I will be frank, there are very few of Trump's EOs and actions that I don't agree with. Much to my own dismay, as I would have killed, in 2017, to have Trump removed from the highest job in the country. Not only did I considered him completely unqualified for the job, I was convinced he was a little hitler wannabe who would destroy our country and sign the death certificate of our democracy. Little did I know, I was one of those brainwashed democrats who only watched legacy media, who were moving in echo chambers, and were anything but democratic in their ideals and wills (what democrat didn't want, in the 4 years of Trump, to get rid of the "uninformed rednecks" who brought the crazy man to power?). And then, my "be nice" fellows started to show their true colors, and suddenly my America became eerily similar to the stifling society I had abandoned in a quest for freedom. You see, with very (but really insignificant) few exceptions, everybody on this earth will tell you that the far-right is dangerous. Especially after the nazis, people are acutely aware of the immense peril a group of unrestrained bigots (even a small group) pose to everybody else and to life as we know it. Because we know they are intolerant and vicious, and that will always be deadly and will always win against tolerance and kindness. Now, take the other end of the spectrum. How many people really think that the far-left is equally deadly? How many people would believe you if you told them that, despite their "good intentions" and the well-crafted and attractive discourses, many of the left ideologies have, in fact, made more victims than all the nazis put together, and are deadlier than anything else? How many people would lose their jobs if you accused them of being communists, and how many would do if you convinced everybody they were nazis? For people like me, who have lived under communist regimes, this imbalance is one of the most troubling realities we get to witness, as we know from personal experience a truth that nobody believes (although we have all the statistics and the receipts to prove it). I wrote this whole introduction, that is apparently irrelevant to the topic, to say that although you are right in being cautious about (and critical of) this administration, you are also wrong in many of your assessments, especially in believing that the "oppression" from the left came from regular people (your examples of citizens "amended" for their gestures), while the danger from the right comes from the administration (anti-vax health secretary, quasi nazi president, dictatorial government officials). Many (if not all) of the people who voted for Trump will tell you that what you see right now is exactly what they voted for. What did you think would happen to the structure of a government that people don't trust any longer? Did you count on having an administration that promised to completely change the face/ways/policies of the government, but keep the same actors in power? How would Trump work with an army of bureaucrats who hate him? It was interesting that you gave the example of Musk's commission locking two "officials" out of their computer system, but you forgot to mention that these "officials" actually, physically, stopped the people from the commission to do their job (auditing). Everything that Trump does now has been done before, by democrats, from "detention camps" for illegals, to purging the government of "people who might say no to their demands". And while I appreciate this scrutiny (we need to hold our elected accountable), I am mad that the same was (is) not applied to the left. Yes, RFK Jr. might have some unorthodox views, about vaccines, but people trust him about everything else, and he was even considered for the same job by Obama (where was the outrage then?). He is one of the most qualified people to ever have been nominated for this position (he took on DuPont and Monsanto, he fought for clean waters, in fact all his life has been dedicated to fighting for a healthier America), while his predecessor had absolutely no qualifications, other than being a foot soldier for the party, while Biden's HHS assistant was a man who pretended to be a woman. I know your position on this, and I agree with it. But, really, who do you think people trust more: a man who has dedicated his life to making America healthier and is also a bit susceptible of vaccines, or an overweight man who thinks people can change sex? You do the math! And the media didn't bat an eyelid about this abominal nomination, to the contrary ("what a brave woman"). Because, when they are coming from the left, even the most unreasonable acts can be wrapped in lies and presented as "progressive", thus acceptable. The right can become a physical danger, that you can identify and fight against, while the left can make you do the most abominable acts and you would think they were to save the humanity. We dodged that bullet this time around, but almost didn't. And for that alone, allow us to just hang in there and not get too worried (at least not yet) about Trump's shenanigans. we've seen worse. And we know you will keep an eye out for us, because that's what every opinion-maker does when it come to the right (not so much when it comes to the left, but I will stop repeating myself).
"I will be frank, there are very few of Trump's EOs and actions that I don't agree with"
So just to be clear, you agree with 1500 pardons of J6ers? Or withdrawing from the WHO and Paris agreements? Or ending birthright citizenship? Or ending sanctions on Israeli settlers?
I'm sure you agree, as do I, with some of his EOs on gender ideology. But even here, it remains to be seen how this works in practice. It's often forgotten that trans women were being placed in women's prisons under Trump too. Trump is very good at declarations, not so good at following through.
I'll probably revisit some of this stuff in a couple of years.
As for democracy, Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to refuse, twice, to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. The first to refuse to make a concession speech or to welcome the incoming president. The first to incite a violent insurrection attempt at the Capitol. The first to try to strongarm a Secretary of State into "finding" him some more votes. And as I said, many people now see this as normal.
Trump DID sign the death certificate of democracy. Again, if I'd predicted any of this in 2016, I'd have understandably been called a hysterical leftist with TDS. But now it's the reality. And for a shocking number of people, it's just no big deal.
The problem with Trump's government purges is that he doesn't see the difference between nonpartisan groups, designed to hold everybody to account, and liberal groups, who are focused specifically on the Republicans' mistakes.
Trump sees any group that isn't under his complete control, that isn't loyal to him first and foremost, as the enemy. He sees all criticism as "hate". He sees all measures designed to constrain presidential powers as an obstacle. And so he's trying to remove all those obstacles.
RFK isn't just a bit sceptical about vaccines, he doesn't just have unorthodox views, he is a conspiracy theorist. I'm not questioning his intentions or his character, with the little I know about him, it seems as if his intentions are good. But that's irrelevant if he is susceptible to conspiracies about vaccines that are designed to spare Jews but target black and white people.
I think I spent plenty of time criticising the left. Gender ideology, identity politics, the racism of BLM-era antiracism, my record is pretty clear here. But Trump is going after the machinery of power in a way the Left never did. He's already shown he's willing to push much further than the Left ever did to stay in power.
Im not trying to be an opinion-maker. I'm trying to encourage the same critical thought I've always encouraged. Only now, I'm asking people who have been convinced that EVERYTHING associated with the left is "fake news" and every negative thing they've heard about Trump is a lie to think more carefully.
Oh, there are so many "firsts" for Biden and Obama! Much more consequential than a "concession speech", which is just a question of etiquette (thank you, Biden, for the unprecedented blanket pardons, now all corrupted first families have a model to follow!). But they were mostly done while the media was sleeping, so ... nothing to see here. I don't disagree with some of your points, but I also don't agree with all. If Trump signed the death certificate of our democracy, how come we elected Biden (and, then, again, Trump) democratically? We can get into the details of this so called democracy (which is rather an oligarchy in America, we are only deceiving ourselves thinking we actually play an important role and we live in a free society), but that is not the point here. How is the withdrawing from the Paris agreement (as unfortunate as it is) directly and immediately impacting you? And how is it impacting our democracy? Do you want me to give you examples of Biden's EOs and other acts that have directly and immediately impacted us? I have tons! From dictatorial measures surrounding Covid to the rewriting of Title X, Biden was one of the most totalitarian presidents America has ever known. Children and adults died as a result, women were raped or abused, simple citizens lost their jobs, and an entire generation of young people got depressed and was plagued by suicides and mass delusions. I'm not even going to talk about the consequences of unfettered resettling of foreigners in this country (because this was not immigration, it was a takeover of our streets, schools, and social support institution by a mass of people invited here by the Biden administration). I wish you were in Boston when the people in the most affected neighborhoods (mostly POC) took to the streets to protest against a mayor who took the meager resources they had for their children (YMCAs, neighborhood clubs, schools, hotels, shelters, even the airport) and "gave" them to "refugees". "What about our children?" "You give debit cards to newcomers and build new apartments for them, with our tax money. What about us? What did you ever give us, Americans?" You should have seen their anger. Trump was elected because of that anger, and it's still here, it hasn't subsided yet. If you think you will channel that anger and turn it against Trump one mere month after his inauguration, you are wrong. At this point, most of them will look up to Vance and will say with relief "We really don't care, Margaret!"
"Oh, there are so many "firsts" for Biden and Obama! Much more consequential than a "concession speech", which is just a question of etiquette"
Are they more consequential than inciting an insurrection? Is being caught on tape trying to commit election fraud simply a question of etiquette?
I don't understand when and why whataboutism became the answer to every single question on Earth. You want to talk about Biden? Fine. You want to criticise Obama? That's living in the past a little, but no problem. But today, given that he's the president and all, I'm talking about Trump. And I don't understand why, when it *comes* to Trump, people who I know to be sane grade him on this insane curve where they can't say anything more meaningful than, "maybe he's not perfect...BUT!!!"
And why do you think I'm trying to channel anger towards Trump? What's the point of anger towards anybody? Be as angry as you like at Biden. You have good reason to be. That doesn't mean that Trump should be given a pass to do whatever he likes.
Like you say, a great many lives have been destroyed because some sadist thought it was a good idea to film them, take it out of context, and then use it as justification for shattering their lives beyond all hope of repair. By the time sanity returns, it is too late – the damage is done. With such a long history of crying wolf, why should anyone listen?
These days, if you’re on the Right (or even not enough on the Left), it is easy for someone to shut you up by accusing you of being a racist, bigot, Nazi, etc. The lesson right-wingers have drawn from this experience is that any accusations of bigotry (etc) are clear proof the accuser is (at best) unable to debate fairly and reasonable or (at worst) a fascist themselves.
I don’t think very highly of Trump. But his critics disarmed themselves a long time ago, because they discredited themselves. Why should anyone listen about a real wolf when people have cried wolf for so long?
"Why should anyone listen about a real wolf when people have cried wolf for so long?"
Because the wolf still might eat yours and your family's face.
Look, I get the criticisms of cancel culture. I really do. Likewise the reflexive accusations of bigotry. I've spent a great deal of time criticising both of these. But giving carte blanche to *anyone*, never mind someone like Trump, because you don't like some of their critics is so thoroughly insane.
I'm not singling you out here, as I said, a frustrating number of people have applied the same approach to their political worldview, but it's so obviously wrong I don't even know where to begin arguing against it. It's like arguing that because your fire alarm was broken for a while, you're never going to react to a fire ever again.
Also, while I think you're totally correct about the lesson some right-wingers have learned from the accusations of bigotry, there is also the possibility that someone is being called racist/bigoted/a Nazi because they're racist/bigoted/a Nazi, etc. It is not unfair or unreasonable to say this when it's true.
And the knee jerk assumption that ANY accusation of bigotry (etc) is false, is part of this self fulfilling prophecy. If one refuses to EVER acknowledge the existence of bigotry, how are they meaningfully different from a bigot?
One of the greatest developments of the modern age is the ‘presumption of innocence’ - if you bring accusations against someone, you are required to prove their guilt and they are not required to prove their innocence. There is no room for histrionics in a courtroom: you study the evidence, consider any defence the defendant might mount, and then pass judgement. If, on one hand, you see the defendant making racist speeches to a hate group, you would reasonably conclude that the defendant is, in fact, a racist. On the other hand, if the defendant pointed out that foreign students do worse in school because they are learning a second language from scratch, that is not a racist statement and people who insist otherwise are trying to cause trouble.
If someone is found guilty of being a racist, after a careful examination of the evidence and the defence, punishment can be administered in a calm and sober and inherently deserved manner. That is how the courts are supposed to work. We don’t shoot a suspect on the grounds he might be guilty and then put on trial; we put him on trial first, we ensure he has a lawyer and the presumption of innocence, and then we determine, to the best of our ability, if he is guilty. The central problem with cancel culture is that punishment is administered first and then - far too often - the victim is discovered not to have been racist, or the punishment is so massively over-the-top that the publishers wind up looking like monsters.
I think most right-wingers such as myself would have far less problems with the concept of cancel culture, or accountability in general, if there was actually a process for considering such charges soberly, without administering any punishment before guilt is actually established. But instead, we live in a world where accusations of racism are recognised and any credibility cancel culture once had has been lost in a nightmarish world of accusations, denunciations, struggle sessions, and a bunch of other horrors that ruin careers and lives, destroy any belief in actual racism/bigotry and imbue far too many people with the belief that anyone who practices cancel culture is not right, and cannot be right, but someone who is dangerously insane and must be stopped.
Whatever you think of gun rights, would you be happy about someone walking down the street letting off rounds at random? No, no one would. And Donald Trump is reaping the rewards of his enemies boosting his credibility to the skies while simultaneously destroying their own. He could not ask for better enemies.
The point is not that bigotry doesn’t exist. The point is that cancel culture has provoked a knee-jerk reaction that accusations of bigotry are nothing more than lies, attempts to silence debate and quash dissent, and anyone who makes those accusations is de facto untrustworthy. This provides cover to real bigots. Dealing with it will require, at first, an open admission that there were problems and doing what is possible to repair the damage done to innocents who found themselves the victims of witch-hunts.
I think you've strained the analogy to breaking point here. People aren't, by and large, declared racist in a court of law. We don't expect the same evidentiary standards when taking about where a person said or did something racist, sexist, etc as we do in a criminal case. This would be obviously insane.
And on that note, what "open admission" or "damage repair" are you looking for as reparations for cancel culture? What would this look like? Who should be apologising? The white guy who snapped a photo of Emmanuel Cafferty? Or the very likely white guys who fired him? Who should receive the apology? How is any of this working in your mind?
Cancel culture was and is terrible. I've written condemning it several times over the years. I even condemn it in this very article. But again, the fact that some people went over the top doesn't mean that racism/sexism/etc no longer exist. Nor does it mean that the only way to detect bigotry is to have a notarised letter, signed in triplicate, declaring that the person in question is racist. Or that if you can't meet that impossible evidentiary standard, you should default to making excuses for it
I don't and never have thought the solution to bigotry, except in the most egregious cases, should involve firing somebody. I've never, not a single time, made a defence of cancel culture. I'm saying that knee-jerk reactions to anything, even bad things, are almost always childish and irrational and make matters worse in the long run.
And that the "cover" which you rightly point out is being provided to bigots is being provided by the people whose knees are doing the jerking.
TLDR: I'm just not very impressed with or sympathetic to people who abandon reason and nuance, regardless of the consequences, because they blame entire groups for the excesses of a minority of people, many of whom, I'll remind you, were white.
Because, again, if someone is knowingly providing cover to bigots because they're mad at cancel culture, what is the meaningful difference between them and the bigots?
I could go on, but you get the idea. It's all about playing the music of their people, and/or shaping it with propaganda. Democracy is a joke when we get to vote for the people on the ballot, rather than who we'd like to see on the ballot. Trump, unacceptable to people who stack the deck created chaos when he won and all of the forces of heaven, hell will continue to work against him.
Republicans complained about the Stalinesque stacked courts sought to destroy Trump and his enablers. Now Trump wants to "drain the swamp" and go after Biden's cronies and the Democrats protest. Banana Republic.
And then there is the relentless ad hominem accusations of Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Sexist, etc. that cause the words to have no meaning, even if or when they are true.
If we can't learn to debate and negotiate in good faith, we could end up picking up rifles to settle it. A horror that those who have not witnessed it personally cannot actually comprehend fully. I understand your desire to call out what you see, but is it helpful and where will it lead? And where will it lead if we don't. Sometimes it's not just what you say, but how you say it.
I will be frank, there are very few of Trump's EOs and actions that I don't agree with. Much to my own dismay, as I would have killed, in 2017, to have Trump removed from the highest job in the country. Not only did I considered him completely unqualified for the job, I was convinced he was a little hitler wannabe who would destroy our country and sign the death certificate of our democracy. Little did I know, I was one of those brainwashed democrats who only watched legacy media, who were moving in echo chambers, and were anything but democratic in their ideals and wills (what democrat didn't want, in the 4 years of Trump, to get rid of the "uninformed rednecks" who brought the crazy man to power?). And then, my "be nice" fellows started to show their true colors, and suddenly my America became eerily similar to the stifling society I had abandoned in a quest for freedom. You see, with very (but really insignificant) few exceptions, everybody on this earth will tell you that the far-right is dangerous. Especially after the nazis, people are acutely aware of the immense peril a group of unrestrained bigots (even a small group) pose to everybody else and to life as we know it. Because we know they are intolerant and vicious, and that will always be deadly and will always win against tolerance and kindness. Now, take the other end of the spectrum. How many people really think that the far-left is equally deadly? How many people would believe you if you told them that, despite their "good intentions" and the well-crafted and attractive discourses, many of the left ideologies have, in fact, made more victims than all the nazis put together, and are deadlier than anything else? How many people would lose their jobs if you accused them of being communists, and how many would do if you convinced everybody they were nazis? For people like me, who have lived under communist regimes, this imbalance is one of the most troubling realities we get to witness, as we know from personal experience a truth that nobody believes (although we have all the statistics and the receipts to prove it). I wrote this whole introduction, that is apparently irrelevant to the topic, to say that although you are right in being cautious about (and critical of) this administration, you are also wrong in many of your assessments, especially in believing that the "oppression" from the left came from regular people (your examples of citizens "amended" for their gestures), while the danger from the right comes from the administration (anti-vax health secretary, quasi nazi president, dictatorial government officials). Many (if not all) of the people who voted for Trump will tell you that what you see right now is exactly what they voted for. What did you think would happen to the structure of a government that people don't trust any longer? Did you count on having an administration that promised to completely change the face/ways/policies of the government, but keep the same actors in power? How would Trump work with an army of bureaucrats who hate him? It was interesting that you gave the example of Musk's commission locking two "officials" out of their computer system, but you forgot to mention that these "officials" actually, physically, stopped the people from the commission to do their job (auditing). Everything that Trump does now has been done before, by democrats, from "detention camps" for illegals, to purging the government of "people who might say no to their demands". And while I appreciate this scrutiny (we need to hold our elected accountable), I am mad that the same was (is) not applied to the left. Yes, RFK Jr. might have some unorthodox views, about vaccines, but people trust him about everything else, and he was even considered for the same job by Obama (where was the outrage then?). He is one of the most qualified people to ever have been nominated for this position (he took on DuPont and Monsanto, he fought for clean waters, in fact all his life has been dedicated to fighting for a healthier America), while his predecessor had absolutely no qualifications, other than being a foot soldier for the party, while Biden's HHS assistant was a man who pretended to be a woman. I know your position on this, and I agree with it. But, really, who do you think people trust more: a man who has dedicated his life to making America healthier and is also a bit susceptible of vaccines, or an overweight man who thinks people can change sex? You do the math! And the media didn't bat an eyelid about this abominal nomination, to the contrary ("what a brave woman"). Because, when they are coming from the left, even the most unreasonable acts can be wrapped in lies and presented as "progressive", thus acceptable. The right can become a physical danger, that you can identify and fight against, while the left can make you do the most abominable acts and you would think they were to save the humanity. We dodged that bullet this time around, but almost didn't. And for that alone, allow us to just hang in there and not get too worried (at least not yet) about Trump's shenanigans. we've seen worse. And we know you will keep an eye out for us, because that's what every opinion-maker does when it come to the right (not so much when it comes to the left, but I will stop repeating myself).
"I will be frank, there are very few of Trump's EOs and actions that I don't agree with"
So just to be clear, you agree with 1500 pardons of J6ers? Or withdrawing from the WHO and Paris agreements? Or ending birthright citizenship? Or ending sanctions on Israeli settlers?
I'm sure you agree, as do I, with some of his EOs on gender ideology. But even here, it remains to be seen how this works in practice. It's often forgotten that trans women were being placed in women's prisons under Trump too. Trump is very good at declarations, not so good at following through.
I'll probably revisit some of this stuff in a couple of years.
As for democracy, Trump is the first president in the history of the United States to refuse, twice, to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. The first to refuse to make a concession speech or to welcome the incoming president. The first to incite a violent insurrection attempt at the Capitol. The first to try to strongarm a Secretary of State into "finding" him some more votes. And as I said, many people now see this as normal.
Trump DID sign the death certificate of democracy. Again, if I'd predicted any of this in 2016, I'd have understandably been called a hysterical leftist with TDS. But now it's the reality. And for a shocking number of people, it's just no big deal.
The problem with Trump's government purges is that he doesn't see the difference between nonpartisan groups, designed to hold everybody to account, and liberal groups, who are focused specifically on the Republicans' mistakes.
Trump sees any group that isn't under his complete control, that isn't loyal to him first and foremost, as the enemy. He sees all criticism as "hate". He sees all measures designed to constrain presidential powers as an obstacle. And so he's trying to remove all those obstacles.
RFK isn't just a bit sceptical about vaccines, he doesn't just have unorthodox views, he is a conspiracy theorist. I'm not questioning his intentions or his character, with the little I know about him, it seems as if his intentions are good. But that's irrelevant if he is susceptible to conspiracies about vaccines that are designed to spare Jews but target black and white people.
I think I spent plenty of time criticising the left. Gender ideology, identity politics, the racism of BLM-era antiracism, my record is pretty clear here. But Trump is going after the machinery of power in a way the Left never did. He's already shown he's willing to push much further than the Left ever did to stay in power.
Im not trying to be an opinion-maker. I'm trying to encourage the same critical thought I've always encouraged. Only now, I'm asking people who have been convinced that EVERYTHING associated with the left is "fake news" and every negative thing they've heard about Trump is a lie to think more carefully.
Oh, there are so many "firsts" for Biden and Obama! Much more consequential than a "concession speech", which is just a question of etiquette (thank you, Biden, for the unprecedented blanket pardons, now all corrupted first families have a model to follow!). But they were mostly done while the media was sleeping, so ... nothing to see here. I don't disagree with some of your points, but I also don't agree with all. If Trump signed the death certificate of our democracy, how come we elected Biden (and, then, again, Trump) democratically? We can get into the details of this so called democracy (which is rather an oligarchy in America, we are only deceiving ourselves thinking we actually play an important role and we live in a free society), but that is not the point here. How is the withdrawing from the Paris agreement (as unfortunate as it is) directly and immediately impacting you? And how is it impacting our democracy? Do you want me to give you examples of Biden's EOs and other acts that have directly and immediately impacted us? I have tons! From dictatorial measures surrounding Covid to the rewriting of Title X, Biden was one of the most totalitarian presidents America has ever known. Children and adults died as a result, women were raped or abused, simple citizens lost their jobs, and an entire generation of young people got depressed and was plagued by suicides and mass delusions. I'm not even going to talk about the consequences of unfettered resettling of foreigners in this country (because this was not immigration, it was a takeover of our streets, schools, and social support institution by a mass of people invited here by the Biden administration). I wish you were in Boston when the people in the most affected neighborhoods (mostly POC) took to the streets to protest against a mayor who took the meager resources they had for their children (YMCAs, neighborhood clubs, schools, hotels, shelters, even the airport) and "gave" them to "refugees". "What about our children?" "You give debit cards to newcomers and build new apartments for them, with our tax money. What about us? What did you ever give us, Americans?" You should have seen their anger. Trump was elected because of that anger, and it's still here, it hasn't subsided yet. If you think you will channel that anger and turn it against Trump one mere month after his inauguration, you are wrong. At this point, most of them will look up to Vance and will say with relief "We really don't care, Margaret!"
"Oh, there are so many "firsts" for Biden and Obama! Much more consequential than a "concession speech", which is just a question of etiquette"
Are they more consequential than inciting an insurrection? Is being caught on tape trying to commit election fraud simply a question of etiquette?
I don't understand when and why whataboutism became the answer to every single question on Earth. You want to talk about Biden? Fine. You want to criticise Obama? That's living in the past a little, but no problem. But today, given that he's the president and all, I'm talking about Trump. And I don't understand why, when it *comes* to Trump, people who I know to be sane grade him on this insane curve where they can't say anything more meaningful than, "maybe he's not perfect...BUT!!!"
And why do you think I'm trying to channel anger towards Trump? What's the point of anger towards anybody? Be as angry as you like at Biden. You have good reason to be. That doesn't mean that Trump should be given a pass to do whatever he likes.
You rock!
I appreciate your nuanced refinements on this difficult question.
It’s the ‘cry wolf’ problem in spades.
Like you say, a great many lives have been destroyed because some sadist thought it was a good idea to film them, take it out of context, and then use it as justification for shattering their lives beyond all hope of repair. By the time sanity returns, it is too late – the damage is done. With such a long history of crying wolf, why should anyone listen?
These days, if you’re on the Right (or even not enough on the Left), it is easy for someone to shut you up by accusing you of being a racist, bigot, Nazi, etc. The lesson right-wingers have drawn from this experience is that any accusations of bigotry (etc) are clear proof the accuser is (at best) unable to debate fairly and reasonable or (at worst) a fascist themselves.
I don’t think very highly of Trump. But his critics disarmed themselves a long time ago, because they discredited themselves. Why should anyone listen about a real wolf when people have cried wolf for so long?
"Why should anyone listen about a real wolf when people have cried wolf for so long?"
Because the wolf still might eat yours and your family's face.
Look, I get the criticisms of cancel culture. I really do. Likewise the reflexive accusations of bigotry. I've spent a great deal of time criticising both of these. But giving carte blanche to *anyone*, never mind someone like Trump, because you don't like some of their critics is so thoroughly insane.
I'm not singling you out here, as I said, a frustrating number of people have applied the same approach to their political worldview, but it's so obviously wrong I don't even know where to begin arguing against it. It's like arguing that because your fire alarm was broken for a while, you're never going to react to a fire ever again.
Also, while I think you're totally correct about the lesson some right-wingers have learned from the accusations of bigotry, there is also the possibility that someone is being called racist/bigoted/a Nazi because they're racist/bigoted/a Nazi, etc. It is not unfair or unreasonable to say this when it's true.
And the knee jerk assumption that ANY accusation of bigotry (etc) is false, is part of this self fulfilling prophecy. If one refuses to EVER acknowledge the existence of bigotry, how are they meaningfully different from a bigot?
One of the greatest developments of the modern age is the ‘presumption of innocence’ - if you bring accusations against someone, you are required to prove their guilt and they are not required to prove their innocence. There is no room for histrionics in a courtroom: you study the evidence, consider any defence the defendant might mount, and then pass judgement. If, on one hand, you see the defendant making racist speeches to a hate group, you would reasonably conclude that the defendant is, in fact, a racist. On the other hand, if the defendant pointed out that foreign students do worse in school because they are learning a second language from scratch, that is not a racist statement and people who insist otherwise are trying to cause trouble.
If someone is found guilty of being a racist, after a careful examination of the evidence and the defence, punishment can be administered in a calm and sober and inherently deserved manner. That is how the courts are supposed to work. We don’t shoot a suspect on the grounds he might be guilty and then put on trial; we put him on trial first, we ensure he has a lawyer and the presumption of innocence, and then we determine, to the best of our ability, if he is guilty. The central problem with cancel culture is that punishment is administered first and then - far too often - the victim is discovered not to have been racist, or the punishment is so massively over-the-top that the publishers wind up looking like monsters.
I think most right-wingers such as myself would have far less problems with the concept of cancel culture, or accountability in general, if there was actually a process for considering such charges soberly, without administering any punishment before guilt is actually established. But instead, we live in a world where accusations of racism are recognised and any credibility cancel culture once had has been lost in a nightmarish world of accusations, denunciations, struggle sessions, and a bunch of other horrors that ruin careers and lives, destroy any belief in actual racism/bigotry and imbue far too many people with the belief that anyone who practices cancel culture is not right, and cannot be right, but someone who is dangerously insane and must be stopped.
Whatever you think of gun rights, would you be happy about someone walking down the street letting off rounds at random? No, no one would. And Donald Trump is reaping the rewards of his enemies boosting his credibility to the skies while simultaneously destroying their own. He could not ask for better enemies.
The point is not that bigotry doesn’t exist. The point is that cancel culture has provoked a knee-jerk reaction that accusations of bigotry are nothing more than lies, attempts to silence debate and quash dissent, and anyone who makes those accusations is de facto untrustworthy. This provides cover to real bigots. Dealing with it will require, at first, an open admission that there were problems and doing what is possible to repair the damage done to innocents who found themselves the victims of witch-hunts.
It’s what I call the Gobby problem. In spades.
https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/2024/01/25/the-gobby-problem-or-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-any-longer/
"That is how the courts are supposed to work."
I think you've strained the analogy to breaking point here. People aren't, by and large, declared racist in a court of law. We don't expect the same evidentiary standards when taking about where a person said or did something racist, sexist, etc as we do in a criminal case. This would be obviously insane.
And on that note, what "open admission" or "damage repair" are you looking for as reparations for cancel culture? What would this look like? Who should be apologising? The white guy who snapped a photo of Emmanuel Cafferty? Or the very likely white guys who fired him? Who should receive the apology? How is any of this working in your mind?
Cancel culture was and is terrible. I've written condemning it several times over the years. I even condemn it in this very article. But again, the fact that some people went over the top doesn't mean that racism/sexism/etc no longer exist. Nor does it mean that the only way to detect bigotry is to have a notarised letter, signed in triplicate, declaring that the person in question is racist. Or that if you can't meet that impossible evidentiary standard, you should default to making excuses for it
I don't and never have thought the solution to bigotry, except in the most egregious cases, should involve firing somebody. I've never, not a single time, made a defence of cancel culture. I'm saying that knee-jerk reactions to anything, even bad things, are almost always childish and irrational and make matters worse in the long run.
And that the "cover" which you rightly point out is being provided to bigots is being provided by the people whose knees are doing the jerking.
TLDR: I'm just not very impressed with or sympathetic to people who abandon reason and nuance, regardless of the consequences, because they blame entire groups for the excesses of a minority of people, many of whom, I'll remind you, were white.
Because, again, if someone is knowingly providing cover to bigots because they're mad at cancel culture, what is the meaningful difference between them and the bigots?
The Parties respond with the opposite of the opposition, even if it requires changing their positions.
Democrats have quite a history of claiming that elections were stolen. When the Republicans made the same claim, they called it nonsense. https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-invented-election-denial-2005-bush-kerry-clyburn-jan-6-voting-machines-maga-republicans-biden-speech-11662581117?st=QkDCPa&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Democrats called for strong boarder and immigration control until the Republicans did.
https://youtu.be/ZnOpGI0qRhA?si=m_yy-7elFmKw-mN8
https://youtu.be/GtJ4x1ycsPk?si=yUX0KsbZojs7yqlO
https://youtu.be/v6denkE_Cxk?si=X8SlPufft-pD8pEj
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-illegal-immigration-mexico-fence_n_5cd70515e4b0796a95dcddd4
I could go on, but you get the idea. It's all about playing the music of their people, and/or shaping it with propaganda. Democracy is a joke when we get to vote for the people on the ballot, rather than who we'd like to see on the ballot. Trump, unacceptable to people who stack the deck created chaos when he won and all of the forces of heaven, hell will continue to work against him.
Republicans complained about the Stalinesque stacked courts sought to destroy Trump and his enablers. Now Trump wants to "drain the swamp" and go after Biden's cronies and the Democrats protest. Banana Republic.
And then there is the relentless ad hominem accusations of Nazi, Fascist, Racist, Sexist, etc. that cause the words to have no meaning, even if or when they are true.
If we can't learn to debate and negotiate in good faith, we could end up picking up rifles to settle it. A horror that those who have not witnessed it personally cannot actually comprehend fully. I understand your desire to call out what you see, but is it helpful and where will it lead? And where will it lead if we don't. Sometimes it's not just what you say, but how you say it.
I assume you Nazi salute a lot as you appear to be a giant asshole
Thank you for this valuable and thoughtful contribution.