland is too good a poker player to show his whole hand.
To me, it's enough that he made it clear that DOJ will charge the lowest and the highest on the spectrum, gradually working up to the most serious felonious acts, and the Former Guy would undoubtedly be in that category for inciting seditious acts.
I do eagerly await him making the statement that you and so many others, myself included, would love to hear, but all in good time (and hopefully well before November).
They need to get this done before the mid terms. If GOP takes control of congress and senate it's all over. On another note the democratic party needs to start running ads telling all the atrocities the GOP has perpetrated on the American public. Start playing hardball. Get the DCCC off their collective asses and really start backing the right kind of candidates.
I've long said anti-gun advocates should arm themselves and learn to use the things. There may come a time when they truly need them for self-defense - if you catch my drift.
Like the old man knocked down by the police and when another police officer tried to help, he was pulled away by another officer. Or having KKK members "helping" the police.
Harking back to your first post of today, I feel that it is absolutely essential to get a carve-out from the filibuster to pass meaningful voting rights legislation with a simple majority vote. Also, the Democrats need to gain at least a net two seats in 2022 in the Senate (Fetterman and Barnes?) and hold their majority in the House. Although chances are not good, if they can do so, then perhaps a meaningful “Build Back Better” could be passed; the working and middle classes would benefit enough to realize their chances for a better life lie with the Dems and the country would avert the nightmare of autocracy.
Schumer needs 50 votes (plus the VP) to alter the filibuster. If Manchin or Sinema won't go along, he should try Romney or Collins or Murkowski. I think it's worth a try.
It all comes down to money in advertising. Trump was sold to the American public with a great advertising team. Commercials ran here continuously for Trump saying he was the only one who could fix our problems. The only thing he fixed was the tax code for the rich. I have repeatedly asked Trumpites what he has done to make their life better. When I ask how much they received back on their tax refunds from his "tax cuts". Mostly they say nothing or they will get it back next year. So if we want a good candidate elected, get them the air time, social media attention, a door to door campaign, have community organizing to get around the GOP voting restrictions. Think for ourselves.
The Fellowship was designed in the early 1970's to institutionalize relationships that were formed during and after WWII. In a large part, the politics that came after the war were formed socially through the ranks of soldiers and officers. Your identity was "American", with the other being "Nazi". With that paradigm, your fellow Americans, black, white, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Northerner, Southerner - even native Americans who translated messages into tongues that German's and Japanese could not translate - understood that they were on the same team, moving in the same direction. When they made it into politics later, they carried that "team" mentality. This is gone now, partly because that generation is gone, and also in large part thanks to Newt Gingrich:
I would argue also, that the AMMF Fellowship is also not terribly effective, although it is a great way to network with European counterparts.
We cannot artificially create an enemy as bad as Nazis unless we fight a big war. I don't think making China or Russia a boogie man will do it.
The only solution that I can see, is that somehow the political dysfunction in our system be made bad for business. So bad that it hurts share prices and sales. When businesses lose, they will start to change their contribution habits, and work behind the scenes to stop the extremism. Business needs to be forced to align with stable economics good for working people and bad for extremism.
Let me clear up my comment a little. Creating disincentives for businesses to support extremism would be important, whether we are talking about Citizen's United via the government or boycotts through independent action. These changes occur and democrats stock response seems to be to focus on the race for president. What about local races? Mayors, county commissioners and school board members are the farm team for higher office throughout the land.
I will agree that big business is remodeling the system for their benefit. But let's also be clear that not all businesses agree that this is good, not even all the big ones. So recognizing that there are businesses, probably even several billionaires, that don't like what is happening and realize that a shrinking middle class is bad for everyone. Are they being courted? No. They are being told they are evil and part of the problem and would they please go away.
This is a mistake. Dismissing ALL of them as a problem is an error in judgement. Probably even dismissing most of them is a mistake. Your local businesses, and even many larger state businesses are probably prone to donate and support liberal causes. But if we tell them to go away because we don't like what they've done with the place when they weren't the ones decorating is assumptive, presumptuous and self-defeating. We need every ally we can get right now, and we should be working to create a playing field where business wins by doing the right thing.
My only question is this: who is dismissing them? I keep hearing that. And why are they internalizing that legend? And just as I heard that people spit on 'Nam Vets, nobody ever spit on me. I never saw any of it, although I've heard loads >about< it. But I certainly didn't internalize >any< of it, chalking it up to just more "Hanoi Hannah" horse-s##t. Sure, there were protests. Things got so out of hand that student protesters at Kent State were shot to death on campus. If someone spit on the shooters, that comes as no surprise. But I never saw de-mobbed vets being greeted at the airport by spitting hoards, as the jive-arse of the times would have had me believe. My perception is that legend of dismissal you mention is political propaganda of >these< times. The >real< question - IMO - concerns why the targets of that propaganda are buying into it.
I cannot but agree that Gingrich was the "Francis Urquhart" of the time - a power behind their cowboy actor front-man. What you say about the Great War part II cohesiveness sort of reflects what I used to say during the ramp-down from 'Nam: An army at peace is invariably at war with itself.
At least find some way of convincing them to stop voting >clearly< against their own interest. I had that discussion with Dad over beers at the Amvets years ago. He could only regurgitate slogans, and couldn't - for the life of him - explain to me what the devil they were supposed to mean. I see that very same phenomenon in the Jordan Klepper interviews at ol' Tweety's rallies, as well as his 1/6 at the Capitol interviews. What is it about those slogans that switches off people's higher brain functions?
I would add that our Attorney General must enforce the Rule of Law & hold all responsible (even the rich & powerful) for the 1/6 insurrection, fully accountable. The rich & powerful must also pay their fair share. "Dumb people do not pay taxes", but moral responsible citizens do. We must reduce income & wealth inequality, because in a more just economy ALL citizens can better flourish, & our national economy grows even more. I would also urge all responsible citizens to support the poorpeoplescampaign.org. We can preserve our democratic republic, from the bottom up. I do not respect any businessman "employer" who does not pay his employees a living wage.
I also have a question corollary to my question concerning the meaning of Republican slogans. It concerns that "despair and humiliation" of those "40 percent just above" the bottom 10%, you mention. What the devil is the humiliation - in particular - all about.
The desperation is a function of all that "right to life" they're encouraged to enjoy. The more mouths, the smaller the larder. There's the desperation. Period. And down goes the pay scale! Unless there's some kind of "lebensraum" someone's conning them into collectively believe is coming. Of course, they end up disproportionately voting against their own interest at every turn at that promise, these days - and may have always done so. I suspect that all goes back to the union busting that was initiated under Reagan - their favoritest, mostest, bestest cowboy actor.
Or is it that "winner/loser" language that's the source of their humiliation? Does it come from that "Make America Great Again" language, the slogan humiliating them into embracing that they weren't good enough - i.e. losers - to make or keep America great in the first place? Are they humiliated by their own choices as to who runs the country in the first place - as they continue to make the same kinds of choices for the same kinds of reasons?
To me, such a belief system is a fair description of a living hell. Extrapolate that into a belief in a heavenly paradise as a payoff for all the desperation and pain, it's not a big logical leap to conclude that to them - ultimately - they'd be better off dead - even if not consciously. That is indeed the ultimate message of any doctrine touting a heavenly paradise. Particularly when you're held to be guilty of and condemned for simply being alive in the first place - the >only< original sin.
I'm all for simply striving to make life bearable, if imperfectly livable, for the greatest number of all currently living human souls. Now if I knew how to do that - it stands to reason - I wouldn't be simply sitting here on my can idealizing about it! But, as the message at the very end of Peter Sellers' final film "Being There" boldly proclaims: "Life is but a state of mind." The Republicans appear to have mastered the ability to mold that state of mind, just as the riverboat gambler I mention elsewhere deals cards.
As far as elite intellectualism in the Democratic party, are they collectively smart enough to realize they're playin' poker with professional riverboat gamblers? You know, the legendary kind of Wild West gamblers who mastered "the art of the deal" so well that they could "deal" you any hand of cards that suits them? And having a set of dice loaded for any occasion - or proposition? And a roulette wheel so designed that it can magnetically - or charismatically - deflect the little steel ball away from any number you lay your money on - that is, any political objective? How do you speak reason to that? Is it any wonder they worship ol' Tweety - the "art of the deal"-er himself. Where do we find a "New Deal"-er when we most need one?
There would be no President Trump if there was no Republican Candidate Trump!
Though it is the Constitutional right for any American to run for President, there is no Constitutional right to run as a Republican or Democrat.
The major political parties can set their own Party Rules as to what their requirements are for their candidates. They could, for example, require their candidates to make full financial disclosures (including release of tax returns), void all NDAs relating to their morality, and submit detailed financial divestment plans that can automatically be trigered if they should be elected President. Thus assuring the country of a candidate qualified to be President.
The Democratic Party can take the lead on this! And through a mass media advertizing campaign during an election year challenge the Republican Party to do the same!
This would make a sharp contrast with Republicans who would put Party over Country!
It is the most simple direct and immediate solution to our critical problem of Trumpism. All other problems, like conditions that create Trumpism, can over time be solved by Democratic policies.
To quote an article 1/4/2022 by The Guardian: "It would be entirely possible for the United States to implement a modern electoral system, to restore the legitimacy of the courts, to reform its police forces, to root out domestic terrorism, to alter its tax code to address inequality, to prepare its cities and its agriculture for the effects of climate change, to regulate and to control the mechanisms of violence. All of these futures are possible". However, watch the movie: "Don't Look Up". The comet is coming. American politicians refuse to look up. They seem quite busy watching football, the Kardashian clan and going on vacations.
You're absolutely right, Cecelia. It's a matter of public and political will. In 2009, for example, the Obama administration considered a $1 trillion stimulus package impossible. Within the first year of the pandemic, the Trump and Biden administrations and Congress had authorized nearly $6 trillion in spending. John Maynard Keynes was right when he declared during World War II that anything we can actually do, we can afford. The real challenge is and has always been to agree what we want to do.
Politicians are looking at reelection and fundraising instead of up; too much of the public is engaged in the false importance of games and entertainment. (I love mine too but not to the exclusion of civic engagement!)
If we don’t go after fox news the way we went after and pressured FB, Twitter we will be discussing facts and the republican cult conspiracy-world-view will outright reject those facts. There has to be a common set of facts to have a debate or discussion. We need to address the fact that Fox News is allowed to operate even though they verifiably lie and incite anger and violence. We’ve had 40 years of their republican sponsored garbage. Their cult leader, 45, is a criminal with a list a mile long. There is overwhelming evidence that he incited the deadly coup attempt and held off help for the capital police. We need action on this or we will conclude no one in politics is on our side when the highest crime is committed against us. The disgraceful Jan 6th murder rampage is coming up. Commemorate Jan 6 by multiple indictments, arrests and in the case of military personnel joining it, court marshal, remove any future benefits. These people are traitors to our country.
No, incorrect. CNN is owned ultimately by AT&T they may sound left leaning but they do not report a lot of info we need to know, ABC owned by Walt Disney Co, NBC-Comcast , Fox - Murdock, Sinclair. PBros w/ close ties to Trump owns 294 tv stations. Koch owns Time magazine, most newspaper are owned by the right. There is no ownership by the left of the largest conglomerates. They are small, privately funded and don’t have nearly the reach of the dominant stations. This is monopolistic control of airwaves….and very dangerous!
Something to be grateful for! There are also great smaller left wing media, funded by listeners, Amy Goodman- Democracy Now! , Alternet.org, several more on Free Speech tv
Benjamin R Stockton ; If you or anyone has information to enlighten me on any things I post, please do. I have seen posts that accuse this forum of being an echo chamber. I don't think so, because I have learned things here that I did not know before. It's great.
@Laurie. It's a great forum for building alignment and learning from others of similar inclination. What we are not doing here is reaching folks who voted for Trump. How to do that is a big 'wonder how' for me...
Seeking Reason. Here is what I do. I am an Independent. I don't vote for the party but for the person running. I watch, read and listen to both sides of all issues. I flip between all the news stations on TV. It can be hysterical listening to what they individually report on the same subject matter. After I digest most of the propaganda and as an educated, wise human I make my own decisions. I was chair person for a PAC in my community. We were non partisan. We accomplished very little. We could never bring the two sides together. I eventually quit. No reason to beat our heads against a wall.
Cecilia, unfortunately the vast majority of Americans don’t do as you do. They pick their favorite network or BS artist and fall hook, line and sinker for everything that network/person says.
I agree with the first part of what you said including that I have become an independent de facto although supporting mostly Dems and remaining registered as one so I can vote in PA primaries. However, I can see lots of reasons to "beat our heads against a wall" or go around or under or over it or something else as wisely and effectively as we can.
Seeking Reason ; I have watched Amy Goodman off and on for decades. In the past, before all the social media sites, it was hard to get 'Democracy Now'. Late anti war, anti nuclear activist, Frances Crowe,(who recently passed away at age 100) managed to get' Democracy Now!' on a local pubic television and later, radio. All I could think of was 'Radio Free Europe'. We need "Social media free America'.
Either way you put it, we have an all-right-wing owned media, and the republicans, attempted a coup and killed people, the republican party has blocked investigations every inch of the way. Because of money in politics, we will find corruption in parts of the Dem party too. But nothing compares and I wouldn’t consider a Republican ever again outside of the few who have openly spoken against the obvious deadly insurrection. The republican party needs to be replaced or drastically reorganized. I’m with you on either way of saying it…good people on both sides is what Trump says about people waving confederate flags and chanting The Jews Will not replace us! 🙄🤦🏻
I’ve realized lately in trying to have intelligent conversations about politics, that most Americans (both sides) are unwilling or incapable of being completely honest about what they don’t know or understand. It’s like there’s an epidemic of the inability to say “I don’t know”. There is also an epidemic of people who can’t or won’t say “I’m wrong” or “I’m sorry”. For me, this is what is leading us to civil war. If I couldn’t say to my longterm friends or my wife, “I’m so sorry. I was wrong. I will do everything I can to make sure I don’t repeat that mistake”, I’d be divorced and alone…. Being wrong and making mistakes has made me better. I’ve learned far more from my mistakes than my successes. But, for me, this is THE #1 reason this country is imploding. Both sides, when discussing politics, without taking the time and discipline to study and deeply understand an issue like voting rights, or vaccines or fill-in-the-blank, they shove their uninformed but unwavering, self righteous opinions as if it’s true knowledge. Again, this is both sides. No one, and I do mean 100% of everyone I know or have met, will say, “you know what, I haven’t taken the time to understand what’s in the Build Back Better bill to have a clear opinion on it.” So, as a result of this lack of vulnerability and honesty, we have both sides at verbal and emotional war. I spent a lot of my life being self-involved and incapable of being wrong and apologizing, so I get it. What changed for me was getting in therapy and my shrink saying, “Gina, you’re full of shit” and me not firing her but stopping to listen and then forcing myself to pull my head out of my ass”… Age has also mellowed me out. (I’m 59) I find as I get older, I don’t operate from my ego as much, thank god… The point is, most of this country is intellectually lazy, uninformed, unapologetic but unabashedly belligerent about things they have no deep understanding about. Until we can all put down our pride and egos and self-righteous opinions, to stop, listen, and say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”, there will be war. - I often wonder if the masses who backed Nixon during Watergate ever said, “I was wrong about him”. - My last point leading me to believe that Civil War is unavoidable is the complete lack of inaction. I have many friends who do understand the critical condition our democracy is in, but they are doing absolutely nothing. I remind them that big changes happened when people stood together - women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage etc… Still, they do nothing and I stand at Voter’s Rights rallies with 50 other people in a state with 30 million people. (Texas) Again, it makes me wonder if Germans who watched their Jewish friends and neighbors taken away and did nothing, look back and say, “if we all had all stood up and done something, the Holocaust never would have happened”. I keep saying this to everyone I know or meet. The inaction combined with the lack of civic responsibility combined with the lack of knowledge and true understanding combined with emotional immaturity and belligerence is making me believe I need to leave this country that I have loved and once felt so proud of. America and Americans are unrecognizable to me now. I wish I knew what to do. I’m trying but failing… I do believe we are headed into a Civil War. The ONLY thing that could save us is a strong leader like a Susan B. Anthony or an MLK to bring us together. I wish Stacey Abrams or someone like her could lead us out of this dark place in history….
Yes, a non-violent mass movement that spells out policies that will unmistakenly economically and socially improve the lives of every American, and a no uncertain reminder to all that lies and violence in the pursuit of the political process WILL NOT GO UNPUNISHED, personally or corporately.
Gina, Though I appreciated much of your commentary, I believe we must resist the yearning ( albeit understandable) for a strong leader to save us. Such yearning at a moment like this is to ask someone else to solve our problems, ask someone else to do it for us. I would add that right now we Americans and many of our friends around the world are sitting and waiting and watching. And so I ask, “What are we waiting for?” Because in a democracy it’s us that have to become engaged in ways that initially might not seem particularly impactful. But collectively, and over time, history has shown that our engagement, our energy, our caring, our work can make a meaningful difference.
Remarkable to think you have met everyone in the United States and heard them all arguing! I am fortunate to live in a region of the country where people are making organized efforts to talk with each other. Christmas and Thanksgiving weren’t easy in my family, but none of us were talking nonsense and all of us read the papers. I don’t watch TV though— maybe that’s where “all Americans” are talking BS? Also I don’t live in Texas—which btw is not America. You might try moving to another of the 50 states before going into exile.
There is still time to recruit moderate candidates for 2024 to depolarize our country, but maybe we can't rely on either party's leadership to do it, or to support them.
I want to see several high profile Democrats create a fund to counter Rep. lies. This could be managed by a few talented PR folks. Messages should be high impact, visual ( billboards), and clever but very obvious. I think millions of concerned citizens would be eager to financially support this endeavor. And, if a saturation campaign began soon, it might counter the Republican lies in the next election.
Jeanette, several attempts have been made. You might remember Al Gore's attempt to create a left-wing network. MSNBC is a kind of attempt in the same direction. But it's very difficult. Anger, lies, provocation, conspiracy theories -- mostly directed at working people who voted for Trump -- attract more eyeballs than dispassionate news. My sense is that MSNBC and the progressive left media could do far better if they focused on the oligarchy -- on its abuses of power, corruption, corporate welfare, and how it shafts the working class -- in other words, the real story of the power structure in America. That would be powerful, provocative, and truthful.
Robert, I don't disagree in any way with your insight that the corporate power structure is a massive obstruction to what needs to get done in the world. What I'm concerned with however is the core of that core problem which is the human civilization long dominance of everyone and every commercial entity that isn't operating hand in glove with that core problem, namely Finance and its monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of money.
Integrate the new monetary paradigm of Gifting into the debt only based system in a way that 1) starkly benefits all legitimate economic agents both commercial and individual, 2) isolates Finance as the underlying problem and 3) also uses both a carrot and stick taxation means of herding corporate powers with global reach.
The means of doing this could be 1) tandem 50% discount/rebate policies at the point of retail sale and a 50% debt jubilee at the point of loan signing, and 2) tax cuts of 50% for all businesses who do not inflate their prices, but compete and innovate on price, and 3) SEVERE, as in a 100% rate of taxation, on any revenue garnered from arbitrary price rises unjustified by ACTUAL OVERALL costs. After all, in a fiat monetary system like we actually have, we only need reasonable taxation rates that guarantee commercial compliance with the law...and yet the sovereign power to make damned good and sure that such a reasonable system is not gamed.
I hasten to point out that 1) a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale immediately doubles everyone's purchasing power (as in making even a minumum wage of $7.35/hr able to purchase at a rate of $14.70/hr) and 2) also doubles the potential demand for every enterprise's goods and services (but will only raise it mostly for the poor and unemployed because everyone is not going to eat twice as much as they did before or go out and buy twice as many shoes as they have been buying).
I also hasten to point out that a 50% debt jubilee at the point of loan signing will 1) not only enable a $400k house that has been reduced to $200k by the discount/rebate policy at retail sale (yet the home building corporation gets their full price with the rebate aspect of the policy) becomes $100k with the 50% debt jubilee policy. The ancients utilized periodic debt jubilees to reset and stabilize their economies and social systems. Integrate debt jubilee directly into the economic process with a 50% reduction at the point of loan signing and it will permanently stabilize the economy, and the graciously beneficial effects of the above policies will put the lie to the irrational generalization of conservative/libertarian economists that the government is always the problem.
Implement monetary grace as in gifting into the economy...and the social system will awaken to peace...instead of rebellion.
I agree that we simply cannot let Fox "News" continue to spew lies without any consequence, but I'm at a loss as to what to do about it. I'm not sure that asking the American people to fund a campaign against these lies is going to succeed. As a recent article I read pointed out, there have been no consequences/punishment for most of the insurrectionists and for Drumpf because of a lack of a mechanism by which to do so. I believe that our sane Congressional members need to do more than merely investigate; they need to make more noise, be louder in their call for accountability. We "good guys" need to be louder than they are and fight back with everything we do have before resorting to a civil war.
Any communications company that fails to serve a higher public purpose can have its license revoked. The FCC should close FOX down....but regulatory agencies have no guts and are largely captured by industry.
Agreed, but I would close down ALL the cable news channels. They were complicit in the rise of Trump and Trumpism with the large amount of free publicity they gave him and his ideas, even when attacking them. Bring back the good non-partisan accurate TV news reporting of Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite. In my opinion, CPAN is the only honest news channel left in the US.
Sally Nedelcovych ; We do have the law, which is starting to move, finally! Also, it may be prudent not to tip their hand and get louder. Being provocative could precipitate actions that can't win. Patience is hard and we are all scared. But evidence is plentiful. I agree that we all should call, email, demand, and give as much support to those who are working on solving the problem. DFA(Democracy For America), along with our A.G. We don't need to denigrate him and those who are working on this Jan 6th panel.
I agree with you about not "denigrating" our A.G.; however, I see no reason for us to remain silent. In fact, I think all of us pro-Democracy/American Constitution people should be out in the streets peacefully protesting what happened on January 6! We did it for Civil Rights in the 60's and for LGBT rights and against the Vietnam War. Why should we not exercise our right to peacefully protest? And our leaders should be encouraging it, I think. The only tools we have are our right to vote and our freedom to demonstrate peacefully - both things that Repugnants are trying to take away from us.
The problem with "peaceful" protests in today's world is that some idiots keep turning them into riots with looting, fighting, and sadly, people getting hurt. Fox News loves this -- they can "prove" to their audience that left wing protesters are bad people who want to hurt you. On the other hand, right wing protesters who riot are "good" people.
Paula B. I like the idea of massive citizen lawsuits or class action suits against Fox 'News'. the letter writing and even phoning representatives may put pressure on them too.
Tim Baldwin ; Very true that protesting today is a perilous undertaking. there are too many guns, and a lot of people who don't hesitate to get violent. Some are most likely hired; an old anti union trick used in the 60's against anti war protesters.
Sally Nedelcovych ; I have impatiently denigrated or criticized our A.G. in recent posts suggesting that he is semicomatose, and other remarks out of frustration and do not apply this to your comment. Two things that work against this 70 year old woman for the demonstrating idea are 1. It's cold outside, and two, the pandemic is surging where I live. The lawsuit against Fox is interesting idea, but I do not know any lawyers, nor do I have money. I would give what I can to a crowdsourcing effort, though.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Texas abortion law with its vigilantism provision, there shouldn’t be any reason that private citizens couldn’t sue Fox News etc. for damages. Funding could be crowd sourced. Not that I think that law is a good idea—it’s vile—but why not take advantage of what exists for *our* purposes?
Robert and friends, I begin with a letter I sent to national newspapers two days ago:
Media alarmism at the exact moment we need responsibility and calm
To the editor:
On print media websites and live broadcasts on Jan. 2 (and undoubtedly the front page of newspapers on Jan. 3)—four days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Insurrection—the national media trumpet uncritically and alarmingly the results of a University of Maryland/Washington Post opinion survey of only 1000 respondents that suggests that an apparently high percentage of respondents support political violence against government under certain unspecified circumstances. A yet to be detailed CBS survey supposedly supports this “finding.”
Knowledgeable readers and serious journalists must object strongly and loudly. This is irresponsible reporting on a sensitive current issue of great concern. It demands care and informed consideration. To begin, the sample size is small (the “margin of error” percentage is statistically irrelevant given the sample size); second, the reporters provide no information on the composition of the sample population.
Third, the reporters do not examine the wording of the questions and the contradictory readings of answers to them. Importantly, in certain circumstances, there may be legitimate, even constitutional grounds for a popular uprising against the government in power. This is hardly a question of the Big Lie alone. Finally, as previously, reporters ignore or have forgotten the results of a revealing September poll that indicated that at least 56% of admitted Trump voters felt overwhelming pressure not to reveal their current thinking about the results of the 2020 election, the Insurrection, and the Big Lie.
Alarmism is journalistic malpractice.
We face huge problems as I have argued here previously. But exaggerating them and talking a Civil War is both wrong headed and an inadequate historical analogy. The US in 2020-today does not compare with 1858-1860-65. No way. Despite TX and FL "seceding from reality" as I have just written (https://columbusfreepress.com/article/busting-myths-texas-and-florida-secede-reality-ohio-imitates), no one is seceding from the US. There is no bombing of a federal fort. Etc Etc.
We must do better and think knowledgeably about TODAY. and tomorrow. The immediate threat is individual gun-toking crazed individuals facilitated by Rep State Legis who can't read the Second Amendment (or First Amendment either) who may attack. Not by the daily diminishing Trumpists.
Three former generals believe there is a possibility and I’m sure there is…a possibility. But News also talks about, IF THE DEMS LOSE 2020!…We should turn this around and say many voters no longer stand by Trump, we’re going to see the blue wave! Companies have vouched not to donate to republicans involved in the deadly insurrection.
The republicans kick around Dems even when we clearly win. Time to change the voices in our heads. One news station said Jan 6th riot….NO don’t let them do that. Every time you talk about it, refer to it as a deadly coup attempt, deadly sedition, domestic terrorist deadly attack. People died! We must repeat this adnauseum.
Ye: but the large corps and esp Silicon Valley are not honoring their promises. Their proverbial feet must be held to the FIRES. The OpEd writers should turn to that instead of misreading limited polls
Yes, they are not honoring their promises, but they are not people. These entities need to be brought down to an acceptable level through laws and fines for dealing that are shady, that harm. Once again, the OpEd writers are highly influenced by the Media giants that own them and the Media outlets. The media giants are vastly Republican and Red
Seeking Reason ; Or they call it a 'protest' or a 'riot'. three former generals (three blind mice?) Where were they in the buildup to Jan 6th? I knew something was up just listening to the orangeutan in his constant comments about being president 'for life', or when responding to reporters questions on how he will respond if he doesn't win. Why would they ask that anyway? Asking 'would you accept the result' like they were interviewing a prize fighter or something. It's almost like the media have screenwriters and some of these pols follow a script!
I concur. What is going on? This hysteria has got to stop! People, people, once we start something of a civil war magnitude, there will be no way out until millions die or are harmed. That could mean you or your children or loved ones. We don't want to go there. We should not back down either. If we do go to Civil War, we will leave ourselves open for other countries to join the fight against us. If they side with the Reds, OMG, God forbid. Are a whole bunch of lies and bullying going to pull us down into killing and all the worst stuff on earth?
I'm glad you've also noticed that "freedom from law" aspect of those "law and order" types. I've banged on about that concerning the Banana Republicans for years! Face it. They're only criminal if their criminality is against the law. >That's< the kind of law & order they have in mind. And don't get me started on their "rule of law" horse-s##t. The phrase "rule of law" wasn't even on the radar until Bush Sr brought it up in a stump speech. Why? It never >needed< to be. It was an assumption. Then what was he trying to justify?
I also like your observation on how TX is against respecting its obligations as a member state of the nation - until they need what they would themselves characterize as a "bail-out." That's why I greatly admired Cuomo for telling McConnell which orifice he could shove his "blue state bail-out" language up, pointing out the blue states are net contributors while red states are net beneficiaries - or to use "banana-speak," parasites. I just knew Cuomo would get swatted down, and - predictably - he did. Nevertheless, if he were to run for president, I'd still vote for him. Whatever his imperfections, they aren't even in the same league with ol' Tweety's. Besides, he'd go in knowin' what the hell he was doing from day 1.
Something else you pick up on in the article is that whole "negative freedom" nonsense. I've associated that kind of language with The Third Reich since I was a schoolboy. And let me tell you this: whether you agree or not, it began with "smoke free." Further, it was the inflection point at which the CDC and the medical community began losing its credibility. That includes seat-belt and helmet laws, which further exacerbated the issue. I've >yet< to see any convincing data suggesting that the "second hand smoke" issue is harmful to anything but a vanishing minority of the population. Belay your outrage on that comment until you put it side-by-side with the current trend to disbelieve demonstrably hard numbers concerning the pandemic. And don't get me started about Soviet-sounding "political correctness."
As an aside, I like your observation concerning the TX prohibitions attempted by the party that - in the '90s or thereabouts - stridently supported the notion of "home rule!" It's home rule for the Banana party. For anyone else, not so much.
The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of weak readers "interpreting" the law. The 2nd Amendment comes from a time when each state provided its own military force. Indeed, as late as the Civil War, the regimental designations were by state. People BYOB'd with their own weapons. If you suspect that's BS, I cite the existence of the National Guard in each state as a throwback to that tradition. I'll grant without question every guardsman's constitutional right to bear weapons. Everyone else, not so much. >Every< other justification is a tawdry, self-serving lie. That's >especially< true of the "Jeffersonian" - so ascribed - justification that the public needs to be armed in case they need to overthrow a tyrannical regime. That lie has been around since >before< my formative years, and could have only originated from a Confederate mouth - as history is my witness. (What could possibly go wrong - in case one asks ‽) As far as the NRA slogan "If guns are against the law, only criminals will have guns" is concerned, that's >exactly< right. That's a bit like saying "Where murder is against the law, only criminals will murder!" Unpack all that with respect to my opening comment on "freedom from law." I can recognize a >single< loophole. It would otherwise be possible to arrest, detain, charge, and incarcerate anyone you don't particularly like on a weapons charge for a pocket knife - or even clenched fists.
As a final comment on your article, I think the non-hetero community should pipe down a bit and consolidate any gains they've made. I think it's a tactical error to rub the majority hetero noses in gayness. They're not ready for that - and it provides ammunition for the "banana bin" Republicans. If you consider that a homophobic thing to say, let me respectfully disagree and urge you to consider it with respect to the truth you face. I have no dog in that fight, and couldn't care less what goes on between/among consenting adults, as long as I'm not dragged into it - and that applies to >any< activity >anyone< would otherwise foist upon me, including, but not limited to, goin' to friggin' church!
Paula B. Yes, and it 'sanitizes' W.'s 'win' by the electoral college when he did not get the majority vote. Our most recent former 'winner' can say the same. that he 'won' the Presidency. There are many illegitimate phrases out there.
Thanks for your critical eye on statistical sampling. Well done. Good on your observation concerning the reading of The Constitution - or for that matter, any other "holy" document - by "the undereducated" that ol' Tweety and the Banana Republicans claim to embrace, but would never be caught dead hob-nobbing with.
I'm not a statistician, economist, political scientist, or legal scholar. But I am a concerned historian . . . I ask only that we read critical, compare reports, and avoid alarmism while remaining vigilant. am I asking too much? I don't know . . . .
The editor separately discovered that issue yesterday. It disappeared later and was fine the rest of the day. Their webmaster is working on it. Pls try again later.
Graff, Harvey ; You certainly are thorough, but not all citizens have the education that you have had. Take the second hand smoke 'political correctness'. In my early childhood I had a father who smoked like a chimney. Living in the Northeast, our apartment was sealed up in the winter, our car windows were rolled up and there were no air conditioners. I had chronic bronchitis as a kid. Also, I believe I had an addiction to nicotine. I was sent to the store at age 7 to buy cigarettes. Eventually got some for myself. I smoked for years, and am glad that I quit a long time ago. there was no quantification or verification of the damage done to my lungs, nervous system or body in general. I think exposing any one, especially a small child to second hand smoke is child abuse. It is not 'political correctness' to push back on second hand smoke IMO. There is a good reason to not like it.
Indeed. I have the same kind of background. But prohibiting smoking outside??? Really??? I was completely behind smoking and non-smoking sections indoors, rather than the clear attempt to socially ostracize smokers wielding all social, political, economic, and legal sanctions in an utterly misguided attempt to force smokers to quit. I'm >not< hospitable on that issue one bit - not one bit at all. Indeed, the other side of the coin, there is no way to adequately express the depth of my >utter contempt< with the whining cry-babies waling on and on, being precocious about their freedom, protesting otherwise sound public health policy in the midst of a goddam pandemic! I just heard the term "flu-vid" on the news to characterize what's coming down the pike at us all next. How 'bout the freedom >from< being infected - as long as we're speaking in "negatory" freedoms - with a deadly contagion by some wanker waving a flag and blowing his/her un-deflected breath on us all as they shout "freedom" through their filthy mouths ‽ I >truly< hope you can distinguish the difference.
DZK ; I was mostly fixated on cigarette smoking. As far as the pandemic goes, It seems crazy to push back against health experts when facing a deadly disease like Covid. I and my husband are fully vaxxed and boosted. We have a daughter who was against flu shots even before the pandemic. But I do not like cigarette smoke when I walk out of a place and people are in the doorway smoking. If they are outdoors and a distance away, it's tolerable. I hate to see, smell cigarettes on anyone, especially the young. Fortunately, it is not as pervasive where I live now. I studied respiratory therapy in my 20's and know how destructive smoking is. I was addicted for a significant time of my life, like many in my generation. So glad I finally quit. My grown kids do not smoke.
We each of us live in our unique private hells. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the "smoke free" issue was not an inflection point helping to careen us into the situation we face today - and >that's< the point I intended to make, regardless of my antipathy for said anti-smoking policies calculated to force smokers to quit - or your apparent embrace of same.
Historian is really good. A life-long friend of mine, a Native American who incidentally lives in TX, is a retired history prof and disaffected Republican, with whom I'm in regular contact. She has finally come to realize that when I told her "these people are >not< your friends," I exaggerated nothing. I appreciate people having a perspective greater than the life-span of a fruit fly.
If you haven't had a chance, or my revisions haven't been passed on, I've had further thoughts on the article at the link you provide in this particular post. They're my background thoughts as I read most of your major points.
I can understand. I am fearful but not alarmist. I long for the DOJ to speed up, and the Dem Party to grow up. And more action by advocacy groups and the courts at the State level. Let's support those activities and channel "alarmism" :)
I agree that the Dems must grow up. We have better ideas and believe in facts. The dems need to go more on the offensive or we will continue to lose at the polls.
Einstein, one of history's greatest thinkers once said, a problem of this magnitude & division can only be solved by a higher level of consciousness than the one that created it. I look to moral philosophy or religion as the "higher level of consciousness". Republicans, who now think like nihilists can not solve these problems. I would rather be approximately right, than definitely wrong.
Einstein was a pacifist. His only involvement with the Manhattan Project was, on the urging of others, to send a letter to FDR that the Germans could likely pursue a nuclear weapon. Your remark would seem to represent an unhelpful excursion into the cancel culture.
I'm not a member of the cancel culture. I read long ago that Einstein was involved with the Manhattan project and that he had the brains to understand the physics involved. I admit I have not delved into any writings or explored to see if there is any information on his role. Another of the scientists who developed the bomb later committed suicide, I believe. Please don't so quickly label and dismiss people. that seems unhelpful and cancelling, too.
Einstein did not choose to use the atomic bomb. It was dropped by a poor decisional process. Are you seriously going to question the brilliance of Einstein? If you do, respectfully criticize his thinking in accordance with the Rules of Academic Engagement.
Brian Book ; I have never questioned the brilliance of Albert Einstein, although his early instructors thought him 'slow'. If he did help to develop the atomic bomb, it may have occurred to him and the Manhattan Project team that it had extreme destructive power. As to my respect of the 'Rules of Academic Engagement', I don't see that you can impose them on me for asking any valid question. Are you seriously going to question my right to ask a brilliant question?
When almost half our nation has eschewed reality, morality and the rule of law, the results are inevitable: civil war (maybe) or total social, philosophical and moral separation (certainly). I think we are in the beginning stages of real civil war. Never mind about the Russian or Chinese threats; They won't do anything rash, because any external threats would unite us. All they have to do is sit and watch us commit suicide. I believe that the South actually won the Civil War; it's just taking us a long time to realize it.
Eugene Abravanel ; Civil War is an oxymoron. Nobody can 'win' it, IMO. One side may dominate or overcome the other. I'm not thinking that being dominated is really winning.
Laurie Blair: I don't disagree with what you said. However, when I say "Civil" (War), I mean a war internal to a nation, not civil in sense of being logical and courteous. I also think that if the "dominating" side (in a war) is successful in changing the hearts and minds of the other warring party, well, I call that winning.
Eugene Abravanel ; You have an interesting take on the 'Civil war', in that the big oil barons of the South and the big money have had influence in our politics and power structure, even though they lost the war, officially. America runs on money!
Ah, yes; civil war. Like O'Toole one shies away from talking about it for fear of it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Prepare for it? How? How does one prepare for chaos? We can work to prevent it, however. And, the writers of today's comments offer some very good suggestions. I fear there is among our populace a notion that civil war is somehow romantic, indeed heroic-- FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS and all that fictional nonsense. We must work very, very hard to dispel them of that nonsensical view. In reality, civil war causes untold, unbelievable suffering to people and devastating destruction to property and civil order that compounds that suffering. I shudder to entertain the idea. To dispel, we will need to engage those hostile citizens who advocate for it either thru words or actions. A non-aggressive lead-in is "I see it a little differently" and then calmly but firmly tell them in no uncertain words how disruptive civil war is.
Agree. One small step all of us can take is to sit down with people who disagree with us politically, even within our own families, and reconnect. Don't start with the big stuff -- the labels, the big names, the provocative headlines, vaccinations. Start small -- with kitchen-table economic issues (jobs, costs of food and pharmaceuticals, costs of college and student loans) -- and establish some common concerns. Then build on that.
Often romanticized, the Spanish Civil War is perhaps the best-documented tale of complete social breakdown in modern western civilization (see George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”). The reality of the Franco years should provide a sobering wake up call to followers of the cult of Trump.
If we are to coexist, we must address racism and xenophobia, which always exist under the surface, ready to be exploited by unscrupulous plutocrats and politicians. According to an analysis I saw, the January 6 Capitol burglars, as I like to call them were most likely to come from counties that are rapidly diversifying, including some in which a majority voted for Biden. PBS Newshour did a report last night on a region of north Texas in which 35 people were arrested for their participation in the January 6 riot/burglary. Some cities in the region are among the fastest growing in the country, and the county in which they are located dropped from 63% white to 51% white in the past ten years. A Muslim woman who ran for City Council in 2020 was the target of relentless harassment and stereotyping lies. Unsurprisingly, she lost.
But, I point to my neighborhood of 460 homes as a sign of hope. It is demographically very diverse, with different races including at least two mixed-race couples, ethnicities, national origins, religions, a wide range of ages, and also political party affiliations. We also have a number of LGBT couples. During the 2020 election there were both Biden and Trump yard signs, and none was vandalized or stolen. We have made an effort to get along. One of my neighbors with whom I'm friendly is a partisan Republican, but we have worked together on hyperlocal issues in which we have a common interest. We even discuss politics sometimes without getting into an angry shouting match. So it is possible to get along, but it takes effort.
Unfortunately, the former guy used the enormous power and prestige of the presidency to promote divisiveness and to encourage violence. It will take awhile to undo that substantial damage. We need our current leaders to step up to repeatedly condemn divisiveness and violence. I also agree with other commenters that we need to do something about right wing media that use deceit and deception to foment anger and promote animosity.
Carolyn, I'm encouraged by what you say about your community. One of the trends of recent decades that's particularly distressing is how we've divided ideologically by geography. Most of us live in places where just about all our neighbors agree with us politically.
Having participated in this forum for a few weeks now, I could not help but notice that the focus is very much on the Republican base's drift toward fascism. This is an undeniable fact but I think that it also needs to be put back in its proper context. In front of a blaze, firefighters do not worry at how high the flames are; they work at the level where the fire finds its combustible. One thing is Republican lawmakers with authoritarian tendencies, another is the combustible they find in disenfranchised, mostly white, poor, and under educated American people. Politicians and well-off people will support egregious views because they find a personal interest in doing so, whether it is to have their ego flattered or their bank account swelling up. They speak from a position of power. The Republican base, on the other hand, will adhere to the same views and vociferously support them because they themselves are lost and feel they need to scapegoat anyone who does not howl with the pack. As good firefighters, we should stop pointing at their madness and start taking care of what is causing it. This madness are the flames; they are impressive and can truly create chaos but they are also empty. Fox"news" and other propaganda outlets fan them as much as they can, yet the real cause of the fire, the combustible that fuels it, is the lack of politics geared toward the common good. Trumpists love their children too, at least the ones I have met, who are politically in cuckooland but humanly very kind persons. Bernie Sanders, of all people, believes in them. That is why he is not shy to explain his own views directly to them when he has the opportunity. That is the lesson, that is what we should do instead of running away in a panic because a bad draft of madness has seized the population. This draft can disappear as quickly as it flared up because it stands on nothing. So, let's not be impressed and let's get back in the proper perspective: fascism is not fought by taking its reasons seriously but by taking its causes seriously.
I regret the use of "undereducated" as it implies a meaning that is not the one I was trying to convey. What I meant is "with no college degree." Only Fox"news" can make you undereducated.
I think one should be aware of the "us vs. them" psychological trap we can all fall into. This sense of oddity toward one another, including members of the Trump cult, is a total delusion.
We need to force the issue. I honestly don’t believe a civil war can be avoided. While we have the power to do so we should get in front of it. Eliminate filibuster, protect voting rights. We are at war. Use everything we can to expose republicans as fascists. I have a neighbor that says BLM are responsible for January 6th. In other words she reserves the right to lie. She needs to be dealt with severely. There’s no negotiation. Racists narcissistic liars. Good luck negotiating with that trash. I’m not extremist but I can be when confronted. Ted Cruz is already planning to impeach Biden when they win mid terms. Has no interest in governing for the American people. They know what to do with power. We need to act. Biden also needs to forewarn the American people what’s coming. Number one issue. We are headed to a confrontation with fascism. Robert I don’t know about you but I’m looking forward to taking out the trash. Want to activate the Democrats and normal Americans, this is it. America reborn. It’s time
Robert, there is something "off" about all this foment: It is coming from the top, not the bottom. The agents-provocateurs are nicely suited and well coiffed. Most are on the public payroll or on the payroll of major media organizations. Yes, the angst they have whipped up in the public at large is real enough and dangerous.
But this is not revolution in the making - it is a putsch. A putsch originates inside the palace walls; a revolution comes from outside the palace walls. This is an astroturf putsch, not a grassroots revolution.
I agree that this careless talk about violence and civil war appears to be the product of the professional troublemakers in the rightwing and anti-social media, and surrounding Trump. I do what I can to get into the heartland (although the pandemic has restricted my travel), and I don't sense any risk of anything resembling civil war. But the rhetoric is intensifying, and that worries me.
I wish I could agree with Bob and Robert. I've spent most of my life in Southern states, and my family spans circles of Trump supporters to self-proclaimed anarcho-communists. I've heard very troubling statements from both sides. (Not that they are equivalent, but I think the only real difference is that the militant wing on the right has the power to excommunicate established representatives from a major political party who disagree with them, while I wouldn't say the militant wing on the left has any elected representatives who align with them). But I do think most commentators seem unaware of the numbers of self-proclaimed supporters of anarchy, communism, and violent resistance on the left among younger generations. (The most "mainstream" coverage I've seen of this was sympathetic reporting from the "Worst Year Ever" podcast of the protestors who intentionally targeted federal buildings to provoke and escalate conflicts with federal security forces in Portland. Although I also want to clarify that it seems like a small subset of protestors among those who participated in protests after George Floyd's death, from the little information I had, this subset seemed less intent on specific police reforms and seemed to genuinely view the protests as an opportunity to dismantle current governance and public safety systems, even if on a small scale.) While there is significant effort and money being spent to fan the flames on the right, the sense of resentment and fear I got from the conservatives in my family and workplaces has been replaced in recent years with a sense of fury and entitlement, a truly volatile combination. Yes, it is coming from the top, but it is also changing the truth on the ground. Even though I also don't envision anything on the scale of our prior civil war, I started worrying about the possibility of political violence on a larger scale after a very strange day at a gun shop and range where most of the people present were friendly and nonchalant while we were surrounded with threats to liberals, to specific politicians, to the world in general on every possible piece of merchandise, while I also heard a fully automatic weapon or bump stock firing on the range. The scariest part was how much these things were just part of the normal everyday baseline for the people there; none of it was strange or significant to them. I've lived with and worked with gun owners most of my life; this was not always normal. I started talking to my spouse about my worry about political violence after that day, feeling dramatic and paranoid for my response. Since then, this discussion brings the count to 2 books (https://bookshop.org/books/how-civil-wars-start-and-how-to-stop-them/9780593137789) and about half a dozen opinion pieces that I've seen in a single month on the specific possibility for significant political violence in 2024. Following O'Toole's line of thinking and critiquing the commentary as a cause and not a symptom or as necessary discussion of genuinely concerning shifts seems intentionally obtuse. All the more so when a review of news from one year ago today would be full of commentary on why we didn't need to be concerned about unrest or actual violence as Congress convened the next day to certify the election results. And the comparison of present day America to Northern Ireland in 1972 is not as reassuring as he thinks. Of all the commentary I have seen (other than The Next Civil War, which I have not read), Northern Ireland seems to be the best parallel for the scale and tenor of what people fear. It may not be what most would label a civil war, but I think we're also beyond the point where we can dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Bob, I sure hope you're right. It does seem like a revolution would have some more concrete coals. All this crowd wants is no government and Trump. It's just a symbolic scream of rage. That won't get them a better country. Will they change their tunes when they want the government to give them disaster relief funding? And when the extreme capitalism is yo yo ing, boom and bust throwing them out of jobs with no unemplyment insurance?
I'd like greater insight into Garland's strategy. I can't tell whether he's carefully building a case against Trump or carefully sidestepping such a case. Anyone?
If Democrats don’t retain control of both Houses in 22, the future I see unfolding is one of utter chaos, the breakdown of the rule of law, and the loss of trust both in government and also in mainstream institutions of American life.
In my view, the most decisive event over the next two weeks is the scheduled Senate vote that will determine whether Democrats will have enacted a filibuster rule change that will allow for a check on GOP controlled State Legislatures that unilaterally continue to pass bill after bill that restricts voting and nullifies votes. Because we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself, I see no choice aside from exhausting every possibility to arrive at a rule change both Manchin and Sinema will accept.
My understanding is that, while both Manchin and Sinema support the two companion voter protection bills, neither currently supports a filibuster carve-out nor do they support changing the 60-vote threshold to end debate. Seeing that Schumer needs all 50 Senators to sign on to a filibuster rule change, an option proposed by former Chief Counsel to Ted Kennedy, Jeff Blattner, could work. For “major” legislation, it would ensure “the minority a full debate and the right to offer relevant amendments.” However, “after an extended period…without the offering of an amendment gaining bipartisan support, the supporters of the bill [e.g. the Freedom to Vote Act] could move to invoke cloture (the cutting off of debate) by a simple majority vote.” For me, the brilliance of this proposal, or some version of it possibly under consideration, is that it comes closer to meeting Manchin’s and Sinema’s demands than any other I’ve reviewed, and it ends McConnell’s veto over the will of the majority.
Schumer needs 50 votes to change the filibuster, but they all don't have to be Democrats. Even if he doesn't have Manchin or Sinema, maybe he can get Collins or Romney or Murkowski to sign on. It's worth the effort.
Prof. Reich, My understanding is that Murkowski is the sole Republican who has voiced any support, and please note, not for the Freedom to Vote Act, but only for VRAA, which is not preemptive and therefore cannot overturn state laws that already have passed. Conversely, the Freedom to Vote Act that Manchin helped draft, whose provisions provide the necessary safeguards against both voter suppression and election subversion, would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations. Additionally, I would note that when, yesterday, Manchin was asked whether, as in the past, he “would not be open to changing the rules without Republican buy-in…” Manchin replied, “that’s my absolute preference.” I view Manchin stating it’s a “preference” as a promising sign, and, furthermore, believe, if Dems can get Manchin on board with a workable rule change, Sinema will follow.
So much to unpack in this. First, seventy percent of Republicans don’t believe Trump won. Most only say that because it fits they desires and the Republican Party supports creating their own narrative around this and many other things. What we need to do is try to understand why they’re willing to lie about the Big Lie. I’m sure their are many different reasons, but I am confident the underlying reason is to protect White America. And sadly we need to appreciate that. Look around the world, as a Whit person, what black or brown majority country would you feel as comfortable in as being in America? I love diversity but we have to truly consider how we successfully complete this melting pot country. I think you, Robert, are on the right path. An economy that works for all would go a long way in making us all feel safer. That’s only one aspect though. There will always be tyrannical people that will try to over though our government. How do we guard against Trump currently and others in the future, if our democracy has a future.
Let me thank all of you for your extremely thoughtful comments. I’ll offer a few thoughts of my own at this point, take your questions, and respond to your comments.
First, I don’t think it will come to civil war. Our governing institutions are still strong. Most of our media is still responsible, in terms of reporting facts. Most of our political, nonprofit, and business leaders are doing their jobs as best they can. Even careless talk about civil war can be dangerous and destructive.
But I do think we are in a civic crisis. Trump is the symptom. The underlying cause is that many Americans — mainly those without college degrees and living in the heartland — have been abandoned. The bottom 10 percent by income is still struggling but by-in-large are better off than they were 40 years ago. But the 40 percent just above them have been losing ground. That has made them susceptible to someone like Trump — claiming to be an anti-establishment “strongman” who can turn their despair and humiliation into hope and pride, even though he is pure bombast and narcissism.
Why hasn’t the Democratic Party responded better to the needs of the working class? Even before it went on life support, “Build Back Better” had been whittled down to the point where it would do little or nothing for the bottom half. I’m old enough to remember when the Democratic Party attracted those with less education and the Republican Party attracted those with more. Today, people with less education vote for Republicans and those with more vote for Democrats. The Democratic Party has gone from being a worker party to a party of intellectual and professional elites. Since the Republican Party continues to cater to the needs and wants of business on economic policy, this has left millions of working people without any effective political voice. Hence, policies that would change the structure of power are opposed by the likes of Joe Manchin, the senior Democratic senator from West Virginia.
We won’t have a civil war, but we are in imminent danger of losing our democracy to a dangerous alliance of big business oligarchs, on the one hand, and Trump-like populist-fascists on the other. To me, that’s the fight ahead of us — to foster a countervailing alliance of the poor, working class, and middle class that will make our democracy and economy work for them as well.
Professor Reich, I have a question for you. IF, in 2024, the nightmare scenario unfolds of Trump (or another Trumpist) winning the Presidency by, say, three red states commandeering the electoral process and sending their own slate of electors, what would you do? No thinking person of integrity wants civil war or violence of any kind. But if all of a sudden the fatal stab to democracy was starring us all in the face, what would you do? I, for one, just couldn’t sit here and do nothing. I don’t own a gun; I’m non-violent; I’m old; and have had a good life. My daughter, however, has many years ahead and needs to live in a free and fair country, as do all of us. To say, “Oh, well, we’ll vote’em out next time”, would become meaningless. It would be an existential crisis, with uncertainty about how to proceed. I can see myself and my wife protesting at our state capitol, but I can also see heavily armed right wing forces showing up to crush such protests. At that point, we’re all in dangerous uncharted waters with our feet planted firmly in mid air. So, what would you do?
AG Garland gave a completely thorough and hard-hitting speech that lasted most of an hour, and I'm greatly reassured that the Justice Department will root out, charge and seek justice not just for everyone who attacked the police and the Congress and our democratic processes on January 6 of last year but also those who by any means threaten or have threatened or acted upon the threat of physical violence or gruesome death to teachers, airline staff, politicians, journalists, judges and law enforcement officers. He made a point of saying that no one, no matter how rich or poor, highly placed or not, is above the law.
Garland also made it clear that in terms of legal action against the 700+ individuals charged thus far for crimes on January 6, those with misdemeanor charges will be gotten out of the way first as DOJ works up the chain of perpetrators of this assault on our democracy.
I thought it a good speech, and was also reassured by it. But I would like him to say explicitly and clearly: "no one who has served as president is above the law, and if that person is guilty of criminal acts he will be prosecuted."
For once I can't agree with you, because he studiously avoided reaching outside his job description and making political or divisive statements, and he stayed with that throughout and, I'm sure, on purpose.
Discussing the potential prosecution of the Former Guy, he would put that guy and all of his followers on notice that he's considering his prosecution, and Garland is too good a poker player to show his whole hand.
To me, it's enough that he made it clear that DOJ will charge the lowest and the highest on the spectrum, gradually working up to the most serious felonious acts, and the Former Guy would undoubtedly be in that category for inciting seditious acts.
I do eagerly await him making the statement that you and so many others, myself included, would love to hear, but all in good time (and hopefully well before November).
They need to get this done before the mid terms. If GOP takes control of congress and senate it's all over. On another note the democratic party needs to start running ads telling all the atrocities the GOP has perpetrated on the American public. Start playing hardball. Get the DCCC off their collective asses and really start backing the right kind of candidates.
Well said. Agreed.
AG Garland better get busy then.
I absolutely agree.
I've long said anti-gun advocates should arm themselves and learn to use the things. There may come a time when they truly need them for self-defense - if you catch my drift.
Like the old man knocked down by the police and when another police officer tried to help, he was pulled away by another officer. Or having KKK members "helping" the police.
Harking back to your first post of today, I feel that it is absolutely essential to get a carve-out from the filibuster to pass meaningful voting rights legislation with a simple majority vote. Also, the Democrats need to gain at least a net two seats in 2022 in the Senate (Fetterman and Barnes?) and hold their majority in the House. Although chances are not good, if they can do so, then perhaps a meaningful “Build Back Better” could be passed; the working and middle classes would benefit enough to realize their chances for a better life lie with the Dems and the country would avert the nightmare of autocracy.
Schumer needs 50 votes (plus the VP) to alter the filibuster. If Manchin or Sinema won't go along, he should try Romney or Collins or Murkowski. I think it's worth a try.
Schumer should be pressing Romney, Collins and Murkowski anyway.
Dr. Val Arkoosh in PA might be a great candidate in PA if she can convince enough Democratic Primary voters that she has and/or is worth a chance.
It all comes down to money in advertising. Trump was sold to the American public with a great advertising team. Commercials ran here continuously for Trump saying he was the only one who could fix our problems. The only thing he fixed was the tax code for the rich. I have repeatedly asked Trumpites what he has done to make their life better. When I ask how much they received back on their tax refunds from his "tax cuts". Mostly they say nothing or they will get it back next year. So if we want a good candidate elected, get them the air time, social media attention, a door to door campaign, have community organizing to get around the GOP voting restrictions. Think for ourselves.
I'm a fellow of the American Marshall Memorial Fellowship.
https://www.gmfus.org/marshall-memorial-fellowship
The Fellowship was designed in the early 1970's to institutionalize relationships that were formed during and after WWII. In a large part, the politics that came after the war were formed socially through the ranks of soldiers and officers. Your identity was "American", with the other being "Nazi". With that paradigm, your fellow Americans, black, white, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Northerner, Southerner - even native Americans who translated messages into tongues that German's and Japanese could not translate - understood that they were on the same team, moving in the same direction. When they made it into politics later, they carried that "team" mentality. This is gone now, partly because that generation is gone, and also in large part thanks to Newt Gingrich:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/
I would argue also, that the AMMF Fellowship is also not terribly effective, although it is a great way to network with European counterparts.
We cannot artificially create an enemy as bad as Nazis unless we fight a big war. I don't think making China or Russia a boogie man will do it.
The only solution that I can see, is that somehow the political dysfunction in our system be made bad for business. So bad that it hurts share prices and sales. When businesses lose, they will start to change their contribution habits, and work behind the scenes to stop the extremism. Business needs to be forced to align with stable economics good for working people and bad for extremism.
Problem
Business in no small way is responsible for the current political dysfunction.
Let me clear up my comment a little. Creating disincentives for businesses to support extremism would be important, whether we are talking about Citizen's United via the government or boycotts through independent action. These changes occur and democrats stock response seems to be to focus on the race for president. What about local races? Mayors, county commissioners and school board members are the farm team for higher office throughout the land.
I will agree that big business is remodeling the system for their benefit. But let's also be clear that not all businesses agree that this is good, not even all the big ones. So recognizing that there are businesses, probably even several billionaires, that don't like what is happening and realize that a shrinking middle class is bad for everyone. Are they being courted? No. They are being told they are evil and part of the problem and would they please go away.
This is a mistake. Dismissing ALL of them as a problem is an error in judgement. Probably even dismissing most of them is a mistake. Your local businesses, and even many larger state businesses are probably prone to donate and support liberal causes. But if we tell them to go away because we don't like what they've done with the place when they weren't the ones decorating is assumptive, presumptuous and self-defeating. We need every ally we can get right now, and we should be working to create a playing field where business wins by doing the right thing.
My only question is this: who is dismissing them? I keep hearing that. And why are they internalizing that legend? And just as I heard that people spit on 'Nam Vets, nobody ever spit on me. I never saw any of it, although I've heard loads >about< it. But I certainly didn't internalize >any< of it, chalking it up to just more "Hanoi Hannah" horse-s##t. Sure, there were protests. Things got so out of hand that student protesters at Kent State were shot to death on campus. If someone spit on the shooters, that comes as no surprise. But I never saw de-mobbed vets being greeted at the airport by spitting hoards, as the jive-arse of the times would have had me believe. My perception is that legend of dismissal you mention is political propaganda of >these< times. The >real< question - IMO - concerns why the targets of that propaganda are buying into it.
I cannot but agree that Gingrich was the "Francis Urquhart" of the time - a power behind their cowboy actor front-man. What you say about the Great War part II cohesiveness sort of reflects what I used to say during the ramp-down from 'Nam: An army at peace is invariably at war with itself.
At least find some way of convincing them to stop voting >clearly< against their own interest. I had that discussion with Dad over beers at the Amvets years ago. He could only regurgitate slogans, and couldn't - for the life of him - explain to me what the devil they were supposed to mean. I see that very same phenomenon in the Jordan Klepper interviews at ol' Tweety's rallies, as well as his 1/6 at the Capitol interviews. What is it about those slogans that switches off people's higher brain functions?
I would add that our Attorney General must enforce the Rule of Law & hold all responsible (even the rich & powerful) for the 1/6 insurrection, fully accountable. The rich & powerful must also pay their fair share. "Dumb people do not pay taxes", but moral responsible citizens do. We must reduce income & wealth inequality, because in a more just economy ALL citizens can better flourish, & our national economy grows even more. I would also urge all responsible citizens to support the poorpeoplescampaign.org. We can preserve our democratic republic, from the bottom up. I do not respect any businessman "employer" who does not pay his employees a living wage.
I also have a question corollary to my question concerning the meaning of Republican slogans. It concerns that "despair and humiliation" of those "40 percent just above" the bottom 10%, you mention. What the devil is the humiliation - in particular - all about.
The desperation is a function of all that "right to life" they're encouraged to enjoy. The more mouths, the smaller the larder. There's the desperation. Period. And down goes the pay scale! Unless there's some kind of "lebensraum" someone's conning them into collectively believe is coming. Of course, they end up disproportionately voting against their own interest at every turn at that promise, these days - and may have always done so. I suspect that all goes back to the union busting that was initiated under Reagan - their favoritest, mostest, bestest cowboy actor.
Or is it that "winner/loser" language that's the source of their humiliation? Does it come from that "Make America Great Again" language, the slogan humiliating them into embracing that they weren't good enough - i.e. losers - to make or keep America great in the first place? Are they humiliated by their own choices as to who runs the country in the first place - as they continue to make the same kinds of choices for the same kinds of reasons?
To me, such a belief system is a fair description of a living hell. Extrapolate that into a belief in a heavenly paradise as a payoff for all the desperation and pain, it's not a big logical leap to conclude that to them - ultimately - they'd be better off dead - even if not consciously. That is indeed the ultimate message of any doctrine touting a heavenly paradise. Particularly when you're held to be guilty of and condemned for simply being alive in the first place - the >only< original sin.
I'm all for simply striving to make life bearable, if imperfectly livable, for the greatest number of all currently living human souls. Now if I knew how to do that - it stands to reason - I wouldn't be simply sitting here on my can idealizing about it! But, as the message at the very end of Peter Sellers' final film "Being There" boldly proclaims: "Life is but a state of mind." The Republicans appear to have mastered the ability to mold that state of mind, just as the riverboat gambler I mention elsewhere deals cards.
As far as elite intellectualism in the Democratic party, are they collectively smart enough to realize they're playin' poker with professional riverboat gamblers? You know, the legendary kind of Wild West gamblers who mastered "the art of the deal" so well that they could "deal" you any hand of cards that suits them? And having a set of dice loaded for any occasion - or proposition? And a roulette wheel so designed that it can magnetically - or charismatically - deflect the little steel ball away from any number you lay your money on - that is, any political objective? How do you speak reason to that? Is it any wonder they worship ol' Tweety - the "art of the deal"-er himself. Where do we find a "New Deal"-er when we most need one?
Agreed.
The election of Trump has shown our Constitution does not protect us from unethical and unprincipled Presidents and their Congressional enablers.
So the question is, how can we prevent this from happening. The answer, imho, is through Party Rules. The Democratic Party must take the lead on this.
Like to know what you think of this.
Can you elaborate please? Thank you!
There would be no President Trump if there was no Republican Candidate Trump!
Though it is the Constitutional right for any American to run for President, there is no Constitutional right to run as a Republican or Democrat.
The major political parties can set their own Party Rules as to what their requirements are for their candidates. They could, for example, require their candidates to make full financial disclosures (including release of tax returns), void all NDAs relating to their morality, and submit detailed financial divestment plans that can automatically be trigered if they should be elected President. Thus assuring the country of a candidate qualified to be President.
The Democratic Party can take the lead on this! And through a mass media advertizing campaign during an election year challenge the Republican Party to do the same!
This would make a sharp contrast with Republicans who would put Party over Country!
I love this! Thank you for explaining.
It is the most simple direct and immediate solution to our critical problem of Trumpism. All other problems, like conditions that create Trumpism, can over time be solved by Democratic policies.
To quote an article 1/4/2022 by The Guardian: "It would be entirely possible for the United States to implement a modern electoral system, to restore the legitimacy of the courts, to reform its police forces, to root out domestic terrorism, to alter its tax code to address inequality, to prepare its cities and its agriculture for the effects of climate change, to regulate and to control the mechanisms of violence. All of these futures are possible". However, watch the movie: "Don't Look Up". The comet is coming. American politicians refuse to look up. They seem quite busy watching football, the Kardashian clan and going on vacations.
You're absolutely right, Cecelia. It's a matter of public and political will. In 2009, for example, the Obama administration considered a $1 trillion stimulus package impossible. Within the first year of the pandemic, the Trump and Biden administrations and Congress had authorized nearly $6 trillion in spending. John Maynard Keynes was right when he declared during World War II that anything we can actually do, we can afford. The real challenge is and has always been to agree what we want to do.
Politicians are looking at reelection and fundraising instead of up; too much of the public is engaged in the false importance of games and entertainment. (I love mine too but not to the exclusion of civic engagement!)
And, they had their escape pod on the ready…
Sound familiar?
YES, Just watched it. Politicians and media keep us smoke sedated as a nation.
If we don’t go after fox news the way we went after and pressured FB, Twitter we will be discussing facts and the republican cult conspiracy-world-view will outright reject those facts. There has to be a common set of facts to have a debate or discussion. We need to address the fact that Fox News is allowed to operate even though they verifiably lie and incite anger and violence. We’ve had 40 years of their republican sponsored garbage. Their cult leader, 45, is a criminal with a list a mile long. There is overwhelming evidence that he incited the deadly coup attempt and held off help for the capital police. We need action on this or we will conclude no one in politics is on our side when the highest crime is committed against us. The disgraceful Jan 6th murder rampage is coming up. Commemorate Jan 6 by multiple indictments, arrests and in the case of military personnel joining it, court marshal, remove any future benefits. These people are traitors to our country.
Seaking Reason. The right has Fox. The left has CNN. Both propaganda.
No, incorrect. CNN is owned ultimately by AT&T they may sound left leaning but they do not report a lot of info we need to know, ABC owned by Walt Disney Co, NBC-Comcast , Fox - Murdock, Sinclair. PBros w/ close ties to Trump owns 294 tv stations. Koch owns Time magazine, most newspaper are owned by the right. There is no ownership by the left of the largest conglomerates. They are small, privately funded and don’t have nearly the reach of the dominant stations. This is monopolistic control of airwaves….and very dangerous!
Seeking Reason ; At least we have forums like this.
Something to be grateful for! There are also great smaller left wing media, funded by listeners, Amy Goodman- Democracy Now! , Alternet.org, several more on Free Speech tv
Seeking Reason ; Absolutely! Seek and we shall find, and thanks for the link! As I age I have to work harder to remember where to find these gems.
It’s unfortunate that we have to research for quality reporting! But at least it’s out there!
@Laurie. It is just that on here we are basically talking to ourselves...
Benjamin R Stockton ; If you or anyone has information to enlighten me on any things I post, please do. I have seen posts that accuse this forum of being an echo chamber. I don't think so, because I have learned things here that I did not know before. It's great.
@Laurie. It's a great forum for building alignment and learning from others of similar inclination. What we are not doing here is reaching folks who voted for Trump. How to do that is a big 'wonder how' for me...
The days of Walter Cronkite and true journalism is gone in America. What we have now is left and right propaganda.
All major media is owned by the right. This is not an equal sided issue at all.
Seeking Reason. Here is what I do. I am an Independent. I don't vote for the party but for the person running. I watch, read and listen to both sides of all issues. I flip between all the news stations on TV. It can be hysterical listening to what they individually report on the same subject matter. After I digest most of the propaganda and as an educated, wise human I make my own decisions. I was chair person for a PAC in my community. We were non partisan. We accomplished very little. We could never bring the two sides together. I eventually quit. No reason to beat our heads against a wall.
Cecilia, unfortunately the vast majority of Americans don’t do as you do. They pick their favorite network or BS artist and fall hook, line and sinker for everything that network/person says.
Ceceelia Jernegan ; United we stand, divided we fall. That is why democracy is so messy. and sometimes hysterical, frustrating and even scary.
I agree with the first part of what you said including that I have become an independent de facto although supporting mostly Dems and remaining registered as one so I can vote in PA primaries. However, I can see lots of reasons to "beat our heads against a wall" or go around or under or over it or something else as wisely and effectively as we can.
Seeking Reason ; I have watched Amy Goodman off and on for decades. In the past, before all the social media sites, it was hard to get 'Democracy Now'. Late anti war, anti nuclear activist, Frances Crowe,(who recently passed away at age 100) managed to get' Democracy Now!' on a local pubic television and later, radio. All I could think of was 'Radio Free Europe'. We need "Social media free America'.
😀at least a break to get up to speed on regulations etc
Perhaps I should’ve said that it’s like saying there are bad people on both sides.
Cecelia, That is like saying there are good people on both sides.
Either way you put it, we have an all-right-wing owned media, and the republicans, attempted a coup and killed people, the republican party has blocked investigations every inch of the way. Because of money in politics, we will find corruption in parts of the Dem party too. But nothing compares and I wouldn’t consider a Republican ever again outside of the few who have openly spoken against the obvious deadly insurrection. The republican party needs to be replaced or drastically reorganized. I’m with you on either way of saying it…good people on both sides is what Trump says about people waving confederate flags and chanting The Jews Will not replace us! 🙄🤦🏻
I’ve realized lately in trying to have intelligent conversations about politics, that most Americans (both sides) are unwilling or incapable of being completely honest about what they don’t know or understand. It’s like there’s an epidemic of the inability to say “I don’t know”. There is also an epidemic of people who can’t or won’t say “I’m wrong” or “I’m sorry”. For me, this is what is leading us to civil war. If I couldn’t say to my longterm friends or my wife, “I’m so sorry. I was wrong. I will do everything I can to make sure I don’t repeat that mistake”, I’d be divorced and alone…. Being wrong and making mistakes has made me better. I’ve learned far more from my mistakes than my successes. But, for me, this is THE #1 reason this country is imploding. Both sides, when discussing politics, without taking the time and discipline to study and deeply understand an issue like voting rights, or vaccines or fill-in-the-blank, they shove their uninformed but unwavering, self righteous opinions as if it’s true knowledge. Again, this is both sides. No one, and I do mean 100% of everyone I know or have met, will say, “you know what, I haven’t taken the time to understand what’s in the Build Back Better bill to have a clear opinion on it.” So, as a result of this lack of vulnerability and honesty, we have both sides at verbal and emotional war. I spent a lot of my life being self-involved and incapable of being wrong and apologizing, so I get it. What changed for me was getting in therapy and my shrink saying, “Gina, you’re full of shit” and me not firing her but stopping to listen and then forcing myself to pull my head out of my ass”… Age has also mellowed me out. (I’m 59) I find as I get older, I don’t operate from my ego as much, thank god… The point is, most of this country is intellectually lazy, uninformed, unapologetic but unabashedly belligerent about things they have no deep understanding about. Until we can all put down our pride and egos and self-righteous opinions, to stop, listen, and say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”, there will be war. - I often wonder if the masses who backed Nixon during Watergate ever said, “I was wrong about him”. - My last point leading me to believe that Civil War is unavoidable is the complete lack of inaction. I have many friends who do understand the critical condition our democracy is in, but they are doing absolutely nothing. I remind them that big changes happened when people stood together - women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage etc… Still, they do nothing and I stand at Voter’s Rights rallies with 50 other people in a state with 30 million people. (Texas) Again, it makes me wonder if Germans who watched their Jewish friends and neighbors taken away and did nothing, look back and say, “if we all had all stood up and done something, the Holocaust never would have happened”. I keep saying this to everyone I know or meet. The inaction combined with the lack of civic responsibility combined with the lack of knowledge and true understanding combined with emotional immaturity and belligerence is making me believe I need to leave this country that I have loved and once felt so proud of. America and Americans are unrecognizable to me now. I wish I knew what to do. I’m trying but failing… I do believe we are headed into a Civil War. The ONLY thing that could save us is a strong leader like a Susan B. Anthony or an MLK to bring us together. I wish Stacey Abrams or someone like her could lead us out of this dark place in history….
Gina, I'll comment more later this morning. Just wanted to thank you for this. America does need the equivalent of a shrink.
Yes, a non-violent mass movement that spells out policies that will unmistakenly economically and socially improve the lives of every American, and a no uncertain reminder to all that lies and violence in the pursuit of the political process WILL NOT GO UNPUNISHED, personally or corporately.
Exactly!!!!! Thank you so much for this!
Gina, Though I appreciated much of your commentary, I believe we must resist the yearning ( albeit understandable) for a strong leader to save us. Such yearning at a moment like this is to ask someone else to solve our problems, ask someone else to do it for us. I would add that right now we Americans and many of our friends around the world are sitting and waiting and watching. And so I ask, “What are we waiting for?” Because in a democracy it’s us that have to become engaged in ways that initially might not seem particularly impactful. But collectively, and over time, history has shown that our engagement, our energy, our caring, our work can make a meaningful difference.
Gina Fant-Simon ; There's Letitia James, for starters. Others like her and like you, who care.
Remarkable to think you have met everyone in the United States and heard them all arguing! I am fortunate to live in a region of the country where people are making organized efforts to talk with each other. Christmas and Thanksgiving weren’t easy in my family, but none of us were talking nonsense and all of us read the papers. I don’t watch TV though— maybe that’s where “all Americans” are talking BS? Also I don’t live in Texas—which btw is not America. You might try moving to another of the 50 states before going into exile.
PS I don’t mean that Texas isn’t American! Just that it doesn’t represent the whole country.
There is still time to recruit moderate candidates for 2024 to depolarize our country, but maybe we can't rely on either party's leadership to do it, or to support them.
I want to see several high profile Democrats create a fund to counter Rep. lies. This could be managed by a few talented PR folks. Messages should be high impact, visual ( billboards), and clever but very obvious. I think millions of concerned citizens would be eager to financially support this endeavor. And, if a saturation campaign began soon, it might counter the Republican lies in the next election.
Jeanette, several attempts have been made. You might remember Al Gore's attempt to create a left-wing network. MSNBC is a kind of attempt in the same direction. But it's very difficult. Anger, lies, provocation, conspiracy theories -- mostly directed at working people who voted for Trump -- attract more eyeballs than dispassionate news. My sense is that MSNBC and the progressive left media could do far better if they focused on the oligarchy -- on its abuses of power, corruption, corporate welfare, and how it shafts the working class -- in other words, the real story of the power structure in America. That would be powerful, provocative, and truthful.
I suspect their corporate overlords won't let them. Overlords only want them to cover the squabbles on the playground.
I would think satire might play well. After all, SNL is still going. Information in this format might be easier to swallow and more popular.
Yes, Don’t Look Up is a brilliant example. If you haven’t seen it yet, DO!
Robert, I don't disagree in any way with your insight that the corporate power structure is a massive obstruction to what needs to get done in the world. What I'm concerned with however is the core of that core problem which is the human civilization long dominance of everyone and every commercial entity that isn't operating hand in glove with that core problem, namely Finance and its monetary and financial paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of money.
Integrate the new monetary paradigm of Gifting into the debt only based system in a way that 1) starkly benefits all legitimate economic agents both commercial and individual, 2) isolates Finance as the underlying problem and 3) also uses both a carrot and stick taxation means of herding corporate powers with global reach.
The means of doing this could be 1) tandem 50% discount/rebate policies at the point of retail sale and a 50% debt jubilee at the point of loan signing, and 2) tax cuts of 50% for all businesses who do not inflate their prices, but compete and innovate on price, and 3) SEVERE, as in a 100% rate of taxation, on any revenue garnered from arbitrary price rises unjustified by ACTUAL OVERALL costs. After all, in a fiat monetary system like we actually have, we only need reasonable taxation rates that guarantee commercial compliance with the law...and yet the sovereign power to make damned good and sure that such a reasonable system is not gamed.
I hasten to point out that 1) a 50% discount/rebate policy at retail sale immediately doubles everyone's purchasing power (as in making even a minumum wage of $7.35/hr able to purchase at a rate of $14.70/hr) and 2) also doubles the potential demand for every enterprise's goods and services (but will only raise it mostly for the poor and unemployed because everyone is not going to eat twice as much as they did before or go out and buy twice as many shoes as they have been buying).
I also hasten to point out that a 50% debt jubilee at the point of loan signing will 1) not only enable a $400k house that has been reduced to $200k by the discount/rebate policy at retail sale (yet the home building corporation gets their full price with the rebate aspect of the policy) becomes $100k with the 50% debt jubilee policy. The ancients utilized periodic debt jubilees to reset and stabilize their economies and social systems. Integrate debt jubilee directly into the economic process with a 50% reduction at the point of loan signing and it will permanently stabilize the economy, and the graciously beneficial effects of the above policies will put the lie to the irrational generalization of conservative/libertarian economists that the government is always the problem.
Implement monetary grace as in gifting into the economy...and the social system will awaken to peace...instead of rebellion.
I agree that we simply cannot let Fox "News" continue to spew lies without any consequence, but I'm at a loss as to what to do about it. I'm not sure that asking the American people to fund a campaign against these lies is going to succeed. As a recent article I read pointed out, there have been no consequences/punishment for most of the insurrectionists and for Drumpf because of a lack of a mechanism by which to do so. I believe that our sane Congressional members need to do more than merely investigate; they need to make more noise, be louder in their call for accountability. We "good guys" need to be louder than they are and fight back with everything we do have before resorting to a civil war.
Any communications company that fails to serve a higher public purpose can have its license revoked. The FCC should close FOX down....but regulatory agencies have no guts and are largely captured by industry.
Agreed, but I would close down ALL the cable news channels. They were complicit in the rise of Trump and Trumpism with the large amount of free publicity they gave him and his ideas, even when attacking them. Bring back the good non-partisan accurate TV news reporting of Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite. In my opinion, CPAN is the only honest news channel left in the US.
Sally Nedelcovych ; We do have the law, which is starting to move, finally! Also, it may be prudent not to tip their hand and get louder. Being provocative could precipitate actions that can't win. Patience is hard and we are all scared. But evidence is plentiful. I agree that we all should call, email, demand, and give as much support to those who are working on solving the problem. DFA(Democracy For America), along with our A.G. We don't need to denigrate him and those who are working on this Jan 6th panel.
I agree with you about not "denigrating" our A.G.; however, I see no reason for us to remain silent. In fact, I think all of us pro-Democracy/American Constitution people should be out in the streets peacefully protesting what happened on January 6! We did it for Civil Rights in the 60's and for LGBT rights and against the Vietnam War. Why should we not exercise our right to peacefully protest? And our leaders should be encouraging it, I think. The only tools we have are our right to vote and our freedom to demonstrate peacefully - both things that Repugnants are trying to take away from us.
The problem with "peaceful" protests in today's world is that some idiots keep turning them into riots with looting, fighting, and sadly, people getting hurt. Fox News loves this -- they can "prove" to their audience that left wing protesters are bad people who want to hurt you. On the other hand, right wing protesters who riot are "good" people.
Boycotts, massive letter-writing campaigns, PR stunts. There are lots of possibilities.
Paula B. I like the idea of massive citizen lawsuits or class action suits against Fox 'News'. the letter writing and even phoning representatives may put pressure on them too.
Tim Baldwin ; Very true that protesting today is a perilous undertaking. there are too many guns, and a lot of people who don't hesitate to get violent. Some are most likely hired; an old anti union trick used in the 60's against anti war protesters.
Sally Nedelcovych ; I have impatiently denigrated or criticized our A.G. in recent posts suggesting that he is semicomatose, and other remarks out of frustration and do not apply this to your comment. Two things that work against this 70 year old woman for the demonstrating idea are 1. It's cold outside, and two, the pandemic is surging where I live. The lawsuit against Fox is interesting idea, but I do not know any lawyers, nor do I have money. I would give what I can to a crowdsourcing effort, though.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Texas abortion law with its vigilantism provision, there shouldn’t be any reason that private citizens couldn’t sue Fox News etc. for damages. Funding could be crowd sourced. Not that I think that law is a good idea—it’s vile—but why not take advantage of what exists for *our* purposes?
Interesting
Robert and friends, I begin with a letter I sent to national newspapers two days ago:
Media alarmism at the exact moment we need responsibility and calm
To the editor:
On print media websites and live broadcasts on Jan. 2 (and undoubtedly the front page of newspapers on Jan. 3)—four days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Insurrection—the national media trumpet uncritically and alarmingly the results of a University of Maryland/Washington Post opinion survey of only 1000 respondents that suggests that an apparently high percentage of respondents support political violence against government under certain unspecified circumstances. A yet to be detailed CBS survey supposedly supports this “finding.”
Knowledgeable readers and serious journalists must object strongly and loudly. This is irresponsible reporting on a sensitive current issue of great concern. It demands care and informed consideration. To begin, the sample size is small (the “margin of error” percentage is statistically irrelevant given the sample size); second, the reporters provide no information on the composition of the sample population.
Third, the reporters do not examine the wording of the questions and the contradictory readings of answers to them. Importantly, in certain circumstances, there may be legitimate, even constitutional grounds for a popular uprising against the government in power. This is hardly a question of the Big Lie alone. Finally, as previously, reporters ignore or have forgotten the results of a revealing September poll that indicated that at least 56% of admitted Trump voters felt overwhelming pressure not to reveal their current thinking about the results of the 2020 election, the Insurrection, and the Big Lie.
Alarmism is journalistic malpractice.
We face huge problems as I have argued here previously. But exaggerating them and talking a Civil War is both wrong headed and an inadequate historical analogy. The US in 2020-today does not compare with 1858-1860-65. No way. Despite TX and FL "seceding from reality" as I have just written (https://columbusfreepress.com/article/busting-myths-texas-and-florida-secede-reality-ohio-imitates), no one is seceding from the US. There is no bombing of a federal fort. Etc Etc.
We must do better and think knowledgeably about TODAY. and tomorrow. The immediate threat is individual gun-toking crazed individuals facilitated by Rep State Legis who can't read the Second Amendment (or First Amendment either) who may attack. Not by the daily diminishing Trumpists.
Agree completely. Alarmism about a "civil war" may sell newspapers but it debases what Americans need to be talking about right now.
Robert did you see this? https://www.patreon.com/posts/commandos-at-60731013?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=postshare
Three former generals believe there is a possibility and I’m sure there is…a possibility. But News also talks about, IF THE DEMS LOSE 2020!…We should turn this around and say many voters no longer stand by Trump, we’re going to see the blue wave! Companies have vouched not to donate to republicans involved in the deadly insurrection.
The republicans kick around Dems even when we clearly win. Time to change the voices in our heads. One news station said Jan 6th riot….NO don’t let them do that. Every time you talk about it, refer to it as a deadly coup attempt, deadly sedition, domestic terrorist deadly attack. People died! We must repeat this adnauseum.
Ye: but the large corps and esp Silicon Valley are not honoring their promises. Their proverbial feet must be held to the FIRES. The OpEd writers should turn to that instead of misreading limited polls
Boycotts.
Yes, they are not honoring their promises, but they are not people. These entities need to be brought down to an acceptable level through laws and fines for dealing that are shady, that harm. Once again, the OpEd writers are highly influenced by the Media giants that own them and the Media outlets. The media giants are vastly Republican and Red
Seeking Reason ; Or they call it a 'protest' or a 'riot'. three former generals (three blind mice?) Where were they in the buildup to Jan 6th? I knew something was up just listening to the orangeutan in his constant comments about being president 'for life', or when responding to reporters questions on how he will respond if he doesn't win. Why would they ask that anyway? Asking 'would you accept the result' like they were interviewing a prize fighter or something. It's almost like the media have screenwriters and some of these pols follow a script!
Laurie, I’m surprised at you. Orangutans are very nice animals. Please don’t slur them like that. 😀
Agree! I once called Trump a pig, then immediately apologized to pigs around the globe. I use monster instead….(no offense to monsters!) 😄
Paula B. Haha, If they understood English language, they would get it, I bet! and agree. Sorry orangutans! He really is not as nice as they are.
Ahh, the rays of your nourishing sun, gives rise to my aching mind. My mind and soul agree with you totally. You are correct.
I concur. What is going on? This hysteria has got to stop! People, people, once we start something of a civil war magnitude, there will be no way out until millions die or are harmed. That could mean you or your children or loved ones. We don't want to go there. We should not back down either. If we do go to Civil War, we will leave ourselves open for other countries to join the fight against us. If they side with the Reds, OMG, God forbid. Are a whole bunch of lies and bullying going to pull us down into killing and all the worst stuff on earth?
👏👏👏
I'm glad you've also noticed that "freedom from law" aspect of those "law and order" types. I've banged on about that concerning the Banana Republicans for years! Face it. They're only criminal if their criminality is against the law. >That's< the kind of law & order they have in mind. And don't get me started on their "rule of law" horse-s##t. The phrase "rule of law" wasn't even on the radar until Bush Sr brought it up in a stump speech. Why? It never >needed< to be. It was an assumption. Then what was he trying to justify?
I also like your observation on how TX is against respecting its obligations as a member state of the nation - until they need what they would themselves characterize as a "bail-out." That's why I greatly admired Cuomo for telling McConnell which orifice he could shove his "blue state bail-out" language up, pointing out the blue states are net contributors while red states are net beneficiaries - or to use "banana-speak," parasites. I just knew Cuomo would get swatted down, and - predictably - he did. Nevertheless, if he were to run for president, I'd still vote for him. Whatever his imperfections, they aren't even in the same league with ol' Tweety's. Besides, he'd go in knowin' what the hell he was doing from day 1.
Something else you pick up on in the article is that whole "negative freedom" nonsense. I've associated that kind of language with The Third Reich since I was a schoolboy. And let me tell you this: whether you agree or not, it began with "smoke free." Further, it was the inflection point at which the CDC and the medical community began losing its credibility. That includes seat-belt and helmet laws, which further exacerbated the issue. I've >yet< to see any convincing data suggesting that the "second hand smoke" issue is harmful to anything but a vanishing minority of the population. Belay your outrage on that comment until you put it side-by-side with the current trend to disbelieve demonstrably hard numbers concerning the pandemic. And don't get me started about Soviet-sounding "political correctness."
As an aside, I like your observation concerning the TX prohibitions attempted by the party that - in the '90s or thereabouts - stridently supported the notion of "home rule!" It's home rule for the Banana party. For anyone else, not so much.
The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example of weak readers "interpreting" the law. The 2nd Amendment comes from a time when each state provided its own military force. Indeed, as late as the Civil War, the regimental designations were by state. People BYOB'd with their own weapons. If you suspect that's BS, I cite the existence of the National Guard in each state as a throwback to that tradition. I'll grant without question every guardsman's constitutional right to bear weapons. Everyone else, not so much. >Every< other justification is a tawdry, self-serving lie. That's >especially< true of the "Jeffersonian" - so ascribed - justification that the public needs to be armed in case they need to overthrow a tyrannical regime. That lie has been around since >before< my formative years, and could have only originated from a Confederate mouth - as history is my witness. (What could possibly go wrong - in case one asks ‽) As far as the NRA slogan "If guns are against the law, only criminals will have guns" is concerned, that's >exactly< right. That's a bit like saying "Where murder is against the law, only criminals will murder!" Unpack all that with respect to my opening comment on "freedom from law." I can recognize a >single< loophole. It would otherwise be possible to arrest, detain, charge, and incarcerate anyone you don't particularly like on a weapons charge for a pocket knife - or even clenched fists.
As a final comment on your article, I think the non-hetero community should pipe down a bit and consolidate any gains they've made. I think it's a tactical error to rub the majority hetero noses in gayness. They're not ready for that - and it provides ammunition for the "banana bin" Republicans. If you consider that a homophobic thing to say, let me respectfully disagree and urge you to consider it with respect to the truth you face. I have no dog in that fight, and couldn't care less what goes on between/among consenting adults, as long as I'm not dragged into it - and that applies to >any< activity >anyone< would otherwise foist upon me, including, but not limited to, goin' to friggin' church!
“Law and order” is a racist code phrase.
Paula B. Yes, and it 'sanitizes' W.'s 'win' by the electoral college when he did not get the majority vote. Our most recent former 'winner' can say the same. that he 'won' the Presidency. There are many illegitimate phrases out there.
Right on!
They are also ignorant of the US Constitution. See https://www.google.com/search?q=graff+testing+for+democracy+inside+higher+education&rlz=1C1GCEV_en&oq=Graff+Testing&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i10i22i30.5334j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Also unable to read
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/columns-and-blogs/soapbox/article/88195-harvey-j-graff-examines-the-history-of-book-banning.html
Thanks for your critical eye on statistical sampling. Well done. Good on your observation concerning the reading of The Constitution - or for that matter, any other "holy" document - by "the undereducated" that ol' Tweety and the Banana Republicans claim to embrace, but would never be caught dead hob-nobbing with.
Thank you. have a look at https://columbusfreepress.com/article/busting-myths-my-new-year%E2%80%99s-wish-list
I'm not a statistician, economist, political scientist, or legal scholar. But I am a concerned historian . . . I ask only that we read critical, compare reports, and avoid alarmism while remaining vigilant. am I asking too much? I don't know . . . .
I'd like to. However, my security software flags that site as having a security issue. You might mention that to the site web master.
The editor separately discovered that issue yesterday. It disappeared later and was fine the rest of the day. Their webmaster is working on it. Pls try again later.
Willdo!
Graff, Harvey ; You certainly are thorough, but not all citizens have the education that you have had. Take the second hand smoke 'political correctness'. In my early childhood I had a father who smoked like a chimney. Living in the Northeast, our apartment was sealed up in the winter, our car windows were rolled up and there were no air conditioners. I had chronic bronchitis as a kid. Also, I believe I had an addiction to nicotine. I was sent to the store at age 7 to buy cigarettes. Eventually got some for myself. I smoked for years, and am glad that I quit a long time ago. there was no quantification or verification of the damage done to my lungs, nervous system or body in general. I think exposing any one, especially a small child to second hand smoke is child abuse. It is not 'political correctness' to push back on second hand smoke IMO. There is a good reason to not like it.
Indeed. I have the same kind of background. But prohibiting smoking outside??? Really??? I was completely behind smoking and non-smoking sections indoors, rather than the clear attempt to socially ostracize smokers wielding all social, political, economic, and legal sanctions in an utterly misguided attempt to force smokers to quit. I'm >not< hospitable on that issue one bit - not one bit at all. Indeed, the other side of the coin, there is no way to adequately express the depth of my >utter contempt< with the whining cry-babies waling on and on, being precocious about their freedom, protesting otherwise sound public health policy in the midst of a goddam pandemic! I just heard the term "flu-vid" on the news to characterize what's coming down the pike at us all next. How 'bout the freedom >from< being infected - as long as we're speaking in "negatory" freedoms - with a deadly contagion by some wanker waving a flag and blowing his/her un-deflected breath on us all as they shout "freedom" through their filthy mouths ‽ I >truly< hope you can distinguish the difference.
DZK ; I was mostly fixated on cigarette smoking. As far as the pandemic goes, It seems crazy to push back against health experts when facing a deadly disease like Covid. I and my husband are fully vaxxed and boosted. We have a daughter who was against flu shots even before the pandemic. But I do not like cigarette smoke when I walk out of a place and people are in the doorway smoking. If they are outdoors and a distance away, it's tolerable. I hate to see, smell cigarettes on anyone, especially the young. Fortunately, it is not as pervasive where I live now. I studied respiratory therapy in my 20's and know how destructive smoking is. I was addicted for a significant time of my life, like many in my generation. So glad I finally quit. My grown kids do not smoke.
We each of us live in our unique private hells. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean the "smoke free" issue was not an inflection point helping to careen us into the situation we face today - and >that's< the point I intended to make, regardless of my antipathy for said anti-smoking policies calculated to force smokers to quit - or your apparent embrace of same.
Historian is really good. A life-long friend of mine, a Native American who incidentally lives in TX, is a retired history prof and disaffected Republican, with whom I'm in regular contact. She has finally come to realize that when I told her "these people are >not< your friends," I exaggerated nothing. I appreciate people having a perspective greater than the life-span of a fruit fly.
Amazing article!!! Thank you for posting that!
I only have one thing to say about this article: WOW! Well done! (Although, as I'm always want to point out: "the devil's in the detail." ];-)>)
Graff, Harvey ; Good points! I'm glad you sent it to two National papers.
If you haven't had a chance, or my revisions haven't been passed on, I've had further thoughts on the article at the link you provide in this particular post. They're my background thoughts as I read most of your major points.
Very well written. Wish everyone would read it all.
Thank you.
Thank you, I will take a look. Appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks for this.
I can understand. I am fearful but not alarmist. I long for the DOJ to speed up, and the Dem Party to grow up. And more action by advocacy groups and the courts at the State level. Let's support those activities and channel "alarmism" :)
I agree that the Dems must grow up. We have better ideas and believe in facts. The dems need to go more on the offensive or we will continue to lose at the polls.
Einstein, one of history's greatest thinkers once said, a problem of this magnitude & division can only be solved by a higher level of consciousness than the one that created it. I look to moral philosophy or religion as the "higher level of consciousness". Republicans, who now think like nihilists can not solve these problems. I would rather be approximately right, than definitely wrong.
Brian Book ; Wasn't Einstein part of the Manhattan project? He helped to develop the atomic bomb. That doesn't seem too forward thinking to me.
Einstein was a pacifist. His only involvement with the Manhattan Project was, on the urging of others, to send a letter to FDR that the Germans could likely pursue a nuclear weapon. Your remark would seem to represent an unhelpful excursion into the cancel culture.
I'm not a member of the cancel culture. I read long ago that Einstein was involved with the Manhattan project and that he had the brains to understand the physics involved. I admit I have not delved into any writings or explored to see if there is any information on his role. Another of the scientists who developed the bomb later committed suicide, I believe. Please don't so quickly label and dismiss people. that seems unhelpful and cancelling, too.
Einstein did not choose to use the atomic bomb. It was dropped by a poor decisional process. Are you seriously going to question the brilliance of Einstein? If you do, respectfully criticize his thinking in accordance with the Rules of Academic Engagement.
Brian Book ; I have never questioned the brilliance of Albert Einstein, although his early instructors thought him 'slow'. If he did help to develop the atomic bomb, it may have occurred to him and the Manhattan Project team that it had extreme destructive power. As to my respect of the 'Rules of Academic Engagement', I don't see that you can impose them on me for asking any valid question. Are you seriously going to question my right to ask a brilliant question?
When almost half our nation has eschewed reality, morality and the rule of law, the results are inevitable: civil war (maybe) or total social, philosophical and moral separation (certainly). I think we are in the beginning stages of real civil war. Never mind about the Russian or Chinese threats; They won't do anything rash, because any external threats would unite us. All they have to do is sit and watch us commit suicide. I believe that the South actually won the Civil War; it's just taking us a long time to realize it.
Eugene Abravanel ; Civil War is an oxymoron. Nobody can 'win' it, IMO. One side may dominate or overcome the other. I'm not thinking that being dominated is really winning.
Laurie Blair: I don't disagree with what you said. However, when I say "Civil" (War), I mean a war internal to a nation, not civil in sense of being logical and courteous. I also think that if the "dominating" side (in a war) is successful in changing the hearts and minds of the other warring party, well, I call that winning.
Eugene Abravanel ; You have an interesting take on the 'Civil war', in that the big oil barons of the South and the big money have had influence in our politics and power structure, even though they lost the war, officially. America runs on money!
Truer words were never spuck!!
Ah, yes; civil war. Like O'Toole one shies away from talking about it for fear of it becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Prepare for it? How? How does one prepare for chaos? We can work to prevent it, however. And, the writers of today's comments offer some very good suggestions. I fear there is among our populace a notion that civil war is somehow romantic, indeed heroic-- FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS and all that fictional nonsense. We must work very, very hard to dispel them of that nonsensical view. In reality, civil war causes untold, unbelievable suffering to people and devastating destruction to property and civil order that compounds that suffering. I shudder to entertain the idea. To dispel, we will need to engage those hostile citizens who advocate for it either thru words or actions. A non-aggressive lead-in is "I see it a little differently" and then calmly but firmly tell them in no uncertain words how disruptive civil war is.
Agree. One small step all of us can take is to sit down with people who disagree with us politically, even within our own families, and reconnect. Don't start with the big stuff -- the labels, the big names, the provocative headlines, vaccinations. Start small -- with kitchen-table economic issues (jobs, costs of food and pharmaceuticals, costs of college and student loans) -- and establish some common concerns. Then build on that.
Often romanticized, the Spanish Civil War is perhaps the best-documented tale of complete social breakdown in modern western civilization (see George Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia”). The reality of the Franco years should provide a sobering wake up call to followers of the cult of Trump.
If we are to coexist, we must address racism and xenophobia, which always exist under the surface, ready to be exploited by unscrupulous plutocrats and politicians. According to an analysis I saw, the January 6 Capitol burglars, as I like to call them were most likely to come from counties that are rapidly diversifying, including some in which a majority voted for Biden. PBS Newshour did a report last night on a region of north Texas in which 35 people were arrested for their participation in the January 6 riot/burglary. Some cities in the region are among the fastest growing in the country, and the county in which they are located dropped from 63% white to 51% white in the past ten years. A Muslim woman who ran for City Council in 2020 was the target of relentless harassment and stereotyping lies. Unsurprisingly, she lost.
But, I point to my neighborhood of 460 homes as a sign of hope. It is demographically very diverse, with different races including at least two mixed-race couples, ethnicities, national origins, religions, a wide range of ages, and also political party affiliations. We also have a number of LGBT couples. During the 2020 election there were both Biden and Trump yard signs, and none was vandalized or stolen. We have made an effort to get along. One of my neighbors with whom I'm friendly is a partisan Republican, but we have worked together on hyperlocal issues in which we have a common interest. We even discuss politics sometimes without getting into an angry shouting match. So it is possible to get along, but it takes effort.
Unfortunately, the former guy used the enormous power and prestige of the presidency to promote divisiveness and to encourage violence. It will take awhile to undo that substantial damage. We need our current leaders to step up to repeatedly condemn divisiveness and violence. I also agree with other commenters that we need to do something about right wing media that use deceit and deception to foment anger and promote animosity.
Carolyn, I'm encouraged by what you say about your community. One of the trends of recent decades that's particularly distressing is how we've divided ideologically by geography. Most of us live in places where just about all our neighbors agree with us politically.
Having participated in this forum for a few weeks now, I could not help but notice that the focus is very much on the Republican base's drift toward fascism. This is an undeniable fact but I think that it also needs to be put back in its proper context. In front of a blaze, firefighters do not worry at how high the flames are; they work at the level where the fire finds its combustible. One thing is Republican lawmakers with authoritarian tendencies, another is the combustible they find in disenfranchised, mostly white, poor, and under educated American people. Politicians and well-off people will support egregious views because they find a personal interest in doing so, whether it is to have their ego flattered or their bank account swelling up. They speak from a position of power. The Republican base, on the other hand, will adhere to the same views and vociferously support them because they themselves are lost and feel they need to scapegoat anyone who does not howl with the pack. As good firefighters, we should stop pointing at their madness and start taking care of what is causing it. This madness are the flames; they are impressive and can truly create chaos but they are also empty. Fox"news" and other propaganda outlets fan them as much as they can, yet the real cause of the fire, the combustible that fuels it, is the lack of politics geared toward the common good. Trumpists love their children too, at least the ones I have met, who are politically in cuckooland but humanly very kind persons. Bernie Sanders, of all people, believes in them. That is why he is not shy to explain his own views directly to them when he has the opportunity. That is the lesson, that is what we should do instead of running away in a panic because a bad draft of madness has seized the population. This draft can disappear as quickly as it flared up because it stands on nothing. So, let's not be impressed and let's get back in the proper perspective: fascism is not fought by taking its reasons seriously but by taking its causes seriously.
Agree.
That's why they embrace "the undereducated," as ol' Tweety made clear in a stump speech back in '16.
I regret the use of "undereducated" as it implies a meaning that is not the one I was trying to convey. What I meant is "with no college degree." Only Fox"news" can make you undereducated.
Thank you. My ears couldn't hear the dog whistle!
An interesting view ............. yes; and maybe you understand them better than I do ............
I think one should be aware of the "us vs. them" psychological trap we can all fall into. This sense of oddity toward one another, including members of the Trump cult, is a total delusion.
We need to force the issue. I honestly don’t believe a civil war can be avoided. While we have the power to do so we should get in front of it. Eliminate filibuster, protect voting rights. We are at war. Use everything we can to expose republicans as fascists. I have a neighbor that says BLM are responsible for January 6th. In other words she reserves the right to lie. She needs to be dealt with severely. There’s no negotiation. Racists narcissistic liars. Good luck negotiating with that trash. I’m not extremist but I can be when confronted. Ted Cruz is already planning to impeach Biden when they win mid terms. Has no interest in governing for the American people. They know what to do with power. We need to act. Biden also needs to forewarn the American people what’s coming. Number one issue. We are headed to a confrontation with fascism. Robert I don’t know about you but I’m looking forward to taking out the trash. Want to activate the Democrats and normal Americans, this is it. America reborn. It’s time
Robert, there is something "off" about all this foment: It is coming from the top, not the bottom. The agents-provocateurs are nicely suited and well coiffed. Most are on the public payroll or on the payroll of major media organizations. Yes, the angst they have whipped up in the public at large is real enough and dangerous.
But this is not revolution in the making - it is a putsch. A putsch originates inside the palace walls; a revolution comes from outside the palace walls. This is an astroturf putsch, not a grassroots revolution.
I agree that this careless talk about violence and civil war appears to be the product of the professional troublemakers in the rightwing and anti-social media, and surrounding Trump. I do what I can to get into the heartland (although the pandemic has restricted my travel), and I don't sense any risk of anything resembling civil war. But the rhetoric is intensifying, and that worries me.
I wish I could agree with Bob and Robert. I've spent most of my life in Southern states, and my family spans circles of Trump supporters to self-proclaimed anarcho-communists. I've heard very troubling statements from both sides. (Not that they are equivalent, but I think the only real difference is that the militant wing on the right has the power to excommunicate established representatives from a major political party who disagree with them, while I wouldn't say the militant wing on the left has any elected representatives who align with them). But I do think most commentators seem unaware of the numbers of self-proclaimed supporters of anarchy, communism, and violent resistance on the left among younger generations. (The most "mainstream" coverage I've seen of this was sympathetic reporting from the "Worst Year Ever" podcast of the protestors who intentionally targeted federal buildings to provoke and escalate conflicts with federal security forces in Portland. Although I also want to clarify that it seems like a small subset of protestors among those who participated in protests after George Floyd's death, from the little information I had, this subset seemed less intent on specific police reforms and seemed to genuinely view the protests as an opportunity to dismantle current governance and public safety systems, even if on a small scale.) While there is significant effort and money being spent to fan the flames on the right, the sense of resentment and fear I got from the conservatives in my family and workplaces has been replaced in recent years with a sense of fury and entitlement, a truly volatile combination. Yes, it is coming from the top, but it is also changing the truth on the ground. Even though I also don't envision anything on the scale of our prior civil war, I started worrying about the possibility of political violence on a larger scale after a very strange day at a gun shop and range where most of the people present were friendly and nonchalant while we were surrounded with threats to liberals, to specific politicians, to the world in general on every possible piece of merchandise, while I also heard a fully automatic weapon or bump stock firing on the range. The scariest part was how much these things were just part of the normal everyday baseline for the people there; none of it was strange or significant to them. I've lived with and worked with gun owners most of my life; this was not always normal. I started talking to my spouse about my worry about political violence after that day, feeling dramatic and paranoid for my response. Since then, this discussion brings the count to 2 books (https://bookshop.org/books/how-civil-wars-start-and-how-to-stop-them/9780593137789) and about half a dozen opinion pieces that I've seen in a single month on the specific possibility for significant political violence in 2024. Following O'Toole's line of thinking and critiquing the commentary as a cause and not a symptom or as necessary discussion of genuinely concerning shifts seems intentionally obtuse. All the more so when a review of news from one year ago today would be full of commentary on why we didn't need to be concerned about unrest or actual violence as Congress convened the next day to certify the election results. And the comparison of present day America to Northern Ireland in 1972 is not as reassuring as he thinks. Of all the commentary I have seen (other than The Next Civil War, which I have not read), Northern Ireland seems to be the best parallel for the scale and tenor of what people fear. It may not be what most would label a civil war, but I think we're also beyond the point where we can dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Bob, I sure hope you're right. It does seem like a revolution would have some more concrete coals. All this crowd wants is no government and Trump. It's just a symbolic scream of rage. That won't get them a better country. Will they change their tunes when they want the government to give them disaster relief funding? And when the extreme capitalism is yo yo ing, boom and bust throwing them out of jobs with no unemplyment insurance?
I would like Merrick Garland to speak softly and carry a big stick.
I'd like greater insight into Garland's strategy. I can't tell whether he's carefully building a case against Trump or carefully sidestepping such a case. Anyone?
If Democrats don’t retain control of both Houses in 22, the future I see unfolding is one of utter chaos, the breakdown of the rule of law, and the loss of trust both in government and also in mainstream institutions of American life.
In my view, the most decisive event over the next two weeks is the scheduled Senate vote that will determine whether Democrats will have enacted a filibuster rule change that will allow for a check on GOP controlled State Legislatures that unilaterally continue to pass bill after bill that restricts voting and nullifies votes. Because we nearly are running out the clock on democracy itself, I see no choice aside from exhausting every possibility to arrive at a rule change both Manchin and Sinema will accept.
My understanding is that, while both Manchin and Sinema support the two companion voter protection bills, neither currently supports a filibuster carve-out nor do they support changing the 60-vote threshold to end debate. Seeing that Schumer needs all 50 Senators to sign on to a filibuster rule change, an option proposed by former Chief Counsel to Ted Kennedy, Jeff Blattner, could work. For “major” legislation, it would ensure “the minority a full debate and the right to offer relevant amendments.” However, “after an extended period…without the offering of an amendment gaining bipartisan support, the supporters of the bill [e.g. the Freedom to Vote Act] could move to invoke cloture (the cutting off of debate) by a simple majority vote.” For me, the brilliance of this proposal, or some version of it possibly under consideration, is that it comes closer to meeting Manchin’s and Sinema’s demands than any other I’ve reviewed, and it ends McConnell’s veto over the will of the majority.
Schumer needs 50 votes to change the filibuster, but they all don't have to be Democrats. Even if he doesn't have Manchin or Sinema, maybe he can get Collins or Romney or Murkowski to sign on. It's worth the effort.
Prof. Reich, My understanding is that Murkowski is the sole Republican who has voiced any support, and please note, not for the Freedom to Vote Act, but only for VRAA, which is not preemptive and therefore cannot overturn state laws that already have passed. Conversely, the Freedom to Vote Act that Manchin helped draft, whose provisions provide the necessary safeguards against both voter suppression and election subversion, would supersede state law in conflict with any of its stipulations. Additionally, I would note that when, yesterday, Manchin was asked whether, as in the past, he “would not be open to changing the rules without Republican buy-in…” Manchin replied, “that’s my absolute preference.” I view Manchin stating it’s a “preference” as a promising sign, and, furthermore, believe, if Dems can get Manchin on board with a workable rule change, Sinema will follow.
So much to unpack in this. First, seventy percent of Republicans don’t believe Trump won. Most only say that because it fits they desires and the Republican Party supports creating their own narrative around this and many other things. What we need to do is try to understand why they’re willing to lie about the Big Lie. I’m sure their are many different reasons, but I am confident the underlying reason is to protect White America. And sadly we need to appreciate that. Look around the world, as a Whit person, what black or brown majority country would you feel as comfortable in as being in America? I love diversity but we have to truly consider how we successfully complete this melting pot country. I think you, Robert, are on the right path. An economy that works for all would go a long way in making us all feel safer. That’s only one aspect though. There will always be tyrannical people that will try to over though our government. How do we guard against Trump currently and others in the future, if our democracy has a future.