Screenshot
The evening of the day on which Charlie Kirk was murdered — a week ago today — I read an editorial about it in The New York Times that said everything that needed to be said about that appalling event.
Sorry to take so long posting it. The headline was “Charlie Kirk’s Horrific Killing and America’s Worsening Political Violence.” The link on that headline is one of those “gift” links the NYT offers, so you should be able to read it. Let me know if you can’t.
In the meantime, I’ll share some key paragraphs:
The assassination of Charlie Kirk — the founder of a youth political movement that helped revolutionize modern conservatism — at Utah Valley University on Wednesday is a tragedy. His killing is also part of a horrifying wave of political violence in America….
Such violence is antithetical to America. The First Amendment — the first for a reason — enshrines our rights to freedom of speech and expression. Our country is based on the principle that we must disagree peacefully. Our political disagreements may be intense and emotional, but they should never be violent. This balance requires restraint. Americans have to accept that their side will lose sometimes and that they may feel angry about their defeats. We cannot act on that anger with violence.
Too many Americans are abandoning this ideal. Thirty-four percent of college students recently said they supported using violence in some circumstances to stop a campus speech, according to a poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression published a day before the Kirk shooting. Since 2021, that share has risen from 24 percent, which was already unacceptably high. Surveys of older adults are similarly alarming….
The intensity of our political debates will not disappear. The stakes are too high, and the country disagrees on too many important questions. But we Americans have lost some of our grace and empathy in recent years. We too often wish ill on our political opponents. We act as if people’s worth is determined by whether they identify as a Republican or a Democrat. We dehumanize those with whom we differ….
That was the penultimate graf. Since I’ve quoted so much, I might as well give you the last one:
…This is a moment to turn down the volume and reflect on our political culture. It is a moment for restraint, rather than cycles of vengeance or the suspension of civil liberties, as some urged on Wednesday. It is also a moment to engage with people who have different views from our own. When societies lose the ability to argue peacefully and resort to violence to resolve their political debates, it usually ends very badly.
(When I read that editorial that night, I retweeted it with this comment: “NYT ably describes the violent tip of the iceberg of hostility that is sinking America. But we’re all too busy despising each other to bother trying to find a way to save our ship. “)
As for the excerpts above — if the NYT lawyers call, I’ll just have to ask them how much I have to cut to suit their definition of Fair Use. But I just thought it was too important not to share. It was a grown-up editorial. It seems to me to have been written by someone mature enough to remember when this country was healthy enough that we could disagree strongly and vehemently, and then shake hands and walk away as friends — or at least as people who recognized each other as fellow Americans, and not as “the enemy.”
Of course, maybe it was written by a younger member of the board. If so, we have someone to thank for providing that person with an excellent education, and a firm understanding of what made America great, before our country’s recent tragic decline.
Evidently the faculty members who were suspended from teaching at Clemson were not the kind who provide such intellectual enrichment. Their grotesque fulminations are an embarrassment to anyone with. conscience. Doubt me? Here are some quotes from their outbursts. If that link doesn’t work, I’ll be happy for you, because you’ll be happier for not having read them.
Should they have been fired for it? Let me pose a different question. Should people who would have deliberately published such remarks at such a time have been employed in the first place, in jobs that involve shaping young minds? Such irresponsibility is inexcusable. They weren’t courageously outspoken; they were stupid, cruel and hateful.
You would think that in an atmosphere in which more than a third of college students believe violence can be justified to stop speech they don’t like, anyone who teaches them would understand that their responsibility is to model productive speech and behavior. And the responsibility of college administrators is to make sure they hire people mature enough to understand that.
At this point in our increasingly ones-and-zeroes country, we will now start hearing the “what abouts.” What about those GOP politicians who have demanded their firings? Are you defending them?
Are you nuts? Those people are cheap opportunists, trying to make themselves heroes to an angry crowd. Or, worse, they’re trying to make a merely grieving crowd… angry. Stir things up. Because they seek higher office, and Donald Trump has taught them that the approach taken by every president before him — striving with all their mights to pull us together in troubled times by invoking the values we hold in common — is for chumps. You can win by feeding division, by pouring gasoline on the embers, he has taught them. And they’re acting upon those lessons.
Just as others have learned that if you post something stupidly inappropriate — the more hateful the better — on social media in response to any news event, there are thousands if not millions of people like them who will regard them as brave and witty, and clap them virtually upon their backs in congratulation. A certain needy type eats that sort of thing up.
Both categories are unacceptable in a rational society. But they are so richly rewarded — in the currencies that matter to them — that they just keep doing it.
One final word: If you actually believe that anything those disgraced faculty members said about Kirk was justified by his rhetoric, you are just as much a part of the problem as those hungry GOP pols.
Personally, I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before the news of his murder. But I went and looked at a couple of videos of him speaking. The entire thrust of what he said, even in the milder comments, was wrongheaded and objectionable to me. In others, he was utterly offensive. But all that was what I expected, since Trump is trying to canonize him. And all of it is beside my point.
Y’all know I don’t believe in capital punishment. But even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t support summarily executing a man for saying things that offended me. I could never support that. And I could never support or worse, applaud anyone who mocks a human being who has died that way.
Related Posts
“that the approach taken by every president before him — striving with all their mights to pull us together in troubled times by invoking the values we hold in common —”
This simply is not true.. at least not this century. Bush didn’t do that.. Obama didn’t. Trump didn’t… and Biden didn’t. They all demonized the other party.. and then gave lip service to the “can’t we all get along” message whenever it suited them. I didn’t see Joe Biden make a single effort in four years to try and reach a compromise with Republicans.
And now, as we did from 2016-2020, we have Democrats who simply refuse to do ANYTHING except fight Trump on every single issue… and those who have cavalierly thrown around the words like Nazi, fascist, existential threat to democracy, etc. are at least partially responsible for the climate that led to Kirk’s death. Anyone who uses those terms is automatically unworthy of any further consideration of their ideas. Anyone who uses those terms to describe Kirk better have spent at least a couple hours listening to him… not relying on clips spewed by instigators. As Charlie said, “Prove me wrong”… prove that you have listened to what he said before making those assertions.
This isn’t a both sides are bad issue if you think those two sides are Republicans and Democrats. The actual two sides are people who are fed up with politicians and those who are brainwashed into thinking their party is right and everyone else is evil. Until we purge politics of all of them it will only get worse. Term limits, age limits, restrictions on political ads, restrictions on PACs…
To quote one of Ronald Reagan’s most nauseating lines, “There you go again.”
I refer to the line, “This simply is not true.” Your least supportable arguments tend to be stated that flatly.
This is based upon your stunning fantasy that “Donald Trump is just like all politicians, because they’re all scum.”
What I said was entirely true, and obvious to anyone who has paid close attention to the behavior of those who have occupied the White House over the last 70 years (I could go back to the late 18th century, but I’ll stick to the history I personally witnessed).
I’m fuming at myself for wasting my time, so forgive me if I get uncivil myself, but I’m really ticked that I’m indulging you this way, when I can’t afford the time.
I’m definitely not going to cite every rock on the mountain of evidence that contradicts your point of view. But against my better judgment, I’ll give you one example, one that seems apt.
You despise George W. Bush. I don’t like him much either, and was bitterly disappointed in 2000 when he got the GOP nomination instead of my man John McCain. But while I saw all his flaws (his very real flaws, not such nonsense as saying he “lied” about WMD; as I said about Kimmel, there’s a wide more difference between getting it wrong and lying), I was also awake to his virtues.
One of those was on display when, after 9/11, he went to such great lengths to stress that Muslims and Islam in general were NOT to be blamed, to counter xenophobic responses among the American public.
Here’s just one example of the messages he went out of his way to stress.
Try to imagine Donald Trump even considering trying to pour oil on predudice in such a manner, rather than doing the opposite in a bid to fire up his base and strengthen their love for him.
That’s all the time I will waste on this, because I know from long, bitter experience that it will have little effect.
Oh, look, it’s past 4 p.m. Maybe I’d better go down and grab some lunch…
You don’t have to reply to my comments.
You love words. I judge people by actions. George Bush was responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of Muslims, particularly women and children. And that likely created more hate for America than anything else this century.
Bush was a politician. Here’s a quote for you:
“”We must stop the terror. I call upon all nations, to do everything they can, to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you…now watch this drive.” – to reporters while playing golf.”
He was phony as the day is long.
Yes, Doug. If I publish something that is untrue, or seeks to promote a misconception (to put it a slightly different way), I must set the record straight.
Someone who doesn’t read this might think you have effectively answered my example with an equally relevant example to counter it.
You most certainly have not. I’m not sure why you respond with that quote, except that I suspect that somehow negates what I had said. And of course, you’ve done nothing of the kind.
What Bush said on that occasion is COMPLETELY consistent with the speech I cited — and with other comments during that period. Over and over and over, he consistently said two consistent things: we and our allies must definitely “do everything they can, to stop these terrorist killers.” And at the same time, he repeatedly said it was essential not to regard all Muslims as being among the “terrorist killers.”
It was very easy to understand — if you wanted to, which you and most Democrats (a separate category from you) did not want to do. As I said, I didn’t like him all that much myself. But I give him credit for doing what he could to prevent Muslims in general from being persecuted.
As for your completely unsupported charge that he was “phony as the day is long,” that what you say about all politicians, except a few like Tulsi Gabbard. But I’m not going to elaborate on that.
OK, I’ve wasted time answering your comments three times now. That’s it. Stick to the subject (as you have recently done here and here and here). When you instead embark on things like this that demand a reply, you will not be published here. I just don’t have that time to waste.
On to the next topic. Never mind, I’ve wasted the time to post another topic. I’ll have to write that later…
Trump created a generation of Muslim hating Americans himself – he did so with just a sentence or two- throwing out the idea that he’d take over Gaza and build a resort and get the Palestinians out.
Future mass murdering terrorists were born when he stood up and uttered those comments. Our children and grandchildren will fight those terrorists that he created.
At Trump’s very core he seeks to divide with hate. It’s who he is. He’s proud of it. That makes him different. He proudly admitted it Sunday afternoon.
Does anyone, anyone at all, have anything thoughtful to contribute to this conversation?
This is of course well-argued. When I was defending the idea that it’s perfectly appropriate for employers who happen to be government to fire employees who celebrate murder and in other ways put their employer in a bad light (as I had also argued back when some folks got fired for encouraging violence against people protesting the death of George Floyd), I wish I had thought of this point you made: Should they have been fired for it? Let me pose a different question. Should people who would have deliberately published such remarks at such a time have been employed in the first place, in jobs that involve shaping young minds? Such irresponsibility is inexcusable. They weren’t courageously outspoken; they were stupid, cruel and hateful.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Of course, in this case you happened to agree. But we both know you frequently don’t. Either way, good to hear from you…
How would you propose screening applicants for faculty positions for the potential to post hateful comments on social media? Would those on a search committee who lean left want to find out if the applicant leans right politically, perhaps believing that they may be more supportive of violence? Would those on the search who lean right think the same of left-leaning applicants? This is not a serious or practical idea— when you talk about hiring people “who would have” done so-and-so, that’s “Minority Report” (the film) “Precrime Department” stuff.
I can’t speak for Cindi, but I personally wasn’t suggesting there was some mechanism to predict this kind of behavior.
I was saying that when a faculty member does something like this, the natural reaction is (or should be) to think, “Wow, I made a mistake hiring this one!” Or maybe it’s just natural for me. I would KNOW I’d had no information that could have predicted this behavior, but I’d WISH I’d had. And I would regret it deeply, however I might exculpate myself…
Freedom from consequences is not a protected Constitutional right.
That’s a phrase that I coined whe the patriarch of the Duck Family said something disparaging about gays. A&E suspended him a while and fans of the show got riled up.
All that needed to be said is:
Those who sew hate reap hate.
Mathew Dowd said essentially this very thing and was fired from MSNBC for it. MSNBC was wrong and is merely encouraging a new McCarthyism in so doing.
Those who convert hate into violence reap the death penalty.
It’s insane how people jump to Charlie Kirk “SOW”ing hate can’t provide anything more than out of context short clips. I saw where they said he was opposed to the Civil Rights Act and then I actually watched his video where he answered the question. He actually said he supported the Civil Rights Act but opposed how it had been used in recent years to implement policies that were not in the spirit of the act. Affirmative action, race based admissions policies at universities, the DEI nonsense, etc. Nothing about that is racist or SOWing hate. It is disagreeing with policies.
Kirk said many controversial things and had no more insight on being right than other talkers like him.
People treating him as if he was God’s gift to wisdom is strange. I didn’t follow him much but I’ve went and watched several of his clips and find him arrogant at times, demeaning at times, and right on some things and wrong on others. Nothing unsual about that.
My son is a Senior at USC and went to see him back in April at USC. He didn’t follow him before or afterwards but heard about it. I asked him about it this past weekend. Only thing he told me was he thought Kirk was needlessly abrasive and insulting but that’s what it took to get social media hits. He also admitted his supporters love that about him- just like Trump.
and of course people are free to interpret his comments differently or less generously than you do.
I happen to like DEI and don’t consider it nonsense. I’ve participated in many DEI offerings at an employer and found them to be quite educational. Last month we heard from someone at out company talking about Latino cultural traditions around the holidays. It was very interesting and helpful for employees that work in the Latino community. But I know Trumpers would hate the idea of it and call it “nonsense”
But I gladly don’t care what they think
You’ve just described our problem: “needlessly abrasive and insulting but that’s what it took to get social media hits.”
This is what shapes our politics today. It’s what is destroying this country — and liberal democracies everywhere else around the globe. For the kind of country we were, and most advanced countries were, it is essential to be able to debate in a calm, adult manner, carefully considering matters and showing at least a modicum respect for what others think as well.
But no, since everyone on the planet became an Überpublisher, all that has gone out the window. Almost every word we see or hear in the realm of politics is “needlessly abrasive and insulting,” and it gets magnified because that’s what it takes to get social media hits. Sensible messages don’t even reach most of us.
I don’t see how we ever overcome this problem…
“I don’t see how we ever overcome this problem…”
How about taking a personal pledge not to disparage Libertarians?
Well, I’m not willing to take a pledge to do anything. But I’m making a constant effort not to disparage anyone — even libertarians. 🙂 (Note that I’m using lower-case there, because the problem from my point of view is far broader than the Libertarian Party.)
Seriously, that’s a tough one for me. Long before I knew you, I believed that libertarianism was a very harmful force in our society, on both the left and the right. (Of course, those were the good old days when the American political scene was far more rational. We have many problems as bad or worse today, but that doesn’t make libertarianism any better.) I’ve long, long rejected and opposed that ideology, and I’ve seen no good reason to change my mind. So I tend to go into strong rejection mode when people invoke it.
It shouldn’t be taken personally, by you or anyone. But I understand why you would be offended, especially when I say such things as “libertarianism is the quality that two-year-olds and adolescents share — they’re all about themselves.” I use that quote now not in order to offend again, but just to be straighforward in acknowledging the justice in your complaint. I know I’ve said such things.
I’m working to avoid giving such offense, and I think it’s been awhile since I have. Of course, you may be able to easily to refute that.
But a pledge? No. That’s because I’m not an absolutist. I’m not a ones and zeroes guy. For instance, as much as I oppose libertarianism, my opposition to hate crime laws is a libertarian one. Freedom of conscience — a very libertarian ideal — is the essential principle underlying the First Amendment, which is something I cherish. So I mention from time to time, and always include the point that it makes me happy to be able to agree with libertarians on this one thing at least.
But I will do my best to state what I honestly believe about the political abstraction without offending individual human beings. That may not be possible sometimes, but I’ll be doing my best…
“I don’t see how we ever overcome this problem…”
It’s not possible anymore.
However, if you have any optimism left-
You should check out Michael Smerconish’s “Mingle Project” discussion with Axios CEO Jim VandeHei on Optimism, Responsibility & Community
Fast Forward to 21`:50 They talks for 15 mins or so
It’s worth the listen
https://www.youtube.com/live/zGSfnxxI-YI
And it is not SOWing hate to believe a biological male cannot become a woman or that a biological male should not participate in women’s sports. That’s not hate, that’s science.
I agree- that is not sowing hate. But is accurately described as “sowing hate”
Sowing hate is talking about trans individuals as if they are garbage, or sexual perverts trying to molest children (much more likely to be molested in church by a “good Christian” than by a trans person but those same folks don’t talk about that), or try to empower housing discrimination against them or employer discrimination- or label all trans people terrorists
That is hate and all things the Trump administration is or has pursued- or considering.
Labeling them as terrorists? I’ve missed that one…
You know what would really help? If kind, sensitive people would stop shouting “hate” every time someone disagrees with them on a Culture War issue of any kind. Occasionally it’s accurate, but usually not. For instance, racism is often described as “hate,” when it seldom manifests itself to that level of feeling. Usually, it’s just gross ignorance and closed-mindedness, arising from living a very narrow life.
We really need to cut it out with the words deliberately chosen to paint anyone with whom we disagree as inexcusably evil…. but I’ll stop now, because I need to put all this stuff in a separate post I’m thinking about….
Please keep up.
The Trump administration is preparing to designate transgender people as “violent extremists” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, two national security officials tell me
“They are cynically targeting trans people because the shooter’s lover was trans,” one senior intelligence official tells me. “The administration has convinced itself that the Charlie Kirk murder exposes some dark conspiracy.”
The senior official explains that there is no process per se for dealing with trans people as a “threat group,” but feels that trans individuals will be increasingly targeted under the banner of “violent extremism.”
White House counterterrorism czar Sebastian Gorka, who, before last week had never mentioned Trans people, has issued 3 social media posts in the last week about them.
Gorka is the highest level counter-terrorism official in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump, Jr tweeted last week asking his followers if trans people were the biggest “domestic terror threat” facing the United States.
FBI Readies New War on Trans People
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/fbi-readies-new-war-on-trans-people
I’m not sure my comment will be especially thoughtful. Between the SC Supreme Court’s gerrymandering decision and the Knapp firing I’ve spent two days providing public comments that I hope are thoughtful on those difficult subjects. I may be low on thought. However, I do have opinions on inappropriate behavior in academia.
Having spent my professional life in universities, my thought regarding the Clemson situation is that academia has long been the home of transgressive, even very regrettable, behavior by the young. Universities are where young people — both students and younger faculty — have tried out the boundaries of personal expression for centuries. The very helpful thing universities have done for those centuries is that they have kept the boundary testing of the young within the bounds of the university.
Sometimes that behavior is very regrettable, exposing an immaturity that is not all that surprising in people who actually lack maturity. Researchers say the prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until around the mid-20’s and some folks never seem to make it even after that. Even some quite decent people are occasionally very unwise. (This is something that South Carolina politicians really should be able to relate to.)
The potential for boundary transgression is therefore built into the nature of higher education. And so, universities have longstanding mechanisms to deal with these problems. Faculty — even young faculty — are legitimately held to a higher standard than students. At what point does this become “off with their heads!” What are the existing responses from the university?
Most universities have a system of internal policing for faculty that kicks in frequently and effectively. Overt calls to violence lead to the immediate expulsion of students and firing of faculty. In contrast, suspension is readily available to point relatively minor offenders toward reconsidering their behavior. Between those options, there is more.
No one has mentioned tenure as a legal or procedural issue in the Clemson cases, so it is unlikely that the offenders are tenured. However, tenure is not the kind of effective insulation that many assume that it is. If these persons had tenure, there are still enforceable limits.
The remaining options are that the offenders might be tenure-track (in the process of evaluation for tenure) or they are on annual contracts. The whole point of the years of tenure track evaluation process is to consider whether someone can be trusted to be a responsible and productive long-term member of the university community. Both Brad and Cindi question whether Clemson should have hired the offenders in the first place. The tenure track process exists precisely to ask this question in detail and at excruciating length. Universities don’t give a positive answer in a hurry; a six year process is common. Ultimately tenure track faculty would usually find irresponsible speech or behavior a significant factor in denial of tenure.
Many faculty today have no hope of tenure but are on annual contract. Annual contract faculty are hired, but the university is keeping its options open. Those who are guilty of disruptive speech easily find themselves without another annual contract. No cause need be given.
In either case, years of grad school and a lifetime commitment go down the drain, often irretrievably in today’s academic job market. Losing a career that you had worked toward for your adult life is a big disincentive. At the same time, other members of the academic community observe what happens and develop an increased understanding of the boundaries that they should observe. Even if it isn’t immediately obvious to the public, it is clear to those within the institution that the problem was taken seriously and dealt with effectively.
Universities have long been pressured to respond to external politics. We should be careful in how this plays out today. Our political climate and social media (inextricably linked as they are) have changed the context in which all of this occurs. Universities are being demonized by both state and national politicians. Political responses to problems seem to vary immensely depending on whose ox is gored. There are unmistakable efforts to encourage prior self-censorship to avoid offending those in power. That isn’t good for universities and it isn’t good for the state or nation.
I am not arguing in favor of tolerating irresponsible public speech from university faculty. I am arguing that distorting the response with external politics is not necessary and can be a serious mistake for all of us.
We had a member of the SC Freedom Caucus, last week, targeting a professor at Clemson for his research topics.
Those topics were environmentalism, feminism, and marginalized groups. People asked him what was wrong with a professor researching such topics. He had no response.
Now why in the hell does someone who professes to be “pro freedom” want to target a professor’s research topics at a major research university when the very role of the university is to research numerous topics?
Why would a “pro freedom” legislator want the professor to get government approval or be fired because he/she wants to study topics that a damn politician doesn’t like?
These hypocrites are such phonies. In a decent world, they’d get beaten so badly at the ballot box they’d walk back home never to emerge to public service again.
“These hypocrites are such phonies.” That’s a bit redundant, wouldn’t you say?
Yes- but they deserve to be labeled as both- just in case a “pro freedom” politician misunderstands the obvious.
These are politicians after all. Pretty much the bottom of the feces pile.
No, politicians are not that. But the more voters tend to select candidates from the bottom of this, say, moral and intellectual gutter, the worse our overall collection of ELECTED pols will be.
At this particular point in our history — the period of stunningly rapid decline — there are loads of admirable politicians who are no longer in office, because the voters have gone mad…
Like most people, I was horrified by the murder, and I find comments such as “be a Tyler Robinson or a Luigi Mangione” pretty indefensible and repugnant to me.
My sense is that Facebook posts if they’re sent to your circle of friends is still possibly protected speech– I also am guessing that, just as there’s been a tidal wave of suspensions and firings over comments in the wake of the Kirk assassination, we’re also going to see a wave of lawsuits, and it will be interesting to watch the outcomes.
My biggest problem with what’s going on is that there is an awful lot of conflation of what constitutes “inciting violence,” vs. “celebrating a killing,” vs. “showing disrespect to Charlie Kirk,” vs. “pointing out potential irony in this situation,” vs. “taking issue with the ‘formal state grieving’ over the death of someone who was essentially a prominent podcaster/debater/political-influencer.” We’re also seeing of course (in the person of the President) the canard that calling people “fascists” is tantamount to encouraging violence against them and therefore people should not be called “fascists.” (Very convenient for those in government vigorously involved in trying to convert us to a more authoritarian state, with ever-greater limits on a free press and the already-well-documented example of attempting to subvert a democratically-conducted election).
So for most of MAGA-world, if you simply don’t believe that Charlie Kirk should be lionized because you believe he had extreme views and you dare to challenge that he was some kind of “Civil-Rights leader” (yes, amazingly I’ve seen this phrase uttered repeatedly on social media), and you dare to say this on your private social media account, you should be fired from your position etc.
Is there hypocrisy on these free-speech issues coming from many on the left who have previously called for the firing of professors for various comments perceived to be racist or sexist? Absolutely, 100%. If hypocritical utterances on this topic were each a cup of water, there’s been enough to fill Lake Murray.
The difference here is that I do think we are working with an Administration that is pushing the envelope like it’s rarely been pushed before (some exceptions like John Adams or Woodrow Wilson) about controlling speech, not so much by law as by creating a chilling atmosphere where institutions (corporate, universities) and individuals keep themselves in check lest they suffer consequences, perhaps financial more than legal.
(One of the most popular and often-used phrases I see on X from the MAGAts is “The First Amendment gives you freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences.” Depending on who’s doling out the consequences, that of course kind of negates the idea of free speech. As I point out to these lost souls, that principle would put us on the same par as Iran— sure you have freedom of speech to stand on a street corner in Teheran and yell through a bullhorn “The Ayatollah is a corrupt senile jerk” but you had better expect consequences. This is the version of “free speech” as embraced by MAGA, which is of course no free speech at all)
What’s interesting to see is a little pushback from a few corners of MAGA and other pretty far-right commentators warning against some of all this, the FCC heavy-handedness, etc. There was some blowback to Pam Bondi (one of our administration’s “great” legal minds!) rattling on about the supposed illegality of “hate speech”–a legal principle existing only in her mind, and ironically going against one of Charlie Kirk’s central beliefs.
Then there was the recent column in the WSJ by Karl Rove titled “No, ‘They’ didn’t kill Charlie Kirk”, pushing back on Trump’s rant that basically blamed a variety of organizations and groups (those anarchists at the Ford Foundation!) for Kirk’s murder. I thought it was a really encouraging column to read, but I can’t help thinking the country is pretty far gone when Karl Rove is the voice of reason.
No one can argue with that last point: The country most certainly IS far gone.
That said, I appreciate Rove stepping up…
And I appreciate even MORE the fact that Phillip joined the conversation. Thanks so much, Phillip!
I may not have said it here, but I’ve said it elsewhere.
Trump is not President of the United States of America.
He is President of the Divided States of America.
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, Trump could’ve asked for unity. But that is not in his nature. I find the canonization by Trump and Vance of Kirk shameful. Other than lying in state at the Capitol, one would think that a president has died. Kirk never served in public office, never served in the military, nor served as a first responder. Yet flags were ordered to fly at half staff on federal office buildings, military bases, and ships at see. Vance flew on Air Force Two to take his casket from Utah to Arizona. Vance was scheduled to speak at the September 11 remembrance in New York City, but bailed out to fly to Utah.
Well, the only good thing about that is that survivors of 9/11 were spared his presence.
Both things are wrong — glorifying Kirk, and demonizing him — especially demonizing him to the point of celebrating his death. He was apparently someone I would have crossed the street to avoid, but he probably wouldn’t have wanted to fraternize with me, either. And I certainly would never want to say a word that causes additional pain to anyone who loved or admired him.
That’s a pretty good assessment, crossing the street to avoid him. Kirk was a conspiracy crank; like #45, he thought 2020 was stolen. I started watching a YouTube video of Kirk debating a Cambridge woman. There’s a guy analyzing the debate ad pauses it for commentary on Kirk’s debate tactics, deflect, and shift focus. She’s not taking the bait.
I haven’t finished it yet; it’s over an hour long.
The vitriol on coming from both sides of this horribly tragic event troubles me. The traditions of my faith instruct me to love and forgive both Kirk and his killer. I pray for the grace that allows me to do that.
Amen to that, Norm.
It’s tragic that such faith is so rare these days…
I use to share that faith but no more in that way
I do agree the vitriol around this issue is troubling though
Things are bad. They will get worse.
The bloodshed is not at an end. There may be a great deal of bloodshed yet to come.
Many do not understand the nature or scope of the threat we are facing. Simply being nice will not suffice. Appeals to god will not suffice. Appeals to follow Jesus will not suffice. If only because we are appealing to different versions of god, to different Jesuses.
We are in a period of reactionary, autocratic politics that enthusiastically embraces brutalization and mobilizes followers through multiple ideologies (libertarianism, nationalism, christianism, etc.). We have entered into a wholly new paradigm. And those bringing it about do not care if they have your support. They do not care about democratic processes, or they rely on the mere appearance while undermining the substance of democracy. Their faith lies in the power principle. The purveyors of this reactionary paradigm have a home in one of our political parties.
Excerpt from a longer discussion:
Ken, would you be interested in sketching a comparison between what’s happening here and what happened between the world wars, given you extensive experience with Germany? I mean, I realize you weren’t there at the time, but you may have some insights.
Of course, the conventional, superficial analysis of that period in Germany tends to focus on the extreme trauma there after the first war, and the utter inability of the Weimar government to pull things together, with such results as extreme inflation that would make folks who moan about gas prices today count their blessings instead.
But of course, we don’t have any of those obvious macro traumas acting on our society. This is like, I don’t know, Britain cracking up when Victoria was on the throne. I know you utterly dismiss my explanation for why people have utterly lost any ability to generally agree on anything, preferring to huddle together in separate groups defined by wildly different perceptions of reality.
So how do you account for it? Why would we be turning to fascism when our past half century has contained NONE of the mass trauma that Germany experienced a century ago?
I don’t think a comparison with Germany ca. 1933 is very useful – if only because such a comparison is not well received here. Folks will dismiss it on the grounds that there are no swastikas to be seen, nobody is marching around in black or brown uniforms and Jews etc aren’t being rounded up. Americans don’t do fascism, they will conclude. But authoritarianism comes in more than one size and color, and each variety grows out of the cultural milieu native to the country in which it arises. The comparison is also fraught because political radicalism does not necessarily require hyper-inflation, declining standards of living or failure in war. The French Revolution, for instance, took place during a period of generally rising standards of living. In other words, national circumstances do not have to be catastrophic nor does social change have to be earth-shattering to be taken as grounds for revolution or reaction.
American democratic reflexes remain to a degree intact, but they are under tremendous strain. And it remains to be seen whether adequate resistance can be brought to bear. Too many powerful individuals and institutions have given in too quickly, for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with abject self-interest, in a manner that historian Timothy Snyder has called “obeying in advance.” Which also includes dismissing our Cassandras as hysterics and sufferers of “Trump derangement syndrome” while portraying our state-of-affairs as just more politics as usual. It is not.
I believe that there are indeed outright fascists and proponents of political thuggery active in Trump circles, both inside and outside government. Stephen Miller is one obvious example. Others engage in intimidation, which is a non-physical form of thuggery. And beyond particular individuals, there are clearly elements of the authoritarian playbook at work: the opportunistic demonization of various groups and institutions in society; the dismissal of political opposition as illegitimate if not downright dangerous; the scare-mongering about outside, foreign influences; the nurturing and exploitation of free-floating resentments, old and new; the denigration of intellect and expertise where it does not serve the purpose of the new ruling paradigm along with the embrace of ignorance and quackery when it does; the normalization of formerly extreme views and positions; and, as just mentioned, the use of various forms of intimidation and coercion in order to cow those who do not fall into line. Authoritarians do not require total submission, they only need obtain a sufficient degree of control to gain their objective. It is therefore fatal to enter into compromise with them at any stage. As Hannah Arendt wrote,“in politics obedience and support are the same.”
As for opposition, I recently heard someone say, “We stood together as one accord and brought back Jimmy Kimmel.” That’s nice. It’s a tiny victory, I suppose. But it seems a paltry win in comparison to what needs to be done.
Well, the main thing that’s wrong with comparing the U.S. now to Germany in the ’20s is that, as you say, people immediately cry, “It’s against the rules to compare to Hitler and the Nazis!”
But I’m not trying to suggest that. The Nazis, maybe, but it’s a stretch.
And I would never compare Trump to Hitler. Mussolini, maybe, but not Hitler.
He’s not Hitler or Mao or Stalin or Robespierre. He’s certainly not Talleyrand, although his constantly switching of sides may suggest that.
No. He’s more of a Marcos, or a Dutente. A Baby Doc (not so much Papa Doc.) You can find his like in banana republics pretty easily.
The crazy thing is, he has emerged and been elected in the most powerful, affluent, and until very recently, stable country of its size in modern times. There is no good REASON for him to have risen to power in this time and place. Except that suddenly, in this time and place, people have suddenly lost the ability to clearly perceive reality…
Clearly perceiving reality becomes difficult as forces in politics and in society more broadly work at creating a new reality. Which was part of the point I was making above in referencing the new paradigm. Which means that hoping people will come “back to reality” can be a losing strategy. Because the reality you want folks to return to may over time be replaced by one you do not want to live in.
And reason’s got nothing to do with it. Because anti-intellectualism/expertise is not simply stupidity or unreason. It’s another type of ideology.
Real ideology was bad enough. But something that’s too stupid to BE an ideology can be worse…
But to be more serious. I’m talking about the fact that a few years back, we all generally agreed on what the facts were; we just had terrific arguments over what to DO in light of those facts.
Now, people only perceive “facts” that have been shaped to fit their prejudices by the sources they have chosen to “inform” them. Everything else is “fake news”…
So much that was presented as “facts” or “science” turned out to be false that it isn’t a surprise that those same institutions would be considered suspect by most people.
Also, the shift of “news” from facts to opinion or at best “slanted views” preceded Trump. The general public has gravitated toward their own “reality” based on the content they consume.
“Now, people only perceive ‘facts’ that have been shaped to fit their prejudices….”
But prejudices are often shaped by ideologies, or, if you like, world views. So it’s not merely a matter of facts vs. non-facts. Moreover, politics is as much, if not more, about perception as it is anything else.
Unfortunately, that’s the case. And with so many people being ignorant about anything more than the most superficial perception, our system is in terrible trouble. Because everybody gets a vote, including those folks…
Thought about various ways to approach this based on what folks have been saying here but since I work for the state, I have decided not to comment. Which, I guess, is a comment in and of itself.
Yes, I suppose it is…