As is frequently the case I both agree and disagree with Nikolas Kristof’s latest New York Times column. In the column he makes a plea, I presume to Democrats, to use President Trump’s second impeachment as a opportunity to “invoke moral clarity”:
Invoke “moral clarity.†We instinctively reach for the military toolbox when we’re attacked, but it’s also important to fight a war of ideas and delegitimize certain behaviors and speech. To me, that’s why it’s crucial that impeachment be a teachable moment.
Pursuit of moral clarity always leads to flurries of whataboutism and bothsidesism, and there are usually elements of truth to such objections. But we can accept that the world is nuanced and inconsistent without giving up a moral compass to navigate it.
It is unclear to me how Democrats can “invoke moral clarity” when the Democratic leadership is neither moral nor clear. Quite to the contrary I find them ruthlessly and predictably pragmatic and remarkably ambiguous.
It is not merely “whataboutism” when you impeach a president for speech that stopped short of advocating violence while you engage in precisely the same sort of speech yourself. It is cognitive dissonance. Using “fight” in a political context is completely normal political speech—it’s among the first words on the Democrats’ own home page.
But, as I’ve said before, context matters. When angry people are demonstrating on the steps of the Capitol, urging them to fight is reckless and inflammatory. And, as I have been counseling for months, we need to dial back on the rhetoric and that doesn’t just pertain to Republicans.
He goes on to advocate deplatforming of those advocating “rightwing terrorism” and stripping advertising from media outlets who support them as well as “disarming terrorists”. IMO there are serious risks actually involved. Is a media outlet that covers those of whom Mr. Kristof disapproves but does not endorse them guilty of something? Is just shooting off your mouth enough to trigger the actions Mr. Kristof advocates or are some actual acts required?
More broadly when does politics as usual become terrorism? Is advocacy of ideas, even ideas that are demonstrably false, sufficient? What about ideas that aren’t demonstrably false but would be better characterized as “unproven allegations”?
According to the Washington Post, the FBI has hundreds of thousands of Americans on their terrorism watch list. But apparently not THIS guy, he’s a journalist. And he wasn’t violent.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-wing-activist-charged-in-capitol-riot
deplatforming of those advocating “rightwing terrorism†and stripping advertising from media outlets who support them as well as “disarming terroristsâ€. IMO there are serious risks actually involved. Is a media outlet that covers those of whom Mr. Kristof disapproves.
So , using doxing, banning, pressuring employers to fire, ruining careers and lives are not violence but breaking a window is.
These tactics are the weapons of the strong. Positioned, connected, comfortable, secure, like Kristol.
Breaking windows are the tactics of the weak, tolerated when social justice is claimed. Terrorism when political justice is the aim.
Clarity. The people who stormed the Capitol believed the election was stealthily taken by the Left.
The people who burned Minneapolis believed they were denied social justice, whatever that means.
Making the moral distinction between the groups is pure politics, choosing to side with our voters over theirs.
If Kristol can’t see that it’s partisanship and the feathers in his nest hiding clarity.
There is little point in arguing about impeachment. “Minds are made up,” and that’s that.
Part of the reason people believe that the election was stolen is because everybody believes that statistics is science. Being “statistically impossible” is not impossible. In fact, “statistically impossible” is “statistically possible”, and in some cases, “statistically impossible” is very “statistically possible”.
Being hit by lightning, being hit by lightning seven times, winning the lottery, and winning the lottery multiple times is “statistically impossible”, but they have all occurred.
There are some edge case exceptions, but generally, governmental/economic systems eventually breakdown into either feudalism or fascism. (NOTE: Fascism is NOT racist, and it is not Nazism. Fascism is forcefully imposed socialism.) A democratic/capitalistic system will evolve into fascism.
“I’d Give the Devil Benefit of Law, for My Own Safety’s Sake.”
A Man for All Seasons
As for the stolen election, possible but unlikely.
Me thinks Trump truly believes that though, mainly because Rudy has been blowing smoke up his ###.
The problem with driving all your allies away is you have no one left but sycophants.
I wonder if anyone has insight into Rudy’s finances, acting like he needs $$$.