“There is no cheat code to win the game.” Agreed. The answer is the same as it was in 2020 - vote, and drag all your like-minded friends and family to vote. It’s on us.
“There is no cheat code to win the game.” Agreed. The answer is the same as it was in 2020 - vote, and drag all your like-minded friends and family to vote. It’s on us.
But, that's what we did in 2020 (also 2016, but apparently not in the right places). The right still feels that they were cheated. I will vote against Trump again, as I will never not vote against him. And I am expecting to hear the same outcry once again when more of us vote against him than for him.
The Constitution of the United States is not a cheat code. It's the Law of the Land. I don't usually disagree with Mr. Frum, but he's wrong on the facts on this one. Whether he's wrong on the politics, we won't know until someone tries to enforce the law.
Agree x2. As satisfying as it is intellectually to make the case that Trump is disqualified to be president under the U.S. Constitution, it's a hollow conclusion, a mental exercise with a small rhetorical dopamine hit for those who have long recognized his fundamental unfitness for the office. Stopping people from voting for him is not better than people not voting for him.
Option 1: Trump loses and accuses fraud. He is believed by millions of people with both guns and institutional support, thanks to the Republican party's acceptance of the Big Lie. Chaos ensues.
Option 2: Trump wins and destroys the government from within.
I don't believe the 14th amendment will work, but I think it's better than those options.
As I said elsewhere, it is a given that Trump will claim it was rigged if he loses, but he won't be in the White House this time. Biden will be and will have all national security forces at his disposal. Trump will be in Mar-a-Lago (if he’s lucky) or prison (if he isn’t). A bit harder to incite another insurrection from either of those venues. How many cultists will still want to "revolt," get routed by the National Guard, and serve hard time for the twice-beaten loser?
I don’t think option 1 will be quite as effective this time, given the prison sentences already meted out. Frankly, if I was an inmate watching Trump raising funds in Mar a Lago, I’d be pretty pissed.
How is he going to become president though? Option 1 was that he loses and declares fraud. Presuming Kamala doesn't appoint herself Queen, President Joe is going to be in charge of all the federal levers of power. Their little mob attack didn't work with POTUS on their side, I can't see them even trying will Sleepy Dark Brandon in the Whitehouse.
And be sure to prepare ahead of time on what the exact regulations are in voting, be it in-person (e.g. voter ID and what is acceptable) or via mail-in ballot. Knowledge is power against those who seek to disenfranchise your vote in any way that they can.
Defeating Trump in 2024 is not the end game either.
The sectarianism is deep now and will only get deeper as the soulless formentors of hate based politics drive us towards election day.
I have a feeling that we're in for 30+ years of turmoil, not dissimilar to the Irish Troubles. We're already seeing the stochastic terrorist attacks. White Christian militias across the country are recruiting, training, and growing. It's only a matter of time before things like the Oklahoma City bombing or the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation start happening across the country.
Immoral people, like the accursed traitor con-man Donald Trump, are pushing us towards this conflict. They're being funded by a handful of billionaires who have decided that they don't like democracy because they don't want the rabble of the nation putting limits on them. This movement will not stop until we have piles of dead citizens to show for it.
I agree with your comparison of our times, with the Irish “troubles”. I don’t know enough about that history, but when PBS aired promos for a documentary on the troubles, I felt an uncomfortable flash of visceral recognition.
We haven't progressed far enough along the sectarian path for the reactionary formation of liberal militia groups. In Ireland the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) was an organized reaction to Irish Republican Army (IRA) attacks against protestant civilians. It was defensive but participated in horrors as these sectarian strifes tend to produce.
Ulster Democratic Party and the UDF were umbrella organizations formed later.
The boys you're not mentioning are the Ulster Protestant Volunteers formed by Ian Paisley and Noel Doherty in 1966 in reaction to nonviolent civil rights protests.
Thank you for that. As an American born in the late 70's, I don't have a deep understanding of the Troubles, though I've been aware of them, which is more than I can say of many Americans my age.
Maybe this is where the metaphor breaks down? Right now, in the US, the violence and threat of violence is really one sided. Conservatives claim that Antifa and BLM terror groups are rampaging through America's cities, but we know that these protest groups, while garnering much media attention, are small, not organized nationally and tend to be reactionary a specific event.
Also, the topography of the US is much, much different than Ireland. There's no defined "sides" in the US. A militia in western New York might want to carry out an attack, but they could pick NYC, or Buffalo. Also they might target any number of places that they deem "liberal" such as college towns like Ithaca or Burlington, VT. With its vast geography, it's hard to see any widespread, organized effort with umbrella groups directing the attacks.
One thing I am certain of, if this current environment keeps progressing with politicians and propagandists concocting ever wilder threats to "real Americans", we will certainly see violence. It will be widespread, it will target cities, towns and institutions like colleges and government agencies.
Very good points. I don’t know anything about Shining Path; I’ll have to look it up.
I guess my fear is that the comparison with the Troubles (an interesting, understated euphemism) might become more apt over time, in our own situation.
My other problem with comparing our current situation to Northern Ireland is that I can easily see conservatives identifying with the IRA side - that they have been forced into violence because the mean government is trying to take away their civil rights.
Except Catholics in Northern Ireland in the very beginning were protesting for actual civil rights - for protection from discrimination in housing and jobs.
There used to be a quote thrown around even before there were memes "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."
I can easily see the racist, antisemitic, homophobic fringe adopting that. Because taking away their right to discriminate is the "worst crime ever." (And for a certain political subsection, taking away their right to grift based on racist, antisemitic, homophobic rhetoric is just like death.)
My memory is after a certain point in Northern Ireland, there were no freedom fighters only terrorists. I sort of feel that way about Trumpies at this point. Whatever empathy I had for them before January 6th is gone.
There is another quote that is apropos here (I have seen this in various forms): “when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. Many “Christianists” feel that they are being discriminated against simply because they used to be first among equals, and now they’re not (certainly not to the same degree). For example, it wasn’t all that long ago, that many states had Blue Laws that prohibited non-essential businesses from being open on Sunday. Clearly Sunday wasn’t picked as a random day. If back then, someone would have put the 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn, no one would have blinked an eye. That stuff doesn’t fly today, and they don’t like it. And they fail to see that all it is is just trying to even the playing field and actually follow what the Constitution says.
But this feeling of oppression leads to feelings of resentment and anger. And the right-wing media is ready, willing, and able to stoke those feelings. That’s where things like “the Great Replacement” theory come from. And that’s why we get these wackos shooting up bars and stores and religious buildings (I think the wackos who shoot up schools are in another category).
It sounds like you had a front-row seat to The Troubles, and I worry that your insights will prove prescient. One thing is for sure – the GOP base and its hierarchy won’t do anything to tamp it down.
You’re forgetting something else that Christianist’s are taught: martyrdom. If they’re in a state of resentment and anger and want those 10 Commandments on that wall, they will not back down until they get their way or are dead because they know they will be ‘martyred’ for their faith. They act exactly like they are a victim, then lash out like a cornered animal daring someone to stop them knowing full well that if someone does they are STILL furthering Christianity as they see it. I know - I’m a recovering Catholic.
I think your comment on martyrdom is true. But my "10 Commandments" comment was intended to point out that back then no one even thought about the fact that they were allowing a religious symbol on a public square in clear violation of the Constitution. And those in charge, a.k.a. WASPS, were fine with that. But it's not that they sat down and really thought about it and had an argument for why it was OK. In their minds, it was OK because it had always been OK. It was the natural order of things. And once society and the courts started pointing out to them that it really wasn't OK, they felt under attack. And the resentment started. It never occurred to them to acknowledge that they had been given a privileged position all those years. For many years, they had been giving the orders. Now they were being forced to take some orders, and they didn't like it one bit. When I was in high school (a long time ago) a group of local churches sponsored an out-of-town Evangelical group to come and speak at the local churches. Then those same Evangelicals came and preached at my high school the next day during an assembly. And no one (including me) thought that was out of line. It was just the way it was.
And, in my opinion, this mindset continues today with the various "religious liberty" arguments. They want their religious beliefs to "trump" the duly passed laws of the various states. So a business can't discriminate against anyone in the general public for any reason - race, sexual orientation, sex, ethnicity, you name it. The one exception is religion (not the customer's religion, but the owner's). Why is that OK?
"Christianist" is an apt term. It's political, not having to do with Christ. All the religious wars are fought over false "causes". The founder and still leader of Christianity had nothing to do with governments, and nothing to do with splashing his name around on billboards or political parties. His work was on individuals who wanted his influence, and still is. The one time one of his disciples lashed out with a sword, the Christ repaired the man's cut ear, and said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, then would my servants fight." People always lord it over each other and then blame the only sinless person to ever live.
I lived however with my grandfather, a man who left after the Irish Civil War. Both of my grandfathers fought for independence and the Treaty as did many of their friends and they all left after the Civil War. (My father used to say their hearts were broken.)
In the 1960s, this was a topic much discussed in my house.
I was not raised by men who had romantic illusions about either side. Especially after the bombings started, there was a real feel of "a pox on the lot of them."
My aunt said after 9/11 that the beauty of Americans is that we have no historical memory. We're not holding grudges against one another from before our grandparents were born. We made alliances with the British and the Germans and the Japanese after our wars were over.
That was a sentiment my grandparents expressed often. There is no greater country because our eyes are on the future.
The rise of a Confederate loving faction in this country would have broken their hearts.
One more comment…. CS has said several times that if you truly believe that the election was stolen, an armed insurrection is a reasonable response. There’s a corollary to that: if you truly believe that you are losing your country (and these people clearly do), then violence is a reasonable response. I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
Making "terrorism" subjective confuses the matter. More clarity comes from defining terrorism as a tactic that is based on horrific violence against civilians. It's the same behavior and the same outcome no matter who does it: Russian missiles over Ukraine, V-2 rockets over Britain, or British bombers over German cities. Then the unfudged question is this: Is terrorism ever justified?
Oddly enough, I think I would distinguish between military objectives and political objectives.
So I don't think of Sherman's March, the German V-2 rockets, the British/American saturation bombing as terrorism.
And the initial Russian bombing of Ukraine is despicable but not necessarily terrorism. (At this point, Russia is bombing so they can tell their own people there's still a shot at victory - that feels more like terrorism.)
All of them are war crimes, possibly, but terrorism?
Are the Viet cong terrorists? Were they terrorists before they won the war?
Part of my reluctance is a belief that in wars after 1800 there are no civilians. It was one thing when nobles are fighting over who will be the monarch, but in modern wars, are civilian factories manufacturing munitions fair game? How about the farms feeding the troops?
If you wanted to take out the US or the UK, as an unfriendly foreign power, is Wall Street or London fair game?
If you're a political actor, that's terrorism. If you're a Nazi general during WWII, it's not.
When the V.C. ambushed American patrols, they were engaged in warfare. When the V.C. slaughtered peasant villagers, they were engaged in terrorism. Terrorism is an act or series of acts. The term terrorIST only makes sense in relation to an individual or group devoted entirely or almost entirely to acts of terrorism. The noun is probably apt for cells that repeatedly send suicide bombers to kill large numbers of civilians in nonmilitary locations.
However moralistic some may be about it, there is a real conceptual difference between terrorism and collateral damage. If civilians die because they're working in a factory that feeds the war machine, that's collateral damage. If civilians die because the aggressor targeted a school or a hospital or an apartment building (as the Russians are doing), that's terrorism. As far as medieval romance is concerned, as far as I know the only time that nobles took the full brunt of aggression was in the lists. On the battlefield they sent mobs of commoners against each other, poorly armed and without armor. They also burned villages and fields. If anything changed after 1800 (or maybe 1918) there were generally agreed upon rules of warfare, however irregularly they might be followed. Wall Street is not a legitimate military target. Most of London is not a legitimate military target. The bridge that brings military supplies from Russia into Crimea IS a legitimate military target even if a civilian truck driver is so unfortunate to be caught on it by a missile. Finally, the whole point of formulating an objective definition of terrorism is to do away with the idea that a Nazi general's definition is as good as anyone else's. If you accept that, then you're ready to accept Trump's claim that the election was rigged, just because he says so.
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Very nice writing. You know much more about the Troubles than I do. I like your reminder of the quote about freedom fighter > terrorists. My own intuition is that our authoritarian right wing is deliberately claiming words like “freedom” and “patriot” to set up a false paradigm that they are freedom fighters. It’s like setting the stage. But I believe they know the difference and are engineering a false scenario. It’s an interesting filter for reviewing prior conflicts; what proportion of fighters truly believed they were freedom fighters? And how would we know? And would that knowledge be useful?
It’s a start simply if you cut off the head of the snake it will die it may wiggle but it will die, similarly it may take a few years maybe a decade or a generation BUT IT WILL DIE.
I've said many times that I don't expect the 14th Amendment to work because life isn't that kind, but that doesn't mean I don't think it *should* work.
The cases being made for the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Trump are very compelling. It really seems like some Olympic-level legal gymnastics are required to avoid the obvious conclusion, based on the cases being made.
I don't understand the line of thought that, since taking out the biggest, baddest guy on the battlefield won't stop the war, we should just leave him be until we can take him on in a "real" fight. No! Take him out now and continue to fight the fight you were already going to have to fight! Yes, things will likely get ugly taking this path. But what path do we really expect *not* to be ugly anymore? Under what conditions - that don't endanger truth, justice, the rule of law, or the Constitution - does anyone expect Trump and MAGA not to escalate? Beating him in the general election certainly won't. It's been made clear that he will claim fraud and interference and is more than willing to instigate a J6 sequel. Trump winning, while it may defuse the near-term consequences from Trump and MAGA, means the longterm consequences will be even more dire. If Trump is on the ballot, we're all already in danger!
Short of the Republican party itself choosing not to nominate him, in which case he will destroy the whole party (therefore, they will nominate him), no scenario will pacify the unruly mob we seem destined to encounter.
We're playing the same game with Trump, MAGA, and the GOP that we're playing with Russia and Ukraine. In our relentless tip-toeing around various traps to avoid crossing a perceived red line, we're simply dragging out the conflict. If red lines are going to get crossed, it's because of what Trump, MAGA, and the GOP decide they want to do. It won't be because we crossed a line. They will do what they will do and any justification will be used as needed. Their actions are not dictated by a sense of fairness or justice or the law or right and wrong. They're just about their ends and how they can ultimately attain them. So far, intimidation seems to be a valid means towards their ends.
It's also true that trends fade. Because new things come along. 'In your face' racism at Walmart and in gated communities may just seem old hat one of these days-- not daring anymore and its targets just rolling their eyes, having heard it all, and seen it be horrible but real in so many videos. The Deep State, having never appeared to anybody in the flesh will lose its threatening quality, censorship of conservative voices!, Democrats as pedophiles, the secret strengths Sovereign Citizens COULD unleash but won't, and all the other GOP bs. will be embarrassing to them. They'll deny they said it.
It's because the case for the 14th Amendment against Trump is so clear and the cowardice towards using it so palpable that Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe wrote in their recent Atlantic article, as quoted by CREW:
Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in part by inciting an attack on the Capitol "place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. *The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause*."
This isn't a snake. It is a hydra. If you cut off a head the body will sprout a new one, probably multiple ones. That will reduce it's focus and drive somewhat as the heads squabble with each other but this will be a long fight either way, especially if we aren't willing to target the body with laws that will hobble their bullshit factories, grifter politicians, and unfair political advantages.
I like Christianist. Like Islamist it distinguishes between believers and fundamentalist (which in both cases seems to be based on weird readings of basic texts.)
The distinction between Islamic and Islamist organizations is pretty important, and I agree that the same can be drawn between Christian-identified groups.
However, Islamic and Islamist organizations both comprise *Muslims* so I think that too carries over. The Christianists *say* they are Christians, and there is no empirical reason to say they are not. Even when entirely dissociated from politics, the beliefs and practices of self-identified Christians are too diverse for any particular conception to be authoritative outside its own sect.
There's a big difference to people who aspire to live as peaceful Christians, as opposed to fundamentalists who haven't the vaguest idea of Christianity but want their peculiar prejudices served.
That's certainly true. However, so-called Christianity has become almost meaningless in America. The Evangelicals, the 'Christo-fascists', the ostensible fundamentalists all serve to present Christianity as it exists today. And it's not just in America. The history is not particularly edifying. Personally, I think religion is an anachronism. The sooner humanity dispenses with it, the better.
The objection is to describing them as Christian, regardless of any other appendage. Nothing in their credo or behavior suggests any association with the teachings of Jesus the Christ whose robe they try to shelter under.
If their objective is what *they* understand to be a "Christian nation," then "Christian nationalist" is absolutely the correct term. They may not "be Christian" to you, but that's irrelevant; *all* self-identified Christian sects, from the largest Catholic communion on down, are "not Christian" to some other sects.
(This is for TC and the general readership, not directed at you.)
Ha. I was just thinking the same thing but you beat me to it. I recalled the scene in the movie Tombstone where Wyatt Earp says "You die first, get it? ...". I'm not advocating violence but someone is darkly funding all this turmoil and that's who should be addressed.
I'm not "rolling over" for David Frum (and really, that image is distasteful.) I'm not a dog, or a dunce, but if you push me, I can be a bitch.
The problem with 14A:S.3 is that it's unenforceable in the current climate, which requires cast-iron nerves and a faith that the Justices will honor their oaths. I don't have that faith. I wish I did. Absent that, voting is our best (last?) defense.
8 million more people chose Joe Biden over Donald Trump, and the Rs had to go along with the decision because questioning it meant questioning their own wins. That works for me. Your mileage may vary.
“There is no cheat code to win the game.” Agreed. The answer is the same as it was in 2020 - vote, and drag all your like-minded friends and family to vote. It’s on us.
But, that's what we did in 2020 (also 2016, but apparently not in the right places). The right still feels that they were cheated. I will vote against Trump again, as I will never not vote against him. And I am expecting to hear the same outcry once again when more of us vote against him than for him.
The Constitution of the United States is not a cheat code. It's the Law of the Land. I don't usually disagree with Mr. Frum, but he's wrong on the facts on this one. Whether he's wrong on the politics, we won't know until someone tries to enforce the law.
Agree x2. As satisfying as it is intellectually to make the case that Trump is disqualified to be president under the U.S. Constitution, it's a hollow conclusion, a mental exercise with a small rhetorical dopamine hit for those who have long recognized his fundamental unfitness for the office. Stopping people from voting for him is not better than people not voting for him.
Is voting the answer, though?
Option 1: Trump loses and accuses fraud. He is believed by millions of people with both guns and institutional support, thanks to the Republican party's acceptance of the Big Lie. Chaos ensues.
Option 2: Trump wins and destroys the government from within.
I don't believe the 14th amendment will work, but I think it's better than those options.
As I said elsewhere, it is a given that Trump will claim it was rigged if he loses, but he won't be in the White House this time. Biden will be and will have all national security forces at his disposal. Trump will be in Mar-a-Lago (if he’s lucky) or prison (if he isn’t). A bit harder to incite another insurrection from either of those venues. How many cultists will still want to "revolt," get routed by the National Guard, and serve hard time for the twice-beaten loser?
I don’t think option 1 will be quite as effective this time, given the prison sentences already meted out. Frankly, if I was an inmate watching Trump raising funds in Mar a Lago, I’d be pretty pissed.
Those inmates may be the reason Trump & Palin’s invocations of massive protests and civil war are not likely to come to pass.
Esp knowing that he ISN’T, and WILL NOT, pay their legal fees.
How is he going to become president though? Option 1 was that he loses and declares fraud. Presuming Kamala doesn't appoint herself Queen, President Joe is going to be in charge of all the federal levers of power. Their little mob attack didn't work with POTUS on their side, I can't see them even trying will Sleepy Dark Brandon in the Whitehouse.
I thought you were made of sterner stuff. I'm just poking fun at the idiot trumpsters with both comments. ;)
IF. And that is relying on Trump keeping his word. 😬
He will probably set a fee for pardoning them
And be sure to prepare ahead of time on what the exact regulations are in voting, be it in-person (e.g. voter ID and what is acceptable) or via mail-in ballot. Knowledge is power against those who seek to disenfranchise your vote in any way that they can.
Defeating Trump in 2024 is not the end game either.
The sectarianism is deep now and will only get deeper as the soulless formentors of hate based politics drive us towards election day.
I have a feeling that we're in for 30+ years of turmoil, not dissimilar to the Irish Troubles. We're already seeing the stochastic terrorist attacks. White Christian militias across the country are recruiting, training, and growing. It's only a matter of time before things like the Oklahoma City bombing or the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation start happening across the country.
Immoral people, like the accursed traitor con-man Donald Trump, are pushing us towards this conflict. They're being funded by a handful of billionaires who have decided that they don't like democracy because they don't want the rabble of the nation putting limits on them. This movement will not stop until we have piles of dead citizens to show for it.
I agree with your comparison of our times, with the Irish “troubles”. I don’t know enough about that history, but when PBS aired promos for a documentary on the troubles, I felt an uncomfortable flash of visceral recognition.
My problem with comparing it to the Troubles is that in reality, there both sides were encouraging terrorists.
We heard a lot more about the IRA in the US but the Protestant paramilitaries were killing people as well.
I'm not seeing crazy liberals shooting up Cracker Barrels.
It feels more like Shining Path in Peru.
We haven't progressed far enough along the sectarian path for the reactionary formation of liberal militia groups. In Ireland the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) was an organized reaction to Irish Republican Army (IRA) attacks against protestant civilians. It was defensive but participated in horrors as these sectarian strifes tend to produce.
So sorry, but no.
Ulster Democratic Party and the UDF were umbrella organizations formed later.
The boys you're not mentioning are the Ulster Protestant Volunteers formed by Ian Paisley and Noel Doherty in 1966 in reaction to nonviolent civil rights protests.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Protestant_Volunteers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Troubles
When I say both sides in Northern Ireland had terrorists, I mean from the start.
The UPV bombed a girls' school. The IRA shot police during street protests.
Both of them claimed the moral high ground. But the "we were only protecting our own" wasn't true then and isn't true now.
God bless George Mitchell. Because I never thought anyone could get a successful framework for peace.
Thank you for that. As an American born in the late 70's, I don't have a deep understanding of the Troubles, though I've been aware of them, which is more than I can say of many Americans my age.
Maybe this is where the metaphor breaks down? Right now, in the US, the violence and threat of violence is really one sided. Conservatives claim that Antifa and BLM terror groups are rampaging through America's cities, but we know that these protest groups, while garnering much media attention, are small, not organized nationally and tend to be reactionary a specific event.
Also, the topography of the US is much, much different than Ireland. There's no defined "sides" in the US. A militia in western New York might want to carry out an attack, but they could pick NYC, or Buffalo. Also they might target any number of places that they deem "liberal" such as college towns like Ithaca or Burlington, VT. With its vast geography, it's hard to see any widespread, organized effort with umbrella groups directing the attacks.
One thing I am certain of, if this current environment keeps progressing with politicians and propagandists concocting ever wilder threats to "real Americans", we will certainly see violence. It will be widespread, it will target cities, towns and institutions like colleges and government agencies.
George Mitchell! Yes.
Very good points. I don’t know anything about Shining Path; I’ll have to look it up.
I guess my fear is that the comparison with the Troubles (an interesting, understated euphemism) might become more apt over time, in our own situation.
That, unfortunately, is probably fair.
My other problem with comparing our current situation to Northern Ireland is that I can easily see conservatives identifying with the IRA side - that they have been forced into violence because the mean government is trying to take away their civil rights.
Except Catholics in Northern Ireland in the very beginning were protesting for actual civil rights - for protection from discrimination in housing and jobs.
There used to be a quote thrown around even before there were memes "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."
I can easily see the racist, antisemitic, homophobic fringe adopting that. Because taking away their right to discriminate is the "worst crime ever." (And for a certain political subsection, taking away their right to grift based on racist, antisemitic, homophobic rhetoric is just like death.)
My memory is after a certain point in Northern Ireland, there were no freedom fighters only terrorists. I sort of feel that way about Trumpies at this point. Whatever empathy I had for them before January 6th is gone.
There is another quote that is apropos here (I have seen this in various forms): “when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. Many “Christianists” feel that they are being discriminated against simply because they used to be first among equals, and now they’re not (certainly not to the same degree). For example, it wasn’t all that long ago, that many states had Blue Laws that prohibited non-essential businesses from being open on Sunday. Clearly Sunday wasn’t picked as a random day. If back then, someone would have put the 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn, no one would have blinked an eye. That stuff doesn’t fly today, and they don’t like it. And they fail to see that all it is is just trying to even the playing field and actually follow what the Constitution says.
But this feeling of oppression leads to feelings of resentment and anger. And the right-wing media is ready, willing, and able to stoke those feelings. That’s where things like “the Great Replacement” theory come from. And that’s why we get these wackos shooting up bars and stores and religious buildings (I think the wackos who shoot up schools are in another category).
It sounds like you had a front-row seat to The Troubles, and I worry that your insights will prove prescient. One thing is for sure – the GOP base and its hierarchy won’t do anything to tamp it down.
You’re forgetting something else that Christianist’s are taught: martyrdom. If they’re in a state of resentment and anger and want those 10 Commandments on that wall, they will not back down until they get their way or are dead because they know they will be ‘martyred’ for their faith. They act exactly like they are a victim, then lash out like a cornered animal daring someone to stop them knowing full well that if someone does they are STILL furthering Christianity as they see it. I know - I’m a recovering Catholic.
I think your comment on martyrdom is true. But my "10 Commandments" comment was intended to point out that back then no one even thought about the fact that they were allowing a religious symbol on a public square in clear violation of the Constitution. And those in charge, a.k.a. WASPS, were fine with that. But it's not that they sat down and really thought about it and had an argument for why it was OK. In their minds, it was OK because it had always been OK. It was the natural order of things. And once society and the courts started pointing out to them that it really wasn't OK, they felt under attack. And the resentment started. It never occurred to them to acknowledge that they had been given a privileged position all those years. For many years, they had been giving the orders. Now they were being forced to take some orders, and they didn't like it one bit. When I was in high school (a long time ago) a group of local churches sponsored an out-of-town Evangelical group to come and speak at the local churches. Then those same Evangelicals came and preached at my high school the next day during an assembly. And no one (including me) thought that was out of line. It was just the way it was.
And, in my opinion, this mindset continues today with the various "religious liberty" arguments. They want their religious beliefs to "trump" the duly passed laws of the various states. So a business can't discriminate against anyone in the general public for any reason - race, sexual orientation, sex, ethnicity, you name it. The one exception is religion (not the customer's religion, but the owner's). Why is that OK?
"Christianist" is an apt term. It's political, not having to do with Christ. All the religious wars are fought over false "causes". The founder and still leader of Christianity had nothing to do with governments, and nothing to do with splashing his name around on billboards or political parties. His work was on individuals who wanted his influence, and still is. The one time one of his disciples lashed out with a sword, the Christ repaired the man's cut ear, and said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, then would my servants fight." People always lord it over each other and then blame the only sinless person to ever live.
I did not have a front row seat - Thank God.
I lived however with my grandfather, a man who left after the Irish Civil War. Both of my grandfathers fought for independence and the Treaty as did many of their friends and they all left after the Civil War. (My father used to say their hearts were broken.)
In the 1960s, this was a topic much discussed in my house.
I was not raised by men who had romantic illusions about either side. Especially after the bombings started, there was a real feel of "a pox on the lot of them."
My aunt said after 9/11 that the beauty of Americans is that we have no historical memory. We're not holding grudges against one another from before our grandparents were born. We made alliances with the British and the Germans and the Japanese after our wars were over.
That was a sentiment my grandparents expressed often. There is no greater country because our eyes are on the future.
The rise of a Confederate loving faction in this country would have broken their hearts.
A very interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
One more comment…. CS has said several times that if you truly believe that the election was stolen, an armed insurrection is a reasonable response. There’s a corollary to that: if you truly believe that you are losing your country (and these people clearly do), then violence is a reasonable response. I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
Making "terrorism" subjective confuses the matter. More clarity comes from defining terrorism as a tactic that is based on horrific violence against civilians. It's the same behavior and the same outcome no matter who does it: Russian missiles over Ukraine, V-2 rockets over Britain, or British bombers over German cities. Then the unfudged question is this: Is terrorism ever justified?
I don't know.
Oddly enough, I think I would distinguish between military objectives and political objectives.
So I don't think of Sherman's March, the German V-2 rockets, the British/American saturation bombing as terrorism.
And the initial Russian bombing of Ukraine is despicable but not necessarily terrorism. (At this point, Russia is bombing so they can tell their own people there's still a shot at victory - that feels more like terrorism.)
All of them are war crimes, possibly, but terrorism?
Are the Viet cong terrorists? Were they terrorists before they won the war?
Part of my reluctance is a belief that in wars after 1800 there are no civilians. It was one thing when nobles are fighting over who will be the monarch, but in modern wars, are civilian factories manufacturing munitions fair game? How about the farms feeding the troops?
If you wanted to take out the US or the UK, as an unfriendly foreign power, is Wall Street or London fair game?
If you're a political actor, that's terrorism. If you're a Nazi general during WWII, it's not.
Great point.
When the V.C. ambushed American patrols, they were engaged in warfare. When the V.C. slaughtered peasant villagers, they were engaged in terrorism. Terrorism is an act or series of acts. The term terrorIST only makes sense in relation to an individual or group devoted entirely or almost entirely to acts of terrorism. The noun is probably apt for cells that repeatedly send suicide bombers to kill large numbers of civilians in nonmilitary locations.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/7-deadliest-weapons-crusades/
Perfect.
Thank you for finding this.
However moralistic some may be about it, there is a real conceptual difference between terrorism and collateral damage. If civilians die because they're working in a factory that feeds the war machine, that's collateral damage. If civilians die because the aggressor targeted a school or a hospital or an apartment building (as the Russians are doing), that's terrorism. As far as medieval romance is concerned, as far as I know the only time that nobles took the full brunt of aggression was in the lists. On the battlefield they sent mobs of commoners against each other, poorly armed and without armor. They also burned villages and fields. If anything changed after 1800 (or maybe 1918) there were generally agreed upon rules of warfare, however irregularly they might be followed. Wall Street is not a legitimate military target. Most of London is not a legitimate military target. The bridge that brings military supplies from Russia into Crimea IS a legitimate military target even if a civilian truck driver is so unfortunate to be caught on it by a missile. Finally, the whole point of formulating an objective definition of terrorism is to do away with the idea that a Nazi general's definition is as good as anyone else's. If you accept that, then you're ready to accept Trump's claim that the election was rigged, just because he says so.
P.S. Nice to have a discussion rather than an exchange of rants.
Same. It's nice to be debating.
You make good points. And as I said, I don't know.
It's been a long time since I read up on religious wars in the 16th & 17th centuries so my memory that the commoners were trained men of arms and not serfs and herdsmen is unreliable. If I figure out whether my source is an actual historian or Shakespeare, I'll let you know.
I used a Nazi general because I wanted a military leader from a declared war vs. a Bin Laden type. But for the reasons, you stated, not a great example.
I am going to disagree with you about Wall Street or any other concentration of banking and finance. Both WWI & WWII were won because the US financial system provided the funds to beat Germany - both for us and our allies.
Currently, the system has back ups and distributed files so taking out NYC or London isn't going to cripple us.
But the strength of our financial system has in the past been as much a part of the victory as Lockheed or DuPont.
A country's finances are a legit target.
It's why we've blocked the Russians from using SWIFT.
Very nice writing. You know much more about the Troubles than I do. I like your reminder of the quote about freedom fighter > terrorists. My own intuition is that our authoritarian right wing is deliberately claiming words like “freedom” and “patriot” to set up a false paradigm that they are freedom fighters. It’s like setting the stage. But I believe they know the difference and are engineering a false scenario. It’s an interesting filter for reviewing prior conflicts; what proportion of fighters truly believed they were freedom fighters? And how would we know? And would that knowledge be useful?
It’s a start simply if you cut off the head of the snake it will die it may wiggle but it will die, similarly it may take a few years maybe a decade or a generation BUT IT WILL DIE.
I've said many times that I don't expect the 14th Amendment to work because life isn't that kind, but that doesn't mean I don't think it *should* work.
The cases being made for the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Trump are very compelling. It really seems like some Olympic-level legal gymnastics are required to avoid the obvious conclusion, based on the cases being made.
I don't understand the line of thought that, since taking out the biggest, baddest guy on the battlefield won't stop the war, we should just leave him be until we can take him on in a "real" fight. No! Take him out now and continue to fight the fight you were already going to have to fight! Yes, things will likely get ugly taking this path. But what path do we really expect *not* to be ugly anymore? Under what conditions - that don't endanger truth, justice, the rule of law, or the Constitution - does anyone expect Trump and MAGA not to escalate? Beating him in the general election certainly won't. It's been made clear that he will claim fraud and interference and is more than willing to instigate a J6 sequel. Trump winning, while it may defuse the near-term consequences from Trump and MAGA, means the longterm consequences will be even more dire. If Trump is on the ballot, we're all already in danger!
Short of the Republican party itself choosing not to nominate him, in which case he will destroy the whole party (therefore, they will nominate him), no scenario will pacify the unruly mob we seem destined to encounter.
We're playing the same game with Trump, MAGA, and the GOP that we're playing with Russia and Ukraine. In our relentless tip-toeing around various traps to avoid crossing a perceived red line, we're simply dragging out the conflict. If red lines are going to get crossed, it's because of what Trump, MAGA, and the GOP decide they want to do. It won't be because we crossed a line. They will do what they will do and any justification will be used as needed. Their actions are not dictated by a sense of fairness or justice or the law or right and wrong. They're just about their ends and how they can ultimately attain them. So far, intimidation seems to be a valid means towards their ends.
It's also true that trends fade. Because new things come along. 'In your face' racism at Walmart and in gated communities may just seem old hat one of these days-- not daring anymore and its targets just rolling their eyes, having heard it all, and seen it be horrible but real in so many videos. The Deep State, having never appeared to anybody in the flesh will lose its threatening quality, censorship of conservative voices!, Democrats as pedophiles, the secret strengths Sovereign Citizens COULD unleash but won't, and all the other GOP bs. will be embarrassing to them. They'll deny they said it.
It's because the case for the 14th Amendment against Trump is so clear and the cowardice towards using it so palpable that Judge Luttig and Professor Tribe wrote in their recent Atlantic article, as quoted by CREW:
Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election in part by inciting an attack on the Capitol "place him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause, and he is therefore ineligible to serve as president ever again. *The most pressing constitutional question facing our country at this moment, then, is whether we will abide by this clear command of the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause*."
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/legal-experts-across-the-ideological-spectrum-agree-the-14th-amendment-disqualifies-trump-from-holding-office/
This isn't a snake. It is a hydra. If you cut off a head the body will sprout a new one, probably multiple ones. That will reduce it's focus and drive somewhat as the heads squabble with each other but this will be a long fight either way, especially if we aren't willing to target the body with laws that will hobble their bullshit factories, grifter politicians, and unfair political advantages.
I like Christianist. Like Islamist it distinguishes between believers and fundamentalist (which in both cases seems to be based on weird readings of basic texts.)
How about "Christianish"? They kinda sound Christian, and look Christian. They're just not the real deal.
The distinction between Islamic and Islamist organizations is pretty important, and I agree that the same can be drawn between Christian-identified groups.
However, Islamic and Islamist organizations both comprise *Muslims* so I think that too carries over. The Christianists *say* they are Christians, and there is no empirical reason to say they are not. Even when entirely dissociated from politics, the beliefs and practices of self-identified Christians are too diverse for any particular conception to be authoritative outside its own sect.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3528049-boebert-jesus-didnt-have-enough-ar-15s-to-keep-his-government-from-killing-him/
Boebert said this at a supposedly Christian conference.
She was cheered and not booed.
There's the empirical evidence that these people are neither familiar with nor following the teachings of Christ.
(Their willingness to lie at the drop of a hat is also a big problem.)
Christianists.
Christian NATIONALISTS!
A terror organization !
I fail to see the difference.
There's a big difference to people who aspire to live as peaceful Christians, as opposed to fundamentalists who haven't the vaguest idea of Christianity but want their peculiar prejudices served.
That's certainly true. However, so-called Christianity has become almost meaningless in America. The Evangelicals, the 'Christo-fascists', the ostensible fundamentalists all serve to present Christianity as it exists today. And it's not just in America. The history is not particularly edifying. Personally, I think religion is an anachronism. The sooner humanity dispenses with it, the better.
Joe Biden is a White Christian. So is Larry Hogan. So is Nancy Pelosi. That should help clarify the difference.
The term used was Christian Nationalist. That was what I responded to.
The objection is to describing them as Christian, regardless of any other appendage. Nothing in their credo or behavior suggests any association with the teachings of Jesus the Christ whose robe they try to shelter under.
Fair enough. I agree.
If their objective is what *they* understand to be a "Christian nation," then "Christian nationalist" is absolutely the correct term. They may not "be Christian" to you, but that's irrelevant; *all* self-identified Christian sects, from the largest Catholic communion on down, are "not Christian" to some other sects.
(This is for TC and the general readership, not directed at you.)
Ha. I was just thinking the same thing but you beat me to it. I recalled the scene in the movie Tombstone where Wyatt Earp says "You die first, get it? ...". I'm not advocating violence but someone is darkly funding all this turmoil and that's who should be addressed.
I'll settle for a few "taxed-into-millionaire-status" former-billionaires.
Don't go full Che Guevera on us!
My secret is I'm always full Che Guevara. 😲😉
Liberal Cynic, smash!
Problem is that there are always some bastards in this world that it'd be better off without, but it never stops there. Revolutions eat themselves.
This is why we use other mechanisms than the club.
It is vital that we identify wealth oligarchy as cancerous to a society and take steps to reduce it to manageable levels.
Let the other team fantasize about killing people.
I'm not "rolling over" for David Frum (and really, that image is distasteful.) I'm not a dog, or a dunce, but if you push me, I can be a bitch.
The problem with 14A:S.3 is that it's unenforceable in the current climate, which requires cast-iron nerves and a faith that the Justices will honor their oaths. I don't have that faith. I wish I did. Absent that, voting is our best (last?) defense.
8 million more people chose Joe Biden over Donald Trump, and the Rs had to go along with the decision because questioning it meant questioning their own wins. That works for me. Your mileage may vary.