It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on...
Exemplary
It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on newsrooms, owned by the very billionaires profiting and benefiting from the current system; these very folks designed the semblance of a debate, or at least bought into it (quite literally if all they care about is the money it makes) and are not going to change their behavior - they simply have no incentive to.
The right has platforms for misinformation and hate and the erosion of critical thinking and democracy because the right owns these platforms. When they didn't have these platforms, they'd fall back on American ideas like "free speech" to demand platforms in places they should not have been granted platforms. The very idea of civility requires civic behavior, yet I have scarcely seen individuals measure someone's behavior and use it as a means to remove actors which aim to destroy or dismantle civic institutions. Just as we must learn to be intolerant of those who are intolerant, if we wish to have a civil society we need to learn to be intolerant of malicious actors both on the stage and on a more personal level.
This brings up the question of how does one manage to affect or dismantle such a hateful institution and reach these malicious actors? I believe we've tried, unsuccessfully, to give them a space and a voice. We tried being civil with them and they took every chance to erode that they could. We have a civic duty to deprive them of a voice, to impose harsher penalties in response to their hate, to remove them from the very society they wish to erode. Personally for me, that means simple exclusion - I refuse to give them my presence, my time, my voice or my thoughts. I will openly and unapologetically acknowledge the harm that has been caused and chastise those who align themselves with such hate and violence. When the people I love are being threatened with violence on the national stage (to say nothing of their day to day) the time is long past that we can talk about "ideological differences in policy". Everyone on the right gets to bear the responsibility of the actions of their leaders and anything short of open condemnation and actively doing what they can to remove this leadership is simply not enough.
If you are to ask for my opinion on the matter, I don't personally think that even that is enough. Nothing, short of luck, is poised to stop the current direction of the administration. The fascists have shown that they do not care for speech itself, listening to no one but themselves and bullying their way into power. They dismantle the institutions we created, because they do not care for and simply ignore the rules. We do not have strong mechanisms to remove those who ignore the rules, because we assumed that people would center the health of a society, of civility, over personal goals. But this is incorrect, their cares are centered on what directly affects them and their loved ones. They do not care of society at large because they wish to dismantle it and replace it. They seek to dismantle it with violence, but they are desperately scared of violence in return, only engaging in fights where the magnitude of their power is much greater. Thus, we know precisely what levers are available to us and what actions could stop their progress, yet we hold ourselves to standards the enemy refuses to acknowledge. We must extend the paradox of intolerance to be compatible with actions which we are currently uncomfortable with or we cannot effectively oppose their advance.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole...
when politics is routed through entertainment, audiences are trained to react, not reflect. In that register, even an assassination is received as content; the horror presents itself as just another installment of the show.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole debate, we just see the highlight reel on tv or socials.
This is magnified in a two party system... It's as if the Lakers are always playing the Knicks, there are no other teams in the league, the refs are always calling fouls in favor of the Knicks, and everyone is constantly watching the personal lives of every player.
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test. But there is zero point...
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test.
But there is zero point in my advocating for more people to get elected who do not reliably support my rights from multiple angles. Pro life candidates will not protect my right to bodily autonomy federally. Anti-trans candidates will not ensure trans healthcare is covered, that trans people aren't targeted as mentally ill or dangerous. So then we have a majority in Congress but an inability to pass any of these protections?
If those candidates run, fine, bully for them. I wouldn't be canvassing for them, or volunteering for them, and if they were elected I'd be on them about changing their vote. I just think asking people to get behind actively having their rights considered as a distraction, and dismissing their criticisms as purity testing is insulting. Especially because right now is absolutely when we should be challenging people and building up local support for progressive candidates and primary challenges. In the same way that right now we need to support Dems standing firm on healthcare, including trans healthcare, to not cave on the budget. Reward and support them for doing the good thing, push them to do it when they don't. Boot those out of touch New Yorkers, support alternative progressive candidates, not regressive ones who can't be criticized without it being called "infighting."
It is convenient for Ezra Klein that he's not the one giving up rights in his thought experiments.
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can...
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can focus on labor and childcare and never mention trans kids while also never conceding on trans rights. You can get more people on board, and you can tell them how bad it is to take away their healthcare and how high their food prices are. You can reply to every attack with "I'm talking about reducing your grocery bill, the only person obsessed with trans people is my opponent who wants to take your daughter, who just happens to be tall, or an early bloomer and good at sports, and harass her, post about her on the internet until she's crying before the next game because adults are bullying her. That's not how we treat our neighbors. If my opponent hadn't voted to cancel Sesame Street they might have learned that. "
No speech will sound good written out, I'm not working in politics, but I have seen and heard the success of progressive candidates who speak up. I cant fix Texas (I assume), the solution there is not focusing on the Senate but the local and state races and the US Representatives that can be elected. But there's no world where I think the solution is recreating Manchin's outsized power dynamic or creating a conservative voting bloc in the Dem party intentionally rather than a progressive one.
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as...
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as well watching for someone to primary him because I'm not above a Pritzker move of watching a far right candidate crash and burn in the general. But people have been announcing candidacy mostly in response to Medicaid cuts.
My best suggestion is to get involved with political groups in Texas doing this work as much as possible. They know the challenges and what can be done and where to focus effort. School boards matter too. Maybe it's supporting the courts and the lawsuits right now. Maybe it's a protest. Maybe its running against one of the unopposed good ol boys even if you know you will probably lose.
Fundamentally there's no reason to throw trans people or bodily autonomy or any of it under the bus though. We got here by not defending either to the fullest on principle. And abortion rights are actually very popular.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to...
but NYC is such a unique thing that can't be replicated.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to that - particularly when it comes to the organizing infrastructure that propelled Mamdani to victory - I'm not completely sold on the idea that his politics wouldn't appeal to Democrat and independent voters in the middle of the country. I guess we'll see. Whenever I hear the "such and such is not NYC" line, there's an implication that people in those states have different views about affordability, access to healthcare, wealth inequality, and America's unwavering support for war crimes. Idk, man. I think they just happen to live next to more Republicans.
I'm of the belief that people will ultimately vote for their own interests over anything else. Unfortunately, building candidates with a message loud enough to speak to those interests is difficult, especially when the institutional powers of the Democratic machine work against them. That's why I agree with DefinitelyNotAFae's suggestion below to join groups that can help propel Mamdani-like figures in other states. If you build it, they will come.
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral...
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral damage to appeal to people who want people like me dead" dismissed as a "purity test." Of course the people not wanting to be thrown under the bus are framed as the divisive ones, not the spineless liberals chomping at the bit to sacrifice us for a hypothetical chance at winning over more votes from transphobes and bigots of other varieties.
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them"...
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them" is actually "us".
Establishment democrats have proven themselves very willing to throw even very popular issues under the bus out of some delusion that it will appeal to right-wing voters, though. Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights. That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively...
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights.
That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively courted the right.
But yes they need to get their act together on messaging, they're capable of it.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
It's a nice sentiment and I agree with the author that we have a civic duty to treat discussion fairly, but it strikes me as drastically naive of the powers at play if they are calling on newsrooms, owned by the very billionaires profiting and benefiting from the current system; these very folks designed the semblance of a debate, or at least bought into it (quite literally if all they care about is the money it makes) and are not going to change their behavior - they simply have no incentive to.
The right has platforms for misinformation and hate and the erosion of critical thinking and democracy because the right owns these platforms. When they didn't have these platforms, they'd fall back on American ideas like "free speech" to demand platforms in places they should not have been granted platforms. The very idea of civility requires civic behavior, yet I have scarcely seen individuals measure someone's behavior and use it as a means to remove actors which aim to destroy or dismantle civic institutions. Just as we must learn to be intolerant of those who are intolerant, if we wish to have a civil society we need to learn to be intolerant of malicious actors both on the stage and on a more personal level.
This brings up the question of how does one manage to affect or dismantle such a hateful institution and reach these malicious actors? I believe we've tried, unsuccessfully, to give them a space and a voice. We tried being civil with them and they took every chance to erode that they could. We have a civic duty to deprive them of a voice, to impose harsher penalties in response to their hate, to remove them from the very society they wish to erode. Personally for me, that means simple exclusion - I refuse to give them my presence, my time, my voice or my thoughts. I will openly and unapologetically acknowledge the harm that has been caused and chastise those who align themselves with such hate and violence. When the people I love are being threatened with violence on the national stage (to say nothing of their day to day) the time is long past that we can talk about "ideological differences in policy". Everyone on the right gets to bear the responsibility of the actions of their leaders and anything short of open condemnation and actively doing what they can to remove this leadership is simply not enough.
If you are to ask for my opinion on the matter, I don't personally think that even that is enough. Nothing, short of luck, is poised to stop the current direction of the administration. The fascists have shown that they do not care for speech itself, listening to no one but themselves and bullying their way into power. They dismantle the institutions we created, because they do not care for and simply ignore the rules. We do not have strong mechanisms to remove those who ignore the rules, because we assumed that people would center the health of a society, of civility, over personal goals. But this is incorrect, their cares are centered on what directly affects them and their loved ones. They do not care of society at large because they wish to dismantle it and replace it. They seek to dismantle it with violence, but they are desperately scared of violence in return, only engaging in fights where the magnitude of their power is much greater. Thus, we know precisely what levers are available to us and what actions could stop their progress, yet we hold ourselves to standards the enemy refuses to acknowledge. We must extend the paradox of intolerance to be compatible with actions which we are currently uncomfortable with or we cannot effectively oppose their advance.
The public, myself included, has taken to treating political parties as rooting for a particular sports team. There's no shades of gray anymore; support is a binary choice. We don't see the whole debate, we just see the highlight reel on tv or socials.
This is magnified in a two party system... It's as if the Lakers are always playing the Knicks, there are no other teams in the league, the refs are always calling fouls in favor of the Knicks, and everyone is constantly watching the personal lives of every player.
Fundamentally as someone who is part of multiple groups and a loud advocate for multiple groups that would be left behind if Klein's POV is adopted, it's not a purity test.
But there is zero point in my advocating for more people to get elected who do not reliably support my rights from multiple angles. Pro life candidates will not protect my right to bodily autonomy federally. Anti-trans candidates will not ensure trans healthcare is covered, that trans people aren't targeted as mentally ill or dangerous. So then we have a majority in Congress but an inability to pass any of these protections?
If those candidates run, fine, bully for them. I wouldn't be canvassing for them, or volunteering for them, and if they were elected I'd be on them about changing their vote. I just think asking people to get behind actively having their rights considered as a distraction, and dismissing their criticisms as purity testing is insulting. Especially because right now is absolutely when we should be challenging people and building up local support for progressive candidates and primary challenges. In the same way that right now we need to support Dems standing firm on healthcare, including trans healthcare, to not cave on the budget. Reward and support them for doing the good thing, push them to do it when they don't. Boot those out of touch New Yorkers, support alternative progressive candidates, not regressive ones who can't be criticized without it being called "infighting."
It is convenient for Ezra Klein that he's not the one giving up rights in his thought experiments.
Personally I think the strategy is to bring the progressive candidates who can speak "across the aisle" whether that's to farmers or small business owners or suburban moms or whomever - you can focus on labor and childcare and never mention trans kids while also never conceding on trans rights. You can get more people on board, and you can tell them how bad it is to take away their healthcare and how high their food prices are. You can reply to every attack with "I'm talking about reducing your grocery bill, the only person obsessed with trans people is my opponent who wants to take your daughter, who just happens to be tall, or an early bloomer and good at sports, and harass her, post about her on the internet until she's crying before the next game because adults are bullying her. That's not how we treat our neighbors. If my opponent hadn't voted to cancel Sesame Street they might have learned that. "
No speech will sound good written out, I'm not working in politics, but I have seen and heard the success of progressive candidates who speak up. I cant fix Texas (I assume), the solution there is not focusing on the Senate but the local and state races and the US Representatives that can be elected. But there's no world where I think the solution is recreating Manchin's outsized power dynamic or creating a conservative voting bloc in the Dem party intentionally rather than a progressive one.
It is disheartening. Hell I'm in a red district of a blue state after all and my rep is doing jack + shit to help me or even the majority of the constituency. I will be supporting a challenger as well watching for someone to primary him because I'm not above a Pritzker move of watching a far right candidate crash and burn in the general. But people have been announcing candidacy mostly in response to Medicaid cuts.
My best suggestion is to get involved with political groups in Texas doing this work as much as possible. They know the challenges and what can be done and where to focus effort. School boards matter too. Maybe it's supporting the courts and the lawsuits right now. Maybe it's a protest. Maybe its running against one of the unopposed good ol boys even if you know you will probably lose.
Fundamentally there's no reason to throw trans people or bodily autonomy or any of it under the bus though. We got here by not defending either to the fullest on principle. And abortion rights are actually very popular.
I see this line thrown around all the time, especially from centrist/establishment Democrats who are trying to avoid giving a full endorsement to Mamdani. While there is definitely some truth to that - particularly when it comes to the organizing infrastructure that propelled Mamdani to victory - I'm not completely sold on the idea that his politics wouldn't appeal to Democrat and independent voters in the middle of the country. I guess we'll see. Whenever I hear the "such and such is not NYC" line, there's an implication that people in those states have different views about affordability, access to healthcare, wealth inequality, and America's unwavering support for war crimes. Idk, man. I think they just happen to live next to more Republicans.
I'm of the belief that people will ultimately vote for their own interests over anything else. Unfortunately, building candidates with a message loud enough to speak to those interests is difficult, especially when the institutional powers of the Democratic machine work against them. That's why I agree with DefinitelyNotAFae's suggestion below to join groups that can help propel Mamdani-like figures in other states. If you build it, they will come.
It's always fun to see things like "criticizing someone for explicitly advocating that removing my right to live my life and make my own decisions about my body be considered acceptable collateral damage to appeal to people who want people like me dead" dismissed as a "purity test." Of course the people not wanting to be thrown under the bus are framed as the divisive ones, not the spineless liberals chomping at the bit to sacrifice us for a hypothetical chance at winning over more votes from transphobes and bigots of other varieties.
Ultimately I think that even if public opinion were wildly against trans issues to a much greater extent, it would still be wrong to abandon them. But it's much easier to believe that when "them" is actually "us".
Establishment democrats have proven themselves very willing to throw even very popular issues under the bus out of some delusion that it will appeal to right-wing voters, though. Abortion rights are actually very popular these days even in redder states, for instance.
I agree with your points here, I just don't agree that in the process we give up on and intentionally plan to compromise on civil rights.
That strategy hasn't worked so far. Kamala actively courted the right.
But yes they need to get their act together on messaging, they're capable of it.
To the extent that even though Missourians explicitly protected abortion rights by referendum the state legislature and governor have done literally everything to try to counteract them.
same in Ohio
And Kansas!