I'd add one tangential but I think important point: in order to persuade you need to have a point of agreement that can be built upon. As the group More In Common continually observes in its reports, Americans do have more in common than we think, and in particular, many disagreements arise from poor understandings of what people in "the other party" believe. sAs a whole, Democrats believe Republicans are worse than they are on issue after issue, and Republicans believe the same about Democrats.
The starting points for these necessary conversations need to start with agreement. Illegal immigration has benefits and it has problems. Can we agree that illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes can reasonably be deported, and then discuss whether just crossing the border without going through legal channels is -- maybe -- also a cause for deportation? Or if not that, then maybe more proof for asylum seekers is needed than a statement of some specified fears? These are where conversation can happen, and maybe minds changed -- in either direction, I'd add.
Same with gender and sex. Can we agree that today's understanding of gender is quite divorced from biological sex, and its subjective nature causes problems? And can we also agree that sex is biological. From there, maybe that it is true that some very small number of people really do experience distress because of their sex, and have changed what can be changed so that they can present themselves in accordance with that interior experience. They have not changed those things that biology has bestowed on them (which many transsexuals would not argue with), but that they are living a better life in which they are more comfortable, having given up many important aspects of an ordinary life to do so. And from there, that maybe it is reasonable to acknowledge what puberty does as a boy becomes a man, and place some limits on such things as sports competition or bathroom access if someone has only begun the process of changing their sex, or has little or no intention of doing so, but claims to be the other sex? Or can we come to some agreement that medical interventions for minor children are still scientifically unproven with adequate confidence, and that extreme caution is required to make sure a child's mental health is fully understood by professionals, and parents are well-advised of the gray areas and the risks, as well as the potential benefits?
It's hard to have these conversations if we can't find some common ground first. But in our advocacy-saturated world, we keep giving in to the temptation to assume worse opinions about others than they deserve, and too often neglect interest, first, in what they rationally believe, and trying to find those small points of commonality where a real conversation can begin.
I'd put more credence in a legal strategy, especially when used to counter politically-motivated prosecutions. The standards for evidence in our courtrooms and the power of juries are the best mechanisms to defend and affirm the rule of law. This will take individuals willing to stand their ground, not resign and retreat, and others to engage in civil disobedience, for example by refusing to turn over their workplaces to Musk's lieutenants. It will require the courageous engagement of the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 1960s. But, when their cases get to the courts, the issues to be resolved will not be abstruse ones of constitutional exegesis, but real world tests of laws that apply equally to both individuals and oligarchs. Juries will be the final arbiters in these cases, and I continue to have confidence in their abilities to see clearly and rebuff the excesses of the moment. More importantly, though, courtroom dramas will help to shape the court of public opinion.
"Throwing a wrench into this realignment is thus crucial for democracy defenders."
Democracy defenders? Wouldn't purposefully interfering with the realignment preferences of free Americans literally be defying democracy? Oh, I see. It's only "democracy" if it supports the status quo of unelected bureaucrats, dishonest legacy media, campus indoctrination, and Hollywood propaganda all pushing the country relentlessly Leftward.
I'd add one tangential but I think important point: in order to persuade you need to have a point of agreement that can be built upon. As the group More In Common continually observes in its reports, Americans do have more in common than we think, and in particular, many disagreements arise from poor understandings of what people in "the other party" believe. sAs a whole, Democrats believe Republicans are worse than they are on issue after issue, and Republicans believe the same about Democrats.
The starting points for these necessary conversations need to start with agreement. Illegal immigration has benefits and it has problems. Can we agree that illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes can reasonably be deported, and then discuss whether just crossing the border without going through legal channels is -- maybe -- also a cause for deportation? Or if not that, then maybe more proof for asylum seekers is needed than a statement of some specified fears? These are where conversation can happen, and maybe minds changed -- in either direction, I'd add.
Same with gender and sex. Can we agree that today's understanding of gender is quite divorced from biological sex, and its subjective nature causes problems? And can we also agree that sex is biological. From there, maybe that it is true that some very small number of people really do experience distress because of their sex, and have changed what can be changed so that they can present themselves in accordance with that interior experience. They have not changed those things that biology has bestowed on them (which many transsexuals would not argue with), but that they are living a better life in which they are more comfortable, having given up many important aspects of an ordinary life to do so. And from there, that maybe it is reasonable to acknowledge what puberty does as a boy becomes a man, and place some limits on such things as sports competition or bathroom access if someone has only begun the process of changing their sex, or has little or no intention of doing so, but claims to be the other sex? Or can we come to some agreement that medical interventions for minor children are still scientifically unproven with adequate confidence, and that extreme caution is required to make sure a child's mental health is fully understood by professionals, and parents are well-advised of the gray areas and the risks, as well as the potential benefits?
It's hard to have these conversations if we can't find some common ground first. But in our advocacy-saturated world, we keep giving in to the temptation to assume worse opinions about others than they deserve, and too often neglect interest, first, in what they rationally believe, and trying to find those small points of commonality where a real conversation can begin.
I'd put more credence in a legal strategy, especially when used to counter politically-motivated prosecutions. The standards for evidence in our courtrooms and the power of juries are the best mechanisms to defend and affirm the rule of law. This will take individuals willing to stand their ground, not resign and retreat, and others to engage in civil disobedience, for example by refusing to turn over their workplaces to Musk's lieutenants. It will require the courageous engagement of the civil rights protesters of the 1950s and 1960s. But, when their cases get to the courts, the issues to be resolved will not be abstruse ones of constitutional exegesis, but real world tests of laws that apply equally to both individuals and oligarchs. Juries will be the final arbiters in these cases, and I continue to have confidence in their abilities to see clearly and rebuff the excesses of the moment. More importantly, though, courtroom dramas will help to shape the court of public opinion.
"Throwing a wrench into this realignment is thus crucial for democracy defenders."
Democracy defenders? Wouldn't purposefully interfering with the realignment preferences of free Americans literally be defying democracy? Oh, I see. It's only "democracy" if it supports the status quo of unelected bureaucrats, dishonest legacy media, campus indoctrination, and Hollywood propaganda all pushing the country relentlessly Leftward.
It’s always important to be reminded if past crises similar to current ones, so we will know they can be overcome. Thank you.