Charlie, my man. I think you might need to have more progressives on your show if your reaction to deBoer's references was "WTAF?". I've been reading that junk for years. It's been ubiquitous on the left. That Osterweil "In Defense of Looting" book was just the most ridiculous example of it.
Sadly, this is the insidious result of the paralysis white progressives display in the face of their own white guilt. They can't - literally *can't* - bring themselves to be critical of anything that a racial minority does. Their only option in the face of such questions is either to sheepishly dodge them as "complex", claim no right to judge or have an opinion by virtue of being white, or double down with some absurd "pragmatic" argument as to why riots are actually good things.
The worst part is that this kinda sorta comes from a good place. They think that this is the way to atone for the sins of white society and make amends for the harm done to racial minorities. While this represents a disturbing departure from modern notions of morality whereby guilt is not inherited by one's descendants or collectively owned by a "race", wanting to be gracious at least demonstrates sympathy and a genuine rejection of the overt, visceral racism of the past.
What they don't realize is how dehumanizing this actually is to minorities. By sentimentalizing them as victims, refusing to criticize them as you would any other human being, you deny them individual agency, effectively treating them as totems, vessels to deliver your own salvation. Asking one of your black friends if they could recommend a book on racism - as if you have somehow lost the ability to perform a simple online search when it comes to this one subject - is a form of deification, whereby you completely subordinate your own judgement to that of another person whom you deem to be an infallible, "authentic" voice on the matter. It's also a performative way to validate your own place in the abstract struggle, while ignoring the concrete damage done.
Regardless of where it comes from, it's pathetic. And irresponsible. And selfish. And within the progressive diaspora, deeply seductive. Even I, who has always found it repugnant, was drawn in for a brief moment following the George Floyd incident. We can't have this. We should be as vocal in denouncing such civil poison as the Twitter mobs were in going after David Shor. Okay ... maybe not *quite* that bad - we don't need to ruin any careers. But then maybe if we pushed back harder and earlier on some of these issues, the consequences would never rise to that level in the first place.
I appreciate the links on the pro-riot left from the summer of the riots. But who on the pro-riot left is upset about Rittenhouse possible/probably acquuittal? Those same people?
We have allowed political performance art to get out of hand. What started as rhetoric to justify particular positions and ideologies (and to cater to bias/prejudice) has morphed into the demonization and dehumanization of other citizens.
Most of the people who contributed the most to this problem were not politicians, they were entertainers. Media personalities. People looking for a spin they could use to turn a few dollars--well, more than a few.
The true leadership of the right is not their politicians. It hasn't been the politicians or the thinkers for quite some time (starting back in the late 80s). The true leadership was the media personalities--the radio talk show hosts, the writers, the media opinion people.
Even they did not lead so much as amplify and extend something that was already there--sitting beneath the surface, waiting its moment to spring into life.
Now, there is no control--which means there is no bottom. There is this self-reinforcing vicious cycle where you now have to outdo the people before you if you want to gain any traction and make any money or hold onto office.
This is happening on the left as well. It is less noticed because the left has less power and influence in our society... and the Democratic center (for a long time) pushed back against it, seeing that rhetoric as a losing proposition.
When a group sees something as existential, it becomes existential. When the enemy is Other, it is easy to use extreme measures.
This cycle has not eased, it is accelerating. The politicians and media are now stuck on the back of the hungry tiger and are afraid to get off because they know that the tiger WILL eat them.
The whole mess is a natural outcome of our consumer market society. The closest analogy to political rhetoric (as practiced in this country) is narcotics. The pushers pushed their product (media) and the customers liked it--but soon you needed a stronger fix.. and a stronger fix. The money (and power) kept rolling in so it was all good--NOW, the customers are showing up armed and ready to kill you (sometimes literally) if you do not provide them the fix they want... because they are desperate for it.
And now they actually want you to DO something about this horrible mess that you have convinced them exists. If it's that bad, you should be doing something--and if YOU aren't going to do it, then maybe they will.
And all you really wanted was to make a few bucks or get (and stay) elected.. you didn't actually MEAN it, not really. You were just telling people things that you thought they wanted to hear or that your consultant told you to say... it polled well.
So, since JVL requested this on Secret Pod today, I'll take the bait. Responsible gun owner here, also a USMC vet who did x3 pumps to Iraq from '05-'08 during the civil war years of the counter-insurgency campaign there (Haditha, Fallujah, + Al Anbar-wide IED hunting). Kyle Rittenhaus is NOT a hero. Not even close. What he is, and what others in that pro-vigilantism corner of gun culture are, are essentially a group of radical gun owners who are attempting to extend what is commonly known as the "castle doctrine" to basically anywhere they want to. The "castle doctrine" is what most self-defense claims are based around, that a man's home is his castle, and that he has the right to defend that castle from outside threats of violence. This is why most home invasions that end with the burglar getting shot by the home owner end up being justified. Later, the definition of "castle" was extended to your personal vehicle, your private business, and your own person through concealed and open carry pistol laws. Now, what guys like Rittenhaus are essentially trying to do is extend the "castle" to include *someone else's property* that they have no stake in ownership off. This is a radical departure from traditional castle doctrine law, and adds vigilantism and organized militia violence to the mix. Essentially, these guys want to be able to get together with their militias, declare a random street of set of businesses in a neighboring community or state to be their "castle" in terms of right-to-protection, and then using that legal footing to be able to use armed intimidation and instigation to bait political opponents into violence, and then massacre whoever throws a fist with bullets, all while claiming "right to self-defense." Ladies and gentlemen, this is not self-defense. This is the equivalent of armed militias showing up to the capital on Jan 6th, and then shooting the Jan 6 rioters when you step in to help the police push away violent protestors and are assaulted in the process. Would that be self-defense? Of course it wouldn't, because I had no legal jurisdiction there as security, just as Kyle Rittenhaus (or his militia buddies) didn't have jurisdiction in Kenosha or any other place armed militias have shown up to intimidate political opponents (Bundy Ranch & Ferguson in 2014). I personally know some of the guys in these militias, and have long since broken ties with them, because they are extremely radical people. The first time I saw people I had deployed with show up armed to riots or protests was in Ferguson in 2014. That was also the first time I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned live on the news by a radical right-wing base voter. That overlap is no coincidence. It marked the turn of the party. Ferguson and the start of BLM is what turned the ugliest side of the prior GOP into the full-fledged face of it, and it got more comfortable bearing its teeth in doing so. A lot of people ignored it back then, but I paid very close attention because that's when I started getting really worried about violence in politics. I still worry, as this kind of trend has only gone mainstream since then. If responsible gun owners do not step up and call out this element of gun culture here in the US, we risk seeing a real increased political militia violence in the streets and further radicalization.
Second, I think the "fetishization" of the Military by many who would NEVER qualify or serve is an issue that we shy away from in this country. My Dad served in WWII as did 2 Uncles. I have many friends that have served, many that have seen what I imagine you have, and to a man ( all are men) they are pro 2nd Amendment and definitely not MAGA and most certainly not pro "a good guy with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun".
Each one on them understands what being armed in a conflict means. Each one of them understands the reality of chaos and guns. I think too many young (and some old) men use carrying a gun as a stand in for feeling like they matter.
I agree with you that we are probably in for more political violence and it breaks this 62 year olds heart.
Charlie, Indeed when you promote violence you unleash a world of chaos and harm: law at the business end of a club, instead of a courtroom is atavistic terror. Looting is better defined as mass theft. Those who excuse violence are promoting it. When clubs and jellied gasoline replace words we're in big trouble. We are in big trouble!
Secession won't work. Our differences are not regional. Upstate New York has more in common with Alabama than in does with New York City. Austin has more in common with San Francisco than it does with the rest of Texas.
If there is another civil war, it will be fought in every state with battles between rural areas and cities.
Okay, Twitter is one thing. Looking to Reddit for serious takes is a new low that even I have to suggest that Charlie take a serious look in the mirror. Please stop including wacky click baity ideas for your stories. There seems to be enough mainstream takes on the rioting that including Reddit is simply being lazy. Do better.
Did anyone else notice that the McEntee memo has several typos and grammatical errors? We all make mistakes, but in a document like that you would have thought they would have had another set of eyes (or two) proofreading it.
Yeah, the whole administration was basically clowns with dangerous amounts of power. Every official document out of that administration needed a high school English student to edit it.
The failure to condemn political violence combined with a genuine (though misguided and false) lack of faith in the electoral process, urged on by political leaders, is a very combustible mixture. Trump says what his supporters believe, whether he believes it or not; it's hard to tell what Trump believes, or whether he has any beliefs aside from his own id. But when you tell your supporters repeatedly that the ballot box is rigged and they get in their heads that there is no recourse for electoral change, violence is not only on the table; it becomes a patriotic duty. And these are the people with the vast majority of our 400 million guns.
This is the dynamic that played out in the head of the guy who shot up the GOP ballgame and almost killed Steve Scalise. And yet, a bullet from an assault rifle was not enough to teach Scalise how dangerous of a game he is playing, refusing to say Biden won the election (his standard response is "Biden is the president").
This is the fire Donald Trump plays with every day, and he's the inevitable 2024 GOP nominee. It's a disgusting, revolting brew. This is why, despite his normy-ness, Glen Youngkin is still not fit for public office.
Re: the Esper memo ... "vowed to be apolitical". Is Esper's being apolitical the complaint? Nearly every other bullet point is a complaint that Esper was not "political" enough in aligning with Trump.
Just because somebody writes a piece about riots being some form of positive change doesn't mean what Rittenhouse did should be a pass. I will harken that the initial fires in Minneapolis that started at the AutoZone were found by the ATF to be of white Supreme st origins. Any form of violence during a peaceful protest is unacceptable and so are any pieces condoning the behavior. But there are zero people standing up condoning riot behavior as acceptable during a protest. Rittenhouse, by his actions,, literally is saying that him murdering somebody for grabbing a gun he should not have possessed next to a fire his attacker never started in a car lot he had no business being at a juvenile age, is ok. It's OK because some nut job was screaming stupid things at him and he was scared. He was in fear for his life. I can tell he is afraid in the video. But that was his defense before he even descended upon Kenosha. What he did was premeditated. You could have wrote zero of those opinion pieces. Rittenhouse would have still packed his AR for killing. This incident embolden the craziness more then AMY Times article would in a hundred years. I still appreciate the bothsidedness Charlie.
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
This not a criticism but a genuine question...why modify agreement with condemning violence with "especially" on...any side? If we accept the proposition that violence in the cause of political and / or social change is bad, why should it be more strenuously or frequently condemned in one broad group as opposed to another? Perhaps a natural human reaction to seeing people associated with one's own group engaging in behavior condemned in another group? Perhaps not "housecleaning" but more of a personal affront to one's own personal values and the broad values of the larger group that one identifies with?
Anyway, for me injured is injured, dead is dead, destroyed is destroyed. Admittedly an easy statement for me to make, since I claim no hard and fast membership in any particular group beyond that referred to as American. And human.
Just trying to understand the thought behind that statement...
Whoa just saw these comments and super regretting putting “especially” in my comment 😂. The Dem establishment definitely condemned the violence, and I personally only witnessed peaceful protest. The sentiment behind “especially” is because I want the left to hold the moral high ground, and I believe wholeheartedly in the change the violent acts are trying to bring about… the ending of police brutality. The right engages in violence because of lies, the left engages in violence because of truth. But violence is the least effective and practical means of creating that change. My comment is based in pure pragmatism. If we want to see true reform, we must try to be like John Lewis, not the white bro counter protestors hitting people with skateboards. So yes, I am harshest on my friends on the left because I want actual change to happen. Violence is easy. Putting one’s own emotions aside for the cause is much harder.
I have to confess I find this comment troubling. If the strategy of the violent left is to rain destruction on our cities until police brutality ends, is the only reason to condemn this strategy is that it is unlikely to work? I would have thought the moral high ground would be to condemn violence because it is wrong, not that it is pragmatically ineffective. The Biden Justice Department declined to prosecute the officer who shot Jacob Blake. Are we so sure the Kenosha rioters were engaging in violence because of truth? To not condemn violence on moral grounds is to abandon the American project of political reform through reasoned debate, peaceful protests to raise issues, and finally democratic concensus.
Just curious if you have much experience with American cities. I am regularly in or near NYC, Newark, Paterson and live in Dover NJ. There is not strategy to rain destruction on cities. A few cities did have prolonged periods of rioting. Most did not. Riots are not new in America and should be understood as expressing something real. So it is that we cannot but understand that African Americans are upset - at least some are. By the way, even the Jan 6 riot is an expression or real upset. And re Kenosha - surely those who protest and riot are stirred up. But stirring up is something that also is part of legitimate political life - so folks like Al Sharpton have led chants of no justice, no peace.
Want to say thanks for the reply, though I realize it was directed at all the commentors who spoke of this. Pretty much an answer I was expecting, having read a number of your posts over time. But it does make things a bit more clear.
Just goes to show what an effect one little word can have on the perceived meaning of all the others surrounding it. But I don't think anyone, myself included, could fault the motive behind that post, or the explanation that followed.
The moral high ground can sometimes be tricky terrain to navigate when passions run high. And both sides claim it as their own come hell or high water. And these days one man's truth is another man's lie. Often seems like an intractable problem that will only beget more skateboards upside heads.
Don't know what the answer to that is, other than it's not more skateboards. Maybe, in small part, more talk...like just happened here?
We probably don't always tread the same political path. But it's good to be in the same plot of woods. Props for speaking your mind the way you do.
It was a totally valid critique! I just have the terrible habit of plunking my caffieneless digits on yee ol’ smart phone before, I dunno… waking up and thinking first 😂. I always enjoy the smart critique this group provides. Thank you for the kind words!
All well and good to consider all violence and condemn it. But it helps to note that whatever support for violence on the left fizzled - and never was popular among elected Democrats. So they did not campaign with fists raised etc. On the right, something entirely different occurred.
So it is good to be reminded about those who did apologize for violence. But let's not exaggerate its importance.
As an older person, I remember riots from the 60s and they appear from time to time. They are always bad but they also must at least be understood. So we as a nation tried to understand the unrest in the 60s. Similarly, we must also reckon on the reasons for the unrest last year.
"Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. "
Why especially on the left? Or am I to understand this as a person of the left doing housecleaning on her side?
Charlie wrote about bothsidesism yesterday. A crucial difference between the left and right at this moment is that Trump is actively supporting the violent actors on the right and Biden is condemning violence all around. In other words, Biden is attempting to defend the ideals of democracy and constitutional governance while Trump is attempting to blow them up in service to his delicate ego.
We talk a lot about how unfit Donald Trump was for the Presidency, but not nearly enough attention is paid to how unfit Mike Pence is for the Vice Presidency. I cannot fathom being Mike Pence and remaining all but silent in the face of everything Trump has done, to the country and to him personally. If I were Pence I'd have a one cot at FBI headquarters and another in the 1/6 Committee room.
Not sure what you mean by Pence being unfit for VP. Our paths crossed for one year in college and then again in law school where I got to know him a lot better. (I was editor of the law school paper, while Pence was the cartoonist.) I had a number of conversations with him about the political issue of the day. Contrary to the image presented as VP, Pence came across as smart, well-informed, and extremely personable. In law school, he was quite popular, even with liberals. When he got into politics, he eventually put aside the warm, thoughtful Mike Pence and started doing whatever he thought he needed to do to get ahead. That included signing on as Donald Trump's VP. Clearly, Mike Pence has sold out his soul to the devil to try to get him ahead in politics. And he's compounded his sins by going along until 1/6 with everything Trump wanted. Outside of selling out his soul (which seems kind of important), I certainly wouldn't call Pence unqualified. He's a 1000 times more qualified than Donald Trump.
"Selling out his soul" means he did not defend the US Constitution against a domestic enemy. This disqualifies him for any federal office, let alone that of the Vice President. Any fancy lawyerin' and book-larnin' he may have done is irrelevant.
Oh, he is definitely 1000 times more qualified than Donald Trump. But that measure alone doesn't get him anywhere near being qualified to be president.
Right, but the "selling out your soul" part matters quite a lot when the chips are down, wouldn't you say? You can be a pretty capable political operator, but if the day calls for something else and you come up drastically short, the political operator part does not matter. At least not to the history books.
I agree totally....though I would point out that Pence has a lot of company when it comes to Republicans who sold out their souls during the Trump era. It would be easier to make a list of those Republicans who refused to sell out.
I also think it's fair to point out that your memories of Pence are definitely not representative of who Pence is now, or more accurately, who Pence has chosen to become.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and so on. I am sure Pence thought he could be the sane man in the room, but he seems to have failed in every regard except to certify the election.
Pence sold his soul when he agreed to be Trump's running mate. What did he get for this transaction? He is loathed on the right as a coward for not participating in the "Stop the Steal" coup. In the reality based world, he is loathed as a coward for not telling the truth to the country. Well done, Mike!
It’s appalling weakness. We thought this type of behavior was limited to France (Vichy), Germany (Nazi and Stasi collaborators), and Stalinist states. To China and Cambodia. Where good people became infected with it. But we see these people right now. The ones who would sign the papers to put us on the trains to the camps. The Grahams and McCarthys, the Pences and Stefaniks.
Charlie, my man. I think you might need to have more progressives on your show if your reaction to deBoer's references was "WTAF?". I've been reading that junk for years. It's been ubiquitous on the left. That Osterweil "In Defense of Looting" book was just the most ridiculous example of it.
Sadly, this is the insidious result of the paralysis white progressives display in the face of their own white guilt. They can't - literally *can't* - bring themselves to be critical of anything that a racial minority does. Their only option in the face of such questions is either to sheepishly dodge them as "complex", claim no right to judge or have an opinion by virtue of being white, or double down with some absurd "pragmatic" argument as to why riots are actually good things.
The worst part is that this kinda sorta comes from a good place. They think that this is the way to atone for the sins of white society and make amends for the harm done to racial minorities. While this represents a disturbing departure from modern notions of morality whereby guilt is not inherited by one's descendants or collectively owned by a "race", wanting to be gracious at least demonstrates sympathy and a genuine rejection of the overt, visceral racism of the past.
What they don't realize is how dehumanizing this actually is to minorities. By sentimentalizing them as victims, refusing to criticize them as you would any other human being, you deny them individual agency, effectively treating them as totems, vessels to deliver your own salvation. Asking one of your black friends if they could recommend a book on racism - as if you have somehow lost the ability to perform a simple online search when it comes to this one subject - is a form of deification, whereby you completely subordinate your own judgement to that of another person whom you deem to be an infallible, "authentic" voice on the matter. It's also a performative way to validate your own place in the abstract struggle, while ignoring the concrete damage done.
Regardless of where it comes from, it's pathetic. And irresponsible. And selfish. And within the progressive diaspora, deeply seductive. Even I, who has always found it repugnant, was drawn in for a brief moment following the George Floyd incident. We can't have this. We should be as vocal in denouncing such civil poison as the Twitter mobs were in going after David Shor. Okay ... maybe not *quite* that bad - we don't need to ruin any careers. But then maybe if we pushed back harder and earlier on some of these issues, the consequences would never rise to that level in the first place.
I appreciate the links on the pro-riot left from the summer of the riots. But who on the pro-riot left is upset about Rittenhouse possible/probably acquuittal? Those same people?
I think that's implied.
We have allowed political performance art to get out of hand. What started as rhetoric to justify particular positions and ideologies (and to cater to bias/prejudice) has morphed into the demonization and dehumanization of other citizens.
Most of the people who contributed the most to this problem were not politicians, they were entertainers. Media personalities. People looking for a spin they could use to turn a few dollars--well, more than a few.
The true leadership of the right is not their politicians. It hasn't been the politicians or the thinkers for quite some time (starting back in the late 80s). The true leadership was the media personalities--the radio talk show hosts, the writers, the media opinion people.
Even they did not lead so much as amplify and extend something that was already there--sitting beneath the surface, waiting its moment to spring into life.
Now, there is no control--which means there is no bottom. There is this self-reinforcing vicious cycle where you now have to outdo the people before you if you want to gain any traction and make any money or hold onto office.
This is happening on the left as well. It is less noticed because the left has less power and influence in our society... and the Democratic center (for a long time) pushed back against it, seeing that rhetoric as a losing proposition.
When a group sees something as existential, it becomes existential. When the enemy is Other, it is easy to use extreme measures.
This cycle has not eased, it is accelerating. The politicians and media are now stuck on the back of the hungry tiger and are afraid to get off because they know that the tiger WILL eat them.
The whole mess is a natural outcome of our consumer market society. The closest analogy to political rhetoric (as practiced in this country) is narcotics. The pushers pushed their product (media) and the customers liked it--but soon you needed a stronger fix.. and a stronger fix. The money (and power) kept rolling in so it was all good--NOW, the customers are showing up armed and ready to kill you (sometimes literally) if you do not provide them the fix they want... because they are desperate for it.
And now they actually want you to DO something about this horrible mess that you have convinced them exists. If it's that bad, you should be doing something--and if YOU aren't going to do it, then maybe they will.
And all you really wanted was to make a few bucks or get (and stay) elected.. you didn't actually MEAN it, not really. You were just telling people things that you thought they wanted to hear or that your consultant told you to say... it polled well.
Ah, the banality of evil. It's amazing.
So, since JVL requested this on Secret Pod today, I'll take the bait. Responsible gun owner here, also a USMC vet who did x3 pumps to Iraq from '05-'08 during the civil war years of the counter-insurgency campaign there (Haditha, Fallujah, + Al Anbar-wide IED hunting). Kyle Rittenhaus is NOT a hero. Not even close. What he is, and what others in that pro-vigilantism corner of gun culture are, are essentially a group of radical gun owners who are attempting to extend what is commonly known as the "castle doctrine" to basically anywhere they want to. The "castle doctrine" is what most self-defense claims are based around, that a man's home is his castle, and that he has the right to defend that castle from outside threats of violence. This is why most home invasions that end with the burglar getting shot by the home owner end up being justified. Later, the definition of "castle" was extended to your personal vehicle, your private business, and your own person through concealed and open carry pistol laws. Now, what guys like Rittenhaus are essentially trying to do is extend the "castle" to include *someone else's property* that they have no stake in ownership off. This is a radical departure from traditional castle doctrine law, and adds vigilantism and organized militia violence to the mix. Essentially, these guys want to be able to get together with their militias, declare a random street of set of businesses in a neighboring community or state to be their "castle" in terms of right-to-protection, and then using that legal footing to be able to use armed intimidation and instigation to bait political opponents into violence, and then massacre whoever throws a fist with bullets, all while claiming "right to self-defense." Ladies and gentlemen, this is not self-defense. This is the equivalent of armed militias showing up to the capital on Jan 6th, and then shooting the Jan 6 rioters when you step in to help the police push away violent protestors and are assaulted in the process. Would that be self-defense? Of course it wouldn't, because I had no legal jurisdiction there as security, just as Kyle Rittenhaus (or his militia buddies) didn't have jurisdiction in Kenosha or any other place armed militias have shown up to intimidate political opponents (Bundy Ranch & Ferguson in 2014). I personally know some of the guys in these militias, and have long since broken ties with them, because they are extremely radical people. The first time I saw people I had deployed with show up armed to riots or protests was in Ferguson in 2014. That was also the first time I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned live on the news by a radical right-wing base voter. That overlap is no coincidence. It marked the turn of the party. Ferguson and the start of BLM is what turned the ugliest side of the prior GOP into the full-fledged face of it, and it got more comfortable bearing its teeth in doing so. A lot of people ignored it back then, but I paid very close attention because that's when I started getting really worried about violence in politics. I still worry, as this kind of trend has only gone mainstream since then. If responsible gun owners do not step up and call out this element of gun culture here in the US, we risk seeing a real increased political militia violence in the streets and further radicalization.
Travis, first, thank you for your service.
Second, I think the "fetishization" of the Military by many who would NEVER qualify or serve is an issue that we shy away from in this country. My Dad served in WWII as did 2 Uncles. I have many friends that have served, many that have seen what I imagine you have, and to a man ( all are men) they are pro 2nd Amendment and definitely not MAGA and most certainly not pro "a good guy with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun".
Each one on them understands what being armed in a conflict means. Each one of them understands the reality of chaos and guns. I think too many young (and some old) men use carrying a gun as a stand in for feeling like they matter.
I agree with you that we are probably in for more political violence and it breaks this 62 year olds heart.
Charlie, Indeed when you promote violence you unleash a world of chaos and harm: law at the business end of a club, instead of a courtroom is atavistic terror. Looting is better defined as mass theft. Those who excuse violence are promoting it. When clubs and jellied gasoline replace words we're in big trouble. We are in big trouble!
Secession won't work. Our differences are not regional. Upstate New York has more in common with Alabama than in does with New York City. Austin has more in common with San Francisco than it does with the rest of Texas.
If there is another civil war, it will be fought in every state with battles between rural areas and cities.
Okay, Twitter is one thing. Looking to Reddit for serious takes is a new low that even I have to suggest that Charlie take a serious look in the mirror. Please stop including wacky click baity ideas for your stories. There seems to be enough mainstream takes on the rioting that including Reddit is simply being lazy. Do better.
deBoer cited the reddit link... which he referred to as 'simply hilarious"... the rest of the links are harder to ignore.
Agree, so why include it? It was just a mistake. But I take your point on the main idea.
Did anyone else notice that the McEntee memo has several typos and grammatical errors? We all make mistakes, but in a document like that you would have thought they would have had another set of eyes (or two) proofreading it.
Yeah, the whole administration was basically clowns with dangerous amounts of power. Every official document out of that administration needed a high school English student to edit it.
The memo needs much more than an edit. The thoughts expressed are juvenile.
The failure to condemn political violence combined with a genuine (though misguided and false) lack of faith in the electoral process, urged on by political leaders, is a very combustible mixture. Trump says what his supporters believe, whether he believes it or not; it's hard to tell what Trump believes, or whether he has any beliefs aside from his own id. But when you tell your supporters repeatedly that the ballot box is rigged and they get in their heads that there is no recourse for electoral change, violence is not only on the table; it becomes a patriotic duty. And these are the people with the vast majority of our 400 million guns.
This is the dynamic that played out in the head of the guy who shot up the GOP ballgame and almost killed Steve Scalise. And yet, a bullet from an assault rifle was not enough to teach Scalise how dangerous of a game he is playing, refusing to say Biden won the election (his standard response is "Biden is the president").
This is the fire Donald Trump plays with every day, and he's the inevitable 2024 GOP nominee. It's a disgusting, revolting brew. This is why, despite his normy-ness, Glen Youngkin is still not fit for public office.
Re: the Esper memo ... "vowed to be apolitical". Is Esper's being apolitical the complaint? Nearly every other bullet point is a complaint that Esper was not "political" enough in aligning with Trump.
Just because somebody writes a piece about riots being some form of positive change doesn't mean what Rittenhouse did should be a pass. I will harken that the initial fires in Minneapolis that started at the AutoZone were found by the ATF to be of white Supreme st origins. Any form of violence during a peaceful protest is unacceptable and so are any pieces condoning the behavior. But there are zero people standing up condoning riot behavior as acceptable during a protest. Rittenhouse, by his actions,, literally is saying that him murdering somebody for grabbing a gun he should not have possessed next to a fire his attacker never started in a car lot he had no business being at a juvenile age, is ok. It's OK because some nut job was screaming stupid things at him and he was scared. He was in fear for his life. I can tell he is afraid in the video. But that was his defense before he even descended upon Kenosha. What he did was premeditated. You could have wrote zero of those opinion pieces. Rittenhouse would have still packed his AR for killing. This incident embolden the craziness more then AMY Times article would in a hundred years. I still appreciate the bothsidedness Charlie.
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
This not a criticism but a genuine question...why modify agreement with condemning violence with "especially" on...any side? If we accept the proposition that violence in the cause of political and / or social change is bad, why should it be more strenuously or frequently condemned in one broad group as opposed to another? Perhaps a natural human reaction to seeing people associated with one's own group engaging in behavior condemned in another group? Perhaps not "housecleaning" but more of a personal affront to one's own personal values and the broad values of the larger group that one identifies with?
Anyway, for me injured is injured, dead is dead, destroyed is destroyed. Admittedly an easy statement for me to make, since I claim no hard and fast membership in any particular group beyond that referred to as American. And human.
Just trying to understand the thought behind that statement...
Whoa just saw these comments and super regretting putting “especially” in my comment 😂. The Dem establishment definitely condemned the violence, and I personally only witnessed peaceful protest. The sentiment behind “especially” is because I want the left to hold the moral high ground, and I believe wholeheartedly in the change the violent acts are trying to bring about… the ending of police brutality. The right engages in violence because of lies, the left engages in violence because of truth. But violence is the least effective and practical means of creating that change. My comment is based in pure pragmatism. If we want to see true reform, we must try to be like John Lewis, not the white bro counter protestors hitting people with skateboards. So yes, I am harshest on my friends on the left because I want actual change to happen. Violence is easy. Putting one’s own emotions aside for the cause is much harder.
I have to confess I find this comment troubling. If the strategy of the violent left is to rain destruction on our cities until police brutality ends, is the only reason to condemn this strategy is that it is unlikely to work? I would have thought the moral high ground would be to condemn violence because it is wrong, not that it is pragmatically ineffective. The Biden Justice Department declined to prosecute the officer who shot Jacob Blake. Are we so sure the Kenosha rioters were engaging in violence because of truth? To not condemn violence on moral grounds is to abandon the American project of political reform through reasoned debate, peaceful protests to raise issues, and finally democratic concensus.
Just curious if you have much experience with American cities. I am regularly in or near NYC, Newark, Paterson and live in Dover NJ. There is not strategy to rain destruction on cities. A few cities did have prolonged periods of rioting. Most did not. Riots are not new in America and should be understood as expressing something real. So it is that we cannot but understand that African Americans are upset - at least some are. By the way, even the Jan 6 riot is an expression or real upset. And re Kenosha - surely those who protest and riot are stirred up. But stirring up is something that also is part of legitimate political life - so folks like Al Sharpton have led chants of no justice, no peace.
It’s both morally wrong and ineffective. It can be both things.
I was reacting to the "pure pragmatism" phrasing. You've clarified things for me and I'm no longer troubled.
Want to say thanks for the reply, though I realize it was directed at all the commentors who spoke of this. Pretty much an answer I was expecting, having read a number of your posts over time. But it does make things a bit more clear.
Just goes to show what an effect one little word can have on the perceived meaning of all the others surrounding it. But I don't think anyone, myself included, could fault the motive behind that post, or the explanation that followed.
The moral high ground can sometimes be tricky terrain to navigate when passions run high. And both sides claim it as their own come hell or high water. And these days one man's truth is another man's lie. Often seems like an intractable problem that will only beget more skateboards upside heads.
Don't know what the answer to that is, other than it's not more skateboards. Maybe, in small part, more talk...like just happened here?
We probably don't always tread the same political path. But it's good to be in the same plot of woods. Props for speaking your mind the way you do.
It was a totally valid critique! I just have the terrible habit of plunking my caffieneless digits on yee ol’ smart phone before, I dunno… waking up and thinking first 😂. I always enjoy the smart critique this group provides. Thank you for the kind words!
All well and good to consider all violence and condemn it. But it helps to note that whatever support for violence on the left fizzled - and never was popular among elected Democrats. So they did not campaign with fists raised etc. On the right, something entirely different occurred.
So it is good to be reminded about those who did apologize for violence. But let's not exaggerate its importance.
As an older person, I remember riots from the 60s and they appear from time to time. They are always bad but they also must at least be understood. So we as a nation tried to understand the unrest in the 60s. Similarly, we must also reckon on the reasons for the unrest last year.
"Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. "
Why especially on the left? Or am I to understand this as a person of the left doing housecleaning on her side?
Charlie wrote about bothsidesism yesterday. A crucial difference between the left and right at this moment is that Trump is actively supporting the violent actors on the right and Biden is condemning violence all around. In other words, Biden is attempting to defend the ideals of democracy and constitutional governance while Trump is attempting to blow them up in service to his delicate ego.
I don't believe the "left" participated
on Jan 6.
Because Samantha is of the left*, and recognizes the importance of holding the high ground.
* Please forgive me if you're not and I'm putting words in your mouth.
We talk a lot about how unfit Donald Trump was for the Presidency, but not nearly enough attention is paid to how unfit Mike Pence is for the Vice Presidency. I cannot fathom being Mike Pence and remaining all but silent in the face of everything Trump has done, to the country and to him personally. If I were Pence I'd have a one cot at FBI headquarters and another in the 1/6 Committee room.
Not sure what you mean by Pence being unfit for VP. Our paths crossed for one year in college and then again in law school where I got to know him a lot better. (I was editor of the law school paper, while Pence was the cartoonist.) I had a number of conversations with him about the political issue of the day. Contrary to the image presented as VP, Pence came across as smart, well-informed, and extremely personable. In law school, he was quite popular, even with liberals. When he got into politics, he eventually put aside the warm, thoughtful Mike Pence and started doing whatever he thought he needed to do to get ahead. That included signing on as Donald Trump's VP. Clearly, Mike Pence has sold out his soul to the devil to try to get him ahead in politics. And he's compounded his sins by going along until 1/6 with everything Trump wanted. Outside of selling out his soul (which seems kind of important), I certainly wouldn't call Pence unqualified. He's a 1000 times more qualified than Donald Trump.
"Selling out his soul" means he did not defend the US Constitution against a domestic enemy. This disqualifies him for any federal office, let alone that of the Vice President. Any fancy lawyerin' and book-larnin' he may have done is irrelevant.
"Outside of selling out his soul (which seems kind of important), I certainly wouldn't call Pence unqualified."
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Oh, he is definitely 1000 times more qualified than Donald Trump. But that measure alone doesn't get him anywhere near being qualified to be president.
Right, but the "selling out your soul" part matters quite a lot when the chips are down, wouldn't you say? You can be a pretty capable political operator, but if the day calls for something else and you come up drastically short, the political operator part does not matter. At least not to the history books.
I agree totally....though I would point out that Pence has a lot of company when it comes to Republicans who sold out their souls during the Trump era. It would be easier to make a list of those Republicans who refused to sell out.
Yes, which is also a huge problem.
I also think it's fair to point out that your memories of Pence are definitely not representative of who Pence is now, or more accurately, who Pence has chosen to become.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and so on. I am sure Pence thought he could be the sane man in the room, but he seems to have failed in every regard except to certify the election.
Pence sold his soul when he agreed to be Trump's running mate. What did he get for this transaction? He is loathed on the right as a coward for not participating in the "Stop the Steal" coup. In the reality based world, he is loathed as a coward for not telling the truth to the country. Well done, Mike!
It’s appalling weakness. We thought this type of behavior was limited to France (Vichy), Germany (Nazi and Stasi collaborators), and Stalinist states. To China and Cambodia. Where good people became infected with it. But we see these people right now. The ones who would sign the papers to put us on the trains to the camps. The Grahams and McCarthys, the Pences and Stefaniks.