Excellent summation John, on the current state of affairs within American political discourse.
It's beyond time for some introspection on how it got to this point.
Not that you'll see much in the usual MSM outlets. A topic that won't fit into a 2 minute nightly news grab and one that many find too difficult to broach. Nice work.
I do not think you could have articulated the message any better. Nasty political rhetoric needs to stop...somehow...or I fear more bad things will continue to happen. Thanks for your honesty.
A Trump critic who I won't name but has definitely written a lot about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, and not in an overly alarmist way either, recently wrote something as a reflection on the assassination attempt, that shocked me. He condemned the attack, but also wrote, and I think sincerely, that (paraphrasing) he never imagined that it might be Trump who was on the wrong end of an AR-15. Huh? How could anyone actually not consider that possibility at all? That such a controversial, to say the least, public figure might be a target of violence?
As for Brian's take, I wish what he said was true. But I actually doubt that having people call out their own tribe, actually works that much better. It's more likely that the inter-tribal critic is thrown out of the tribe for daring to question it, and either capitulates in order to rejoin the tribe, continues their criticism from outside the tribe, or winds up joining the enemy tribe and ensuring that no one in their original tribe listens to them ever again.
Yeah, I don't why anyone would have trouble imagining a high-profile national politician, especially one as polarizing as Donald Trump, being the target of an assassination attempt.
I do think policing one's own side helps. It's certainly tough when you're competing with the leader of a personality cult, but it works better than finger-pointing from the other side in persuading the persuadables on your side. The big problem, of course, is that there hasn't been enough of it.
RE: Brian's take: 2 things come to mind that illustrate your point.
1. Remember what happened with Liz Cheney.
2. The old adage "don't shit in your own nest".
It takes a profile in courage to call out unacceptable behavior if your leadership is bad, because you might just excommunicate yourself from the group.
Having said that, if there's no one to call out unacceptable discourse, and things that go 'over the line', with no ramifications, you can guarantee things won't change the status quo.
Understand the general sentiment, but this left me with questions, like:
// wrong rather than evil
1) How does this address the plentiful actual evil? Unapologetic anti-semitism, child mutilation, sexualization of children, destroying of Nick Sandmann's life, partial-birth abortion, etc etc (just to name a few).
// the authority to better police our allies
2) Besides maybe Harold Ford Jr, who do you consider your Leftist counterpart(s), willing to regularly call out their own side for reckless statements/conduct?
1) By "political rivals," I was referring to people on the other side of the aisle, not the radicals, fringe activists, and hardcore bigots among them. I'm all for calling out true acts of evil (though I wouldn't categorize a couple things you listed as 'evil', as opposed to the result of crippling bias or profound ignorance).
Based on your examples, you have me a little curious. Do you not see acts of evil on the political right?
2) I don't really think of myself as having a 'counterpart' by I see internal policing on the left from commentators like David Alexrod, Van Jones, Bill Scher, Will Saletan, etc.
As I said on this week's No BS Zone, I think there are more such 'police officers' on the right than there are on the left, but I'll add that I think the mainstream left is better at distancing themselves from their loons than the mainstream right.
But this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. However many "radicals" you think there are, I think it's far > than that. I fear it may come to the point where some of these positions I mentioned (& other dangerous ones I haven't) go mainstream. So for example - if you & I guessed how many truly anti-semitic people there are, my guess would be far higher than yours. So either you're too naive or I'm too cynical. And frankly, I sure want YOU to be correct.
// Do you not see acts of evil on the political right?
There are 100% ACTS of evil from the political right, sure. But I would distinguish acts vs positions. The Left certainly sees many of our positions as "evil", even though they actually aren't at all (fiscal responsibility vs pushing granny off a cliff as one great example). So in terms of general Conservative positions that are evil? It's possible, but I can't think of a clearcut example. I personally disagree with some more right-wing associated attitudes perhaps (being unprincipled depending on who occupies the White House, dismissing the dignity of minorities being mysteriously pulled over by cops, not caring about Mother Earth, to name a few). But I certainly don't draw an equivalence of those attitudes to the positions I had previously mentioned.
// I wouldn't categorize a couple things you listed as 'evil'
I look at it this way John - I picture myself at Judgment Day before the Creator. "He" (sorry to potentially misgender) asks me to defend my position on Capitalism. I can 100% do that. He asks me whether I did everything I could to prevent the destruction of a child. I sure wouldn't want to come up empty for an explanation on that one.
// counterparts
I don't mean to inflate your ego here John, but...these commentators you mentioned aren't nearly at your level in terms of self-policing. You're Elliott Ness & they once won a Letter of Appreciation for rescuing a cat from a tree. While the people you mentioned sometimes offer a sensible compromise, I don't see NEAR enough. Think of it this way John - if you personally were publicly accused of being racist (falsely & completely w/o evidence of course), who from the Left would come to your defense?
No, not with certainty. I'm saying what we know so far is quite consistent with the motivations and background of a school shooter. Typically, politically radicalized individuals make their political views heard to anyone who will listen, whether online, in other writings, or with people in their life. From what's been discovered so far, this kid had little-to-no social media imprint, and no one heard him carrying on about politics. When he registered to vote, after Trump had left office, he did so as a Republican, but I don't think a whole lot can be derived from that. When I first registered to vote decades ago, I chose the Republican party mainly because of childhood nostalgia for the Reagan years. At the time, it didn't run any deeper than that.
Of course, new information could always come out demonstrating some kind of political angle with this kid.
Excellent summation John, on the current state of affairs within American political discourse.
It's beyond time for some introspection on how it got to this point.
Not that you'll see much in the usual MSM outlets. A topic that won't fit into a 2 minute nightly news grab and one that many find too difficult to broach. Nice work.
Thanks.
I do not think you could have articulated the message any better. Nasty political rhetoric needs to stop...somehow...or I fear more bad things will continue to happen. Thanks for your honesty.
Thanks Terrence.
A Trump critic who I won't name but has definitely written a lot about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, and not in an overly alarmist way either, recently wrote something as a reflection on the assassination attempt, that shocked me. He condemned the attack, but also wrote, and I think sincerely, that (paraphrasing) he never imagined that it might be Trump who was on the wrong end of an AR-15. Huh? How could anyone actually not consider that possibility at all? That such a controversial, to say the least, public figure might be a target of violence?
As for Brian's take, I wish what he said was true. But I actually doubt that having people call out their own tribe, actually works that much better. It's more likely that the inter-tribal critic is thrown out of the tribe for daring to question it, and either capitulates in order to rejoin the tribe, continues their criticism from outside the tribe, or winds up joining the enemy tribe and ensuring that no one in their original tribe listens to them ever again.
Yeah, I don't why anyone would have trouble imagining a high-profile national politician, especially one as polarizing as Donald Trump, being the target of an assassination attempt.
I do think policing one's own side helps. It's certainly tough when you're competing with the leader of a personality cult, but it works better than finger-pointing from the other side in persuading the persuadables on your side. The big problem, of course, is that there hasn't been enough of it.
Thanks for weighing in, Alyene.
RE: Brian's take: 2 things come to mind that illustrate your point.
1. Remember what happened with Liz Cheney.
2. The old adage "don't shit in your own nest".
It takes a profile in courage to call out unacceptable behavior if your leadership is bad, because you might just excommunicate yourself from the group.
Having said that, if there's no one to call out unacceptable discourse, and things that go 'over the line', with no ramifications, you can guarantee things won't change the status quo.
Understand the general sentiment, but this left me with questions, like:
// wrong rather than evil
1) How does this address the plentiful actual evil? Unapologetic anti-semitism, child mutilation, sexualization of children, destroying of Nick Sandmann's life, partial-birth abortion, etc etc (just to name a few).
// the authority to better police our allies
2) Besides maybe Harold Ford Jr, who do you consider your Leftist counterpart(s), willing to regularly call out their own side for reckless statements/conduct?
1) By "political rivals," I was referring to people on the other side of the aisle, not the radicals, fringe activists, and hardcore bigots among them. I'm all for calling out true acts of evil (though I wouldn't categorize a couple things you listed as 'evil', as opposed to the result of crippling bias or profound ignorance).
Based on your examples, you have me a little curious. Do you not see acts of evil on the political right?
2) I don't really think of myself as having a 'counterpart' by I see internal policing on the left from commentators like David Alexrod, Van Jones, Bill Scher, Will Saletan, etc.
As I said on this week's No BS Zone, I think there are more such 'police officers' on the right than there are on the left, but I'll add that I think the mainstream left is better at distancing themselves from their loons than the mainstream right.
// the radicals
But this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. However many "radicals" you think there are, I think it's far > than that. I fear it may come to the point where some of these positions I mentioned (& other dangerous ones I haven't) go mainstream. So for example - if you & I guessed how many truly anti-semitic people there are, my guess would be far higher than yours. So either you're too naive or I'm too cynical. And frankly, I sure want YOU to be correct.
// Do you not see acts of evil on the political right?
There are 100% ACTS of evil from the political right, sure. But I would distinguish acts vs positions. The Left certainly sees many of our positions as "evil", even though they actually aren't at all (fiscal responsibility vs pushing granny off a cliff as one great example). So in terms of general Conservative positions that are evil? It's possible, but I can't think of a clearcut example. I personally disagree with some more right-wing associated attitudes perhaps (being unprincipled depending on who occupies the White House, dismissing the dignity of minorities being mysteriously pulled over by cops, not caring about Mother Earth, to name a few). But I certainly don't draw an equivalence of those attitudes to the positions I had previously mentioned.
// I wouldn't categorize a couple things you listed as 'evil'
I look at it this way John - I picture myself at Judgment Day before the Creator. "He" (sorry to potentially misgender) asks me to defend my position on Capitalism. I can 100% do that. He asks me whether I did everything I could to prevent the destruction of a child. I sure wouldn't want to come up empty for an explanation on that one.
// counterparts
I don't mean to inflate your ego here John, but...these commentators you mentioned aren't nearly at your level in terms of self-policing. You're Elliott Ness & they once won a Letter of Appreciation for rescuing a cat from a tree. While the people you mentioned sometimes offer a sensible compromise, I don't see NEAR enough. Think of it this way John - if you personally were publicly accused of being racist (falsely & completely w/o evidence of course), who from the Left would come to your defense?
So we already know the motive for the assissnation attempt?
No, not with certainty. I'm saying what we know so far is quite consistent with the motivations and background of a school shooter. Typically, politically radicalized individuals make their political views heard to anyone who will listen, whether online, in other writings, or with people in their life. From what's been discovered so far, this kid had little-to-no social media imprint, and no one heard him carrying on about politics. When he registered to vote, after Trump had left office, he did so as a Republican, but I don't think a whole lot can be derived from that. When I first registered to vote decades ago, I chose the Republican party mainly because of childhood nostalgia for the Reagan years. At the time, it didn't run any deeper than that.
Of course, new information could always come out demonstrating some kind of political angle with this kid.