Well unarmed war if there's such a thing. I'm not advocating war. However I think trump and the people surrounding him, these various institutions feeding into could well be at war. I don't think we think we're war really most people, the nyts the administration etc.. but it could be they are waging war. I'm just asking opinions not advocating for it.
Well unarmed war if there's such a thing. I'm not advocating war. However I think trump and the people surrounding him, these various institutions feeding into could well be at war. I don't think we think we're war really most people, the nyts the administration etc.. but it could be they are waging war. I'm just asking opinions not advocating for it.
Neither am I advocating either war or violence. We would lose anyway-- they have the weaponry, they have the motivated cadres of potential and actual leaders and fighters, they know what they think they want (a top-down regime run on the Fuehrerprinzip), and above all the greatest advantage any group of revolutionaries can have: an opposition that does not even realize it is targeted for destruction.
I'm afraid history is pushing us into a cul-de-sac. The most discouraging part is that we are blindly following each other toward the abattoir.
Reading the report, everything in it is dead on except the final section, with its recommendations to "take anti-democratic ideas and promises
seriously," "Create pro-democracy coalitions before the crisis arrives", "Keep a broad pro-democracy movement united against the acute, big-picture autocratic danger" and so forth.
It's not that these recommendations are wrong, it's that they are largely about as useful as a tennis coach explaining that the way to win a match is to keep hitting the ball over the net so it lands in bounds until your opponent fails to do so. This is very true but doesn't clarify how to swing the racquet correctly.
#1, #2, & #3 -- By all means and we do have some Bulwarks other scattered groups collecting under (somewhat tattered) pro-democracy banners, but if America still had a populace that really objected to anti-democratic ideas, and wanted to unite against autocratic danger, we wouldn't be facing this disaster. The recruiting offices are open, but it's MAGA where the queues are forming to join up.
With #4, supporting Republicans who stand firm for democratic institutions, there is a slight difficulty -- there aren't any.
#5, Rally around non-partisan, independent public servants -- yes, although unfortunately this is more likely to light them up for target practice and get them invited to necktie parties than embolden others to stand up against the authoritarian tide.
#6 amounts to bringing dictionaries to a knife fight, and #7 and #8, where not short on actionable detail ("training for the unexpected") have the disadvantage of volunteering everyone on your team for special attention as soon as the new regime can get around to them.
Pretty bleak. Sometimes the current of history just can't be navigated.
'Ofcourse they'd win a hot civil war' seems to be CW. Think that's wrong. Blue would control cities, thus communications, that is, both electronic (info and money), and distribution networks. Red, with its' rural base, would be at a crippling disadvantage. That's why the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War.
But it won't come to that. MAGA has not demonstrated the will or capacity for organized violence since Jan. 6 itself. When Mar-a-Lago was searched, there was a frightful uproar, but only one individual attempted attack on FBI office and got himself killed. One. Out of 74 million Trump voters. Since then, 4 arraignments, and nothing, not even large demonstrations despite Donald calling for them at the first one in NYC. MAGA is a new phenomenon, an almost entirely online, screen, fantasy in which the price of participation is to believe impossible things. If a handful decide to cosplay civil war, so much the worse for them.
Well unarmed war if there's such a thing. I'm not advocating war. However I think trump and the people surrounding him, these various institutions feeding into could well be at war. I don't think we think we're war really most people, the nyts the administration etc.. but it could be they are waging war. I'm just asking opinions not advocating for it.
Neither am I advocating either war or violence. We would lose anyway-- they have the weaponry, they have the motivated cadres of potential and actual leaders and fighters, they know what they think they want (a top-down regime run on the Fuehrerprinzip), and above all the greatest advantage any group of revolutionaries can have: an opposition that does not even realize it is targeted for destruction.
I'm afraid history is pushing us into a cul-de-sac. The most discouraging part is that we are blindly following each other toward the abattoir.
Reading the report, everything in it is dead on except the final section, with its recommendations to "take anti-democratic ideas and promises
seriously," "Create pro-democracy coalitions before the crisis arrives", "Keep a broad pro-democracy movement united against the acute, big-picture autocratic danger" and so forth.
It's not that these recommendations are wrong, it's that they are largely about as useful as a tennis coach explaining that the way to win a match is to keep hitting the ball over the net so it lands in bounds until your opponent fails to do so. This is very true but doesn't clarify how to swing the racquet correctly.
#1, #2, & #3 -- By all means and we do have some Bulwarks other scattered groups collecting under (somewhat tattered) pro-democracy banners, but if America still had a populace that really objected to anti-democratic ideas, and wanted to unite against autocratic danger, we wouldn't be facing this disaster. The recruiting offices are open, but it's MAGA where the queues are forming to join up.
With #4, supporting Republicans who stand firm for democratic institutions, there is a slight difficulty -- there aren't any.
#5, Rally around non-partisan, independent public servants -- yes, although unfortunately this is more likely to light them up for target practice and get them invited to necktie parties than embolden others to stand up against the authoritarian tide.
#6 amounts to bringing dictionaries to a knife fight, and #7 and #8, where not short on actionable detail ("training for the unexpected") have the disadvantage of volunteering everyone on your team for special attention as soon as the new regime can get around to them.
Pretty bleak. Sometimes the current of history just can't be navigated.
'Ofcourse they'd win a hot civil war' seems to be CW. Think that's wrong. Blue would control cities, thus communications, that is, both electronic (info and money), and distribution networks. Red, with its' rural base, would be at a crippling disadvantage. That's why the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War.
But it won't come to that. MAGA has not demonstrated the will or capacity for organized violence since Jan. 6 itself. When Mar-a-Lago was searched, there was a frightful uproar, but only one individual attempted attack on FBI office and got himself killed. One. Out of 74 million Trump voters. Since then, 4 arraignments, and nothing, not even large demonstrations despite Donald calling for them at the first one in NYC. MAGA is a new phenomenon, an almost entirely online, screen, fantasy in which the price of participation is to believe impossible things. If a handful decide to cosplay civil war, so much the worse for them.