Interesting timing. What We Can Do Week(s), an initiative in Minnesota against political violence and encourage peaceful civic engagement, was just launched.
Amanda’s: We commit to playing nicer and preserving this great family we have - held together by “democracy”.
The Other: this marriage is over. Our values are irreconcilable differences. A Gwyneth Paltrow style conscious uncoupling must happen or our divorce will be winner-takes-all.
I say this: we need a divorce. We can’t rule each other in these extremes. We need to stop saying this is impossible. It isn’t. We have modern tools to unite networks-of-the-like-minded together so that we can “secede in place” in red and blue run parallel societies.
Donald Trump can run the Red America. Kamala Harris can run the Blue America.
Ditch taxes. Charge subscription fees. Your Blue app gets you into Blue health care facilities with abortions and immigrant and trans care on demand. Your Red app costs less and offers less.
“Oh that’s tooooo hard!” you say. “We prefer democracy and making the other side bend the knee” you say.
Well, friends, democracy got us here. And this happy family is days away from throwing dishes at each other in fits of violent rage as all this turns into domestic violence.
In the real world, we’d be calling divorce lawyers and renting new apartments. Because we know this isn’t sustainable,
Neither is “democracy”. IT ISN’T WORKING. Time to innovate it. Evolve it. It ain’t sacred. It ain’t from God. It’s just another man-made idea - like a King. Or a Pope. Or a Council of Wise Men. Those ran their course too. History is one long innovation. Democracy isn’t the end of history (sorry Francis Fukuyama).
It’s time to rethink how we organize ourselves in 2025. It’s time to rethink “democracy”. It’s time to stop being children and cry over this relic that no longer serves humanity. Let’s get busy on that!!
I would like to see the context of the May survey response that "about 40 percent of Democrats say they would support the use of force to remove Trump from office." Was this conditional on, say, "if Trump is impeached and convicted" or "if a Democrat is elected president in 2028"?
I would, too. While reporting out this essay, I asked Robert Pape, who runs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, for details. He said the full topline results of the survey were not public yet but would be posted on the organization's website "soon." I'll keep checking the link in hopes that this happens: https://cpost.uchicago.edu/news/
"Violence, once it gets going, is very hard to stop. Each new assault by one side requires a response from the other."
Wait, please. Is this really a political gang war a la West Side Story? I don't see that. So far, at least, the most conspicuous common factor in acts of extreme political violence is some sign of mental disturbance in a lone perpetrator. What may be true is that the climate of polarization and violent rhetoric has created a permission structure (a kind of jargon I try to avoid, sorry) for people who are individually in danger of submitting to their inner demons. That's different from a social tendency to violent conflict.
It's an occupational hazard of both journalism and social science to see discrete events as coalescing into patterns, because without a pattern there's no developing story or thesis.
Your article does a great job of spelling out that elites, most importantly elected leaders, have the obligation to preserve non-violent democracy. They lead the way. Good ideas on helping them to do that.
Not that it is better or right, but those that freak out about political violence today are likely ignorant of US political history.
However, if we are looking for a culprit... a root cause if you will... it is our disgusting media. It went from being a calming influence to being the source of anger and division. And it is the politicians that exploit the same.
It is the corporate pursuit of more profit and the political pursuit of more power but lacking any pretense to comply with a moral code or even professional ethics. They loot and to prevent the population from calling them on their looting, they foment conflict of political differences as a distraction. It should be the people against them... the corrupt corporate and political power and money... but instead it is the people against the people and random violence erupts targeting people that are really outside of that corrupt money and power.
For a possible culprit, we could also look at the number of guns available in the US. Europe is becoming increasingly politically polarized, but there isn't the same level of violence against elected politicians or against judges.
I also don't discount your point about the media. In the UK and France, two countries where I do follow the televised news, the programmes with the largest audiences are more or less balanced (though they inevitably draw criticism of bias from both extremes). Some smaller channels do spout bile and hatred, but they only have a small audience.
Interesting timing. What We Can Do Week(s), an initiative in Minnesota against political violence and encourage peaceful civic engagement, was just launched.
www.WhatWeCanDoWeek.org
This is really good to know about. Thank you, Shannon. I just signed up for updates!
Interesting. I'll be checking out your linked blog in hopes of more ideas in this vein.
Two schools of thought here:
Amanda’s: We commit to playing nicer and preserving this great family we have - held together by “democracy”.
The Other: this marriage is over. Our values are irreconcilable differences. A Gwyneth Paltrow style conscious uncoupling must happen or our divorce will be winner-takes-all.
I say this: we need a divorce. We can’t rule each other in these extremes. We need to stop saying this is impossible. It isn’t. We have modern tools to unite networks-of-the-like-minded together so that we can “secede in place” in red and blue run parallel societies.
Donald Trump can run the Red America. Kamala Harris can run the Blue America.
Ditch taxes. Charge subscription fees. Your Blue app gets you into Blue health care facilities with abortions and immigrant and trans care on demand. Your Red app costs less and offers less.
“Oh that’s tooooo hard!” you say. “We prefer democracy and making the other side bend the knee” you say.
Well, friends, democracy got us here. And this happy family is days away from throwing dishes at each other in fits of violent rage as all this turns into domestic violence.
In the real world, we’d be calling divorce lawyers and renting new apartments. Because we know this isn’t sustainable,
Neither is “democracy”. IT ISN’T WORKING. Time to innovate it. Evolve it. It ain’t sacred. It ain’t from God. It’s just another man-made idea - like a King. Or a Pope. Or a Council of Wise Men. Those ran their course too. History is one long innovation. Democracy isn’t the end of history (sorry Francis Fukuyama).
It’s time to rethink how we organize ourselves in 2025. It’s time to rethink “democracy”. It’s time to stop being children and cry over this relic that no longer serves humanity. Let’s get busy on that!!
I would like to see the context of the May survey response that "about 40 percent of Democrats say they would support the use of force to remove Trump from office." Was this conditional on, say, "if Trump is impeached and convicted" or "if a Democrat is elected president in 2028"?
I would, too. While reporting out this essay, I asked Robert Pape, who runs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, for details. He said the full topline results of the survey were not public yet but would be posted on the organization's website "soon." I'll keep checking the link in hopes that this happens: https://cpost.uchicago.edu/news/
"Violence, once it gets going, is very hard to stop. Each new assault by one side requires a response from the other."
Wait, please. Is this really a political gang war a la West Side Story? I don't see that. So far, at least, the most conspicuous common factor in acts of extreme political violence is some sign of mental disturbance in a lone perpetrator. What may be true is that the climate of polarization and violent rhetoric has created a permission structure (a kind of jargon I try to avoid, sorry) for people who are individually in danger of submitting to their inner demons. That's different from a social tendency to violent conflict.
It's an occupational hazard of both journalism and social science to see discrete events as coalescing into patterns, because without a pattern there's no developing story or thesis.
https://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.com/2024/07/dont-look-at-us.html
A "saturation event"? You mean like Germany coming to its senses and throwing the Nazis out after Kristallnacht?
Your article does a great job of spelling out that elites, most importantly elected leaders, have the obligation to preserve non-violent democracy. They lead the way. Good ideas on helping them to do that.
We have a maid for TV president who attacks or allies and calls it good television
Not that it is better or right, but those that freak out about political violence today are likely ignorant of US political history.
However, if we are looking for a culprit... a root cause if you will... it is our disgusting media. It went from being a calming influence to being the source of anger and division. And it is the politicians that exploit the same.
It is the corporate pursuit of more profit and the political pursuit of more power but lacking any pretense to comply with a moral code or even professional ethics. They loot and to prevent the population from calling them on their looting, they foment conflict of political differences as a distraction. It should be the people against them... the corrupt corporate and political power and money... but instead it is the people against the people and random violence erupts targeting people that are really outside of that corrupt money and power.
For a possible culprit, we could also look at the number of guns available in the US. Europe is becoming increasingly politically polarized, but there isn't the same level of violence against elected politicians or against judges.
I also don't discount your point about the media. In the UK and France, two countries where I do follow the televised news, the programmes with the largest audiences are more or less balanced (though they inevitably draw criticism of bias from both extremes). Some smaller channels do spout bile and hatred, but they only have a small audience.