Michael - Briefly, in contrast to what you write at article's end (on the Supreme Court), I would say that a significant shift in thinking has occurred in recent years among people on our side of the main political divide, including across much of the Democratic Party, not to mention opinion makers. To suggest otherwise, to intimate that most Democratic party leaders - or, the Democratic Party "establishment" - as well as opinion makers are in thrall to some notion of the inevitability of social progress and justice and thus tamp down the severity of current crisis of democratic governance seems like an overreach. Could they, should they say and do more to reveal the full nature of the challenge facing the country and world? Of course. But much the same could be said of most of us.
Actually, I believe the gravitational shift in a progressive direction of the Democratic Party and opinion makers should be noted and applauded. Bernie and the Squad should be applauded too, but they are by no means the only voices summoning millions to meet the new threats to our democracy. As I see it, this still developing shift should be strengthened politically and organizationally by everyone who is positioned to do so.
Thus when you write in the final paragraph, "Our liberal institutions, good government groups, and mainstream opinion-leaders have unshakable confidence in progress – that, doggone it, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice," it not only fails to capture the dynamic changes occuring across the Democratic Party in my mind, but it also feeds outdated notions of the party that are found too often in progressive and left circles at a moment when maximum unity is imperative.
That said, I greatly appreciate your analytical articles on the present danger and what it will take to defeat right wing extremist authoritarian - fascist - rule. So much so that I'm almost embarrassed to offer my observation above.
Do you think this is not the case? For those who go into politics now, don't most of them think eventually the math will win, justice will win, etc? I know one who left cynical and caustic about the potential to change anything given the problem lies in the constitution not the people who have exploited the structural imbalance it creates.
Truly, math will probably win, but as my ex-pol friend pointed out, we cannot change the structural problem without constitutional change, which is currently impossible. In reality, the math will have to yield bodies who actually do something - specifically, flood the streets South Korean style to demand constitutional reform- and so far of the changes in the Dem party that you mention, none include realistic steps to regain our democracy other than voting for a different politician with a different platform- which, really, helpful, but not at all going to change the fundamental problem. That weakness will take either unconstitutional reform, or dems and progressives moving into every single state in the country to elect dem senators and congressmen. when will this be possible?
Just discovered this author today, not quite the years after he wrote this post. The work is extraordinary, and yet the low number of comments points to the problem of such work having little ability to change society. Only the educated could possibly read this, because it requires the ability and desire to read long-form, complex writing — which is to say, it will help a small number of people to better understand our situation, but it will not directly change any hearts that are in need of changing. I nevertheless support it wholeheartedly. Maybe the few who read it will use the clarity they gain to find ways to influence our politics. If nothing else, its clarity helps me to better cope with the horror of our politics.
Thought everything was on point and well argued until the final paragraph. It reads, "Our liberal institutions, good government groups, and mainstream opinion-leaders have unshakable confidence in progress – that, doggone it, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. To them, even massive existential blows to human rights like the Dobbs decision don’t rise to "in case of emergency, break glass" moments. This view can only be sustained by ignoring what is in plain sight."
I find this characterization one sided and politically unhelpful.
Michael - Briefly, in contrast to what you write at article's end (on the Supreme Court), I would say that a significant shift in thinking has occurred in recent years among people on our side of the main political divide, including across much of the Democratic Party, not to mention opinion makers. To suggest otherwise, to intimate that most Democratic party leaders - or, the Democratic Party "establishment" - as well as opinion makers are in thrall to some notion of the inevitability of social progress and justice and thus tamp down the severity of current crisis of democratic governance seems like an overreach. Could they, should they say and do more to reveal the full nature of the challenge facing the country and world? Of course. But much the same could be said of most of us.
Actually, I believe the gravitational shift in a progressive direction of the Democratic Party and opinion makers should be noted and applauded. Bernie and the Squad should be applauded too, but they are by no means the only voices summoning millions to meet the new threats to our democracy. As I see it, this still developing shift should be strengthened politically and organizationally by everyone who is positioned to do so.
Thus when you write in the final paragraph, "Our liberal institutions, good government groups, and mainstream opinion-leaders have unshakable confidence in progress – that, doggone it, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice," it not only fails to capture the dynamic changes occuring across the Democratic Party in my mind, but it also feeds outdated notions of the party that are found too often in progressive and left circles at a moment when maximum unity is imperative.
That said, I greatly appreciate your analytical articles on the present danger and what it will take to defeat right wing extremist authoritarian - fascist - rule. So much so that I'm almost embarrassed to offer my observation above.
Thank you - that is helpful - I'm not a professional writer, so your constructive feedback is welcome.
Not sure what a professional writer is, but I'm sure others have told you that you're an excellent writer, stylistically and analytically.
Do you think this is not the case? For those who go into politics now, don't most of them think eventually the math will win, justice will win, etc? I know one who left cynical and caustic about the potential to change anything given the problem lies in the constitution not the people who have exploited the structural imbalance it creates.
Truly, math will probably win, but as my ex-pol friend pointed out, we cannot change the structural problem without constitutional change, which is currently impossible. In reality, the math will have to yield bodies who actually do something - specifically, flood the streets South Korean style to demand constitutional reform- and so far of the changes in the Dem party that you mention, none include realistic steps to regain our democracy other than voting for a different politician with a different platform- which, really, helpful, but not at all going to change the fundamental problem. That weakness will take either unconstitutional reform, or dems and progressives moving into every single state in the country to elect dem senators and congressmen. when will this be possible?
Just discovered this author today, not quite the years after he wrote this post. The work is extraordinary, and yet the low number of comments points to the problem of such work having little ability to change society. Only the educated could possibly read this, because it requires the ability and desire to read long-form, complex writing — which is to say, it will help a small number of people to better understand our situation, but it will not directly change any hearts that are in need of changing. I nevertheless support it wholeheartedly. Maybe the few who read it will use the clarity they gain to find ways to influence our politics. If nothing else, its clarity helps me to better cope with the horror of our politics.
Thought everything was on point and well argued until the final paragraph. It reads, "Our liberal institutions, good government groups, and mainstream opinion-leaders have unshakable confidence in progress – that, doggone it, the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. To them, even massive existential blows to human rights like the Dobbs decision don’t rise to "in case of emergency, break glass" moments. This view can only be sustained by ignoring what is in plain sight."
I find this characterization one sided and politically unhelpful.
Thanks, Sam - I appreciate that. Can you explain why you think it is one sided? I suspect it conveyed a meaning I didn't intend, and value feedback.
There are actually two GOP members who voted to impeach Trump in the current Congress. Valadao and Dan Newhouse of Washington's 4th District.
Good catch! It's updated now, thanks!