Yes. We live in an entirely different age now; technology has made instant gratification standard and widespread. Progress is often incremental, yes, in inches, and people today are just too impatient for that. We have become a nation of spoiled children. I vote for candidate A, and if he doesn't give me enough of what I want (and for many people ALL of what I want) then I am going to vote him out and all the rest of his party to teach them a lesson. This is partially what happened with Obama in 10, and what happened to Biden/Harris in 24. This childish impatience coupled with a severe lack of knowledge of how govt and politics works, combined with a decline and or lack of reasoning and analytical skills has gotten us here. Oh, and add widespread apathy, ennui, and a growing nihilism. It's what makes it hard to cut through media narratives and the defeatist attitude of believing politics is boring and has nothing to do with our lives.
I think the problem is we are an uneducated population so our decisions are based on our emotions, which while good in some ways, are terrible for political decisions. People said they would vote for Bush over Kerry because they could see themselves having a beer with Bush but not with Kerry. Emotion over education. People voted for Felon Trump because they believed only he could improve their lives. Again, emotion over education. Education is key, and for once, the government should stop listening to and acquiescing to parents. Standards in what is taught and how it should be measured is key. Stop with the 6.5 hours/day and 180 school days per year. Be radical; downgrade sports, so there is more time for academics such as liberal arts. I have worked with people, college graduates, who could not complete a single thought in their sentences, much less a paragraph. Spelling, and punctuation are by the boards. If you don’t expect high standards from people, you will never get high standards. Low expectations is a spiral circle to the bottom.
My wife, a retired attorney and undergrad English major, taught legal writing for a semester. She flunked two students who had MAs in the humanities. How could that happen? Hw did these people get passing grades on their theses? Profs reviewed her tentative grades and approved.
Yes!! Begin with phonics in teaching reading again. Include memorization as kids grow older in both literature and math. Have classroom maps as well as teaching World Geography. Timelines for visual History. English Grammar with sentence construction. etc etc. We can do a great job again with Education. Provide a Trade School near each Public H.S.
JVL - have you read Samantha Hancox-Li's article on the history of the Civil Rights movement? There had been pressure against Jim Crow for as long as it existed, but she has some interesting arguments about why Martin Luther King managed to specifically win. https://www.liberalcurrents.com/how-to-win-a-rigged-game/
Thank you for sharing this. A good lunch time read about the strategy of the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, we as Americans thought "Well, we've passed these two fine Acts (Civil Rights, Voting) - the work is done." But the opposition - Jim Crow, if you will - never gave up. They went underground and have continued to work at re-taking power- which they've now done with a 50 year campaign. Until 90% of Americans believe in equality before the law and there is some consensus on "truth", this is a battle which must continue to be fought.
An excellent piece, William. Thanks. This stood out for me: "the Movement correctly identified that their victories would have to come through persuasion—but a persuasion that went beyond a well-written op-ed. They arranged situations in which they could DEMONSTRATE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR CAUSE THROUGH ACTIONS. Even now you yourself remember these images: young men and women sitting quietly at a lunch counter, assaulted by mobs, or walking to school past white faces twisted with hate. The Movement sought always to confront Jim Crow on terrain where THEY WOULD HAVE THE MORAL AND NARRATIVE HIGH GROUND. The act itself was the message."
This is absolutely a fascinating article, but what intrigues me specifically about it is how it treats the 'violence vs. non-violence' argument as something that needs to be *logically considered* rather than dismissed in favor of whatever the arguer finds more emotionally satisfying.
Nonviolence was a very large ask - you could be beaten, blinded even killed, and you were being asked to do nothing to the people doing it to you and to let them get away with it. It naturally resulted in a much smaller cadre of people willing to carry out the task of creating these images that demonstrated the righteousness of their cause.
But they understood that the Jim Crow government would always be able to bring down more violence on them than they could respond with in kind, and that the government said that their stated purpose of violent repression was to protect innocent white people from debased, beastlike Negros who would never, ever do something like calmly sit there and ask to be served food while jeering crowds poured ketchup on them.
Everyone having this discussion these days tends to fall into one of two camps; either "the idea of violence being involved in stopping fascism makes me uncomfortable, so we have to make sure that our methods are always nonviolent", or "the idea of doing violence to my enemies and justifying it as necessary to stop fascism makes me feel really good and proud and strong, so we should encourage violence at every juncture." No one is wrestling with the actual question at the level of strategic or even moral issues; just getting the good emotional kick out of either denouncing or justifying violence depending on which their drug of choice is.
You have made a great point that nonviolence is effective for logical reasons, but I disagree that no one is making that argument. I tune into the Thursday discussions with Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg of Indivisible on Thursdays whenever I can, and they make this argument clearly and often.
Thx for pointing this out, Ellen. I've seen their discussions and they are terrific.
Indivisible is one of the many organizations in the prodemocracy coalition who are speaking up and out and taking action. One thing the Bulwark could do is to provide a clearinghouse on their site with links to all of these organizations so we subscribers can support them - learn about what they're doing, share that in your networks, and, if you can afford it, donate.
You should check out Indivisible's 1 Million Rising campaign and trainings. I joined my local neighborhood Indivisible group and it's been fantastic. Here's a link to our neighborhood website, all done by concerned neighbors: https://www.pdxdistrict2neighbors.org/
100% this.
Yes. We live in an entirely different age now; technology has made instant gratification standard and widespread. Progress is often incremental, yes, in inches, and people today are just too impatient for that. We have become a nation of spoiled children. I vote for candidate A, and if he doesn't give me enough of what I want (and for many people ALL of what I want) then I am going to vote him out and all the rest of his party to teach them a lesson. This is partially what happened with Obama in 10, and what happened to Biden/Harris in 24. This childish impatience coupled with a severe lack of knowledge of how govt and politics works, combined with a decline and or lack of reasoning and analytical skills has gotten us here. Oh, and add widespread apathy, ennui, and a growing nihilism. It's what makes it hard to cut through media narratives and the defeatist attitude of believing politics is boring and has nothing to do with our lives.
It takes an educated population to
I’m troubled by the widespread apathy among the younger generations- how to get them more engaged? It’s their future being destroyed.
Get them off cell phones and computer screens. Release them outside.
FYI, from Jonathan Haidt today: "What Kids Told Us About How to Get Them Off Their Phones" (https://www.afterbabel.com/p/kids-freedom-smartphones?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1221094&post_id=170138422&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1dlvn&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email).
I think the problem is we are an uneducated population so our decisions are based on our emotions, which while good in some ways, are terrible for political decisions. People said they would vote for Bush over Kerry because they could see themselves having a beer with Bush but not with Kerry. Emotion over education. People voted for Felon Trump because they believed only he could improve their lives. Again, emotion over education. Education is key, and for once, the government should stop listening to and acquiescing to parents. Standards in what is taught and how it should be measured is key. Stop with the 6.5 hours/day and 180 school days per year. Be radical; downgrade sports, so there is more time for academics such as liberal arts. I have worked with people, college graduates, who could not complete a single thought in their sentences, much less a paragraph. Spelling, and punctuation are by the boards. If you don’t expect high standards from people, you will never get high standards. Low expectations is a spiral circle to the bottom.
My wife, a retired attorney and undergrad English major, taught legal writing for a semester. She flunked two students who had MAs in the humanities. How could that happen? Hw did these people get passing grades on their theses? Profs reviewed her tentative grades and approved.
I think the expression for your wife is “This would make a cat bark!”
Yes!! Begin with phonics in teaching reading again. Include memorization as kids grow older in both literature and math. Have classroom maps as well as teaching World Geography. Timelines for visual History. English Grammar with sentence construction. etc etc. We can do a great job again with Education. Provide a Trade School near each Public H.S.
All these things and more. We can and should leave our children and their children the full education they deserve. They are the future.
JVL - have you read Samantha Hancox-Li's article on the history of the Civil Rights movement? There had been pressure against Jim Crow for as long as it existed, but she has some interesting arguments about why Martin Luther King managed to specifically win. https://www.liberalcurrents.com/how-to-win-a-rigged-game/
Thank you for sharing this. A good lunch time read about the strategy of the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, we as Americans thought "Well, we've passed these two fine Acts (Civil Rights, Voting) - the work is done." But the opposition - Jim Crow, if you will - never gave up. They went underground and have continued to work at re-taking power- which they've now done with a 50 year campaign. Until 90% of Americans believe in equality before the law and there is some consensus on "truth", this is a battle which must continue to be fought.
An excellent piece, William. Thanks. This stood out for me: "the Movement correctly identified that their victories would have to come through persuasion—but a persuasion that went beyond a well-written op-ed. They arranged situations in which they could DEMONSTRATE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR CAUSE THROUGH ACTIONS. Even now you yourself remember these images: young men and women sitting quietly at a lunch counter, assaulted by mobs, or walking to school past white faces twisted with hate. The Movement sought always to confront Jim Crow on terrain where THEY WOULD HAVE THE MORAL AND NARRATIVE HIGH GROUND. The act itself was the message."
This is absolutely a fascinating article, but what intrigues me specifically about it is how it treats the 'violence vs. non-violence' argument as something that needs to be *logically considered* rather than dismissed in favor of whatever the arguer finds more emotionally satisfying.
Nonviolence was a very large ask - you could be beaten, blinded even killed, and you were being asked to do nothing to the people doing it to you and to let them get away with it. It naturally resulted in a much smaller cadre of people willing to carry out the task of creating these images that demonstrated the righteousness of their cause.
But they understood that the Jim Crow government would always be able to bring down more violence on them than they could respond with in kind, and that the government said that their stated purpose of violent repression was to protect innocent white people from debased, beastlike Negros who would never, ever do something like calmly sit there and ask to be served food while jeering crowds poured ketchup on them.
Everyone having this discussion these days tends to fall into one of two camps; either "the idea of violence being involved in stopping fascism makes me uncomfortable, so we have to make sure that our methods are always nonviolent", or "the idea of doing violence to my enemies and justifying it as necessary to stop fascism makes me feel really good and proud and strong, so we should encourage violence at every juncture." No one is wrestling with the actual question at the level of strategic or even moral issues; just getting the good emotional kick out of either denouncing or justifying violence depending on which their drug of choice is.
You have made a great point that nonviolence is effective for logical reasons, but I disagree that no one is making that argument. I tune into the Thursday discussions with Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg of Indivisible on Thursdays whenever I can, and they make this argument clearly and often.
Thx for pointing this out, Ellen. I've seen their discussions and they are terrific.
Indivisible is one of the many organizations in the prodemocracy coalition who are speaking up and out and taking action. One thing the Bulwark could do is to provide a clearinghouse on their site with links to all of these organizations so we subscribers can support them - learn about what they're doing, share that in your networks, and, if you can afford it, donate.
Along with Indivisible, these include:
- Democracy Docket (https://www.democracydocket.com)
- Protect Democracy who has a toolkit for countering authoritarianism (https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-faithful-fight/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=faithful_fight_campaign)
- Democracy Forward (https://democracyforward.org)
- Democracy Playbook 2025, evidence-based best practices for reversing democratic backsliding (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-playbook-2025/)
- Democracy Defenders (https://www.democracydefendersaction.org).
I'm sure there are more.
You should check out Indivisible's 1 Million Rising campaign and trainings. I joined my local neighborhood Indivisible group and it's been fantastic. Here's a link to our neighborhood website, all done by concerned neighbors: https://www.pdxdistrict2neighbors.org/
Stop the doomscrolling and TAKE ACTION!!