This “debate” between you and Boule reminds me of many I’ve had with progressives and liberals.
Social media tends to encourage people to take the kind of bumper-sticker position Boule and others take. Everything seems simple when you characterize your position as a “do the right thing” “no-brainer” position.
This kind of logic is lazy, and prevalent on the left today. I think the left has long had an idea that simply stepping up and confronting a problem honestly and sincerely is guaranteed to have a desirable outcome. They never seem to understand the complexities of electoral reality, and the current moment is far more complex than they believe it to be.
Your position is intricate, and responsible, and probably wise. The left generally interprets any “best of bad options” argument as a scam, preferring to put forward fantasy scenarios that stem from emotion rather than critical thinking. This approach tends to be accompanied by anger and aggression, which has become for me a red flag that the arguer isn’t serious about critical thinking.
I’ve had a long arc of frustration with the left, and this current era has been the nail in the coffin for me. I considered myself a leftist and a progressive for many years, but I find I prefer critical thinking to tribalism and childish emotionalism.
An aside about Reconstruction. I can’t point to specifics here, and I’m operating from a typically faulty memory, but I’ve seen historical discussion suggesting that the North did in fact rub the South’s nose in their defeat, in some ways. I’m thinking of the decision to force them to accept Black governance, etc.
I don’t argue this is inconsistent with what you say here; I suspect that to the extent my impression is correct, it’s just more evidence that it’s unwise to assume any simplistic conclusion about that era.
I think it’s wiser to accept the idea that a large chunk of our country was shot through with rotten ideas before the nation even was begun, and a certain amount of pragmatic acknowledgment was required to even have a United States at all.
This scourge continued through the civil war and reconstruction, and the civil rights era, and up until today.
Any notion that all of this can be fixed with a simple gesture is fatuous.
First do no harm? What about the tremendous harm already inflicted on the country by Trump, the GOP, and their cheerleaders and propagandists in the rightwing media? The chances that the GOP will accept as legitimate an election where a Democratic candidate wins by the margins Obama did the first go round are next to zero. They barely accepted Obama's victories and, in the intervening years, have made clear that Democrats can only win when they cheat. Since the heyday of Newt Gingrich, they've painted Democrats not just as political opponents but as anti-American enemies of the state, communists who want to take away the guns of real Americans and turn the U.S. into the next gulag.
As long as the electorate inhabits two different media bubbles which portray two very different realities, there can be no healing of the deep, underlying breaches of the country, or even grudging acceptance of those who hold differing political views. Yes, prosecuting Trump will only make things worse but so too will failing to prosecute him if there is sufficient evidence to prove he committed identifiable crimes. We're pretty much screwed as a country either way.
First, I agree that we don't know if Trump broke any federal law. That remains to be seen. Once that would be established, the nature and seriousness of the activity has to be taken into account. If it turns out that what can be proven is trivial, I agree with your assessment. If it turns out that what can be proven has compromised the security of the country, such as sharing classified information with a foreign power, that would be another matter. Whatever course the DOJ takes is fraught. Doing nothing may provoke some people to resort to violence. Prosecution would lead to civil unrest and the temptation of a Republican congress doing the same to a Democrat. In either case, anything that can be done legislatively to prevent such future actions should be pursued. At this time, we just don't know what course of action will be the best.
I like how you say this, Ken. It may depend on the seriousness of the infractions. I don’t want an unending series of tribunals dependent on who is in power. Also, I do not know either if he’s done anything illegal or if technically illegal, only on the level of petty theft.
What worries me is that loud members of the Dem base may move the needle past wisdom for the Dems, much as Trump successfully did for the Republicans.
Somebody somewhere said this recently. The Dems will never take the extreme actions the Rs have because there isn't a comparable Dem leader to lead them.
I’m with you on this one. I see the other side but I don’t agree with it. It will be seen as revenge through just about any filter shaded red for Republican or leaning.
One of the largest reasons is truly people don’t give much thought to what’s factual politically because they’re more worried about paying their bills and getting their kids to bed at a decent hour. So snatches of information from their favorite news source is enough for many, many citizens to reach the conclusion that the Dems are persecuting a president they didn’t like.
My question to Mr. Linker: what do you think the Trump supporters will do if he is indicted that they haven't already done? They currently use threats, intimidation, and violence to get what they want. How many Republicans said they wouldn't vote for impeachment because of fear for their family safety or their career, even though they thought it was right? What they do many intensify, and that is a concern, but we are already there. The only thing to do now is see it through.
There is no ideal option to proceed should there be sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a federal crime. 74 million Americans voted for him, and a significant portion of that 74 million worship him like he’s a god, something that is beyond my comprehension (although I do understand his appeal to poor and blue collar rural people, or at least 2016 appeal).
No matter the outcome, Trump highlights the tiered justice system we have. Very powerful, very rich people are treated differently because they have advantages over people who are less rich and powerful. Although this is an extreme case, tiered justice is shot through the system.
> That’s a rousing call to arms. But like most such calls, it’s written in the form of a categorical imperative. There are certain things we “must” do. This displays not merely indifference toward unanticipated bad consequences—“the only way out is through”—but even a touch of contempt toward those, like myself, who do our best to anticipate and avoid at least some of those bad consequences. Bouie seems to fear that getting tripped up in such cautionary thoughts will sap our will to fight our enemies, which is all that matters. (Consequences apparently matter a lot when opting for restraint, but not when contemplating action.)
This last parenthetical is unfair. It charges Jamelle with a contradiction in logic, but JB makes the categorical imperative specifically because of, not despite, his prediction of bad consequences. If that parenthetical represents the thrust of Damon's objection to JB, which seems to be the case, it fails.
In essence we have two predictions. DL predicts that convicting DJT will lead to X and JB predicts that it will lead to Y. This is a fair disagreement. If JB's prediction is correct, then DL's employment of the axiom, of "do no harm," squares with JB's analysis.
I would challenge DL that if he believes it is possible for Americans to overwhelmingly defeat DJT at the ballot, then maybe that also means that there are not enough Americans so gung-ho for DJT that their reaction to a conviction would end the country.
This “debate” between you and Boule reminds me of many I’ve had with progressives and liberals.
Social media tends to encourage people to take the kind of bumper-sticker position Boule and others take. Everything seems simple when you characterize your position as a “do the right thing” “no-brainer” position.
This kind of logic is lazy, and prevalent on the left today. I think the left has long had an idea that simply stepping up and confronting a problem honestly and sincerely is guaranteed to have a desirable outcome. They never seem to understand the complexities of electoral reality, and the current moment is far more complex than they believe it to be.
Your position is intricate, and responsible, and probably wise. The left generally interprets any “best of bad options” argument as a scam, preferring to put forward fantasy scenarios that stem from emotion rather than critical thinking. This approach tends to be accompanied by anger and aggression, which has become for me a red flag that the arguer isn’t serious about critical thinking.
I’ve had a long arc of frustration with the left, and this current era has been the nail in the coffin for me. I considered myself a leftist and a progressive for many years, but I find I prefer critical thinking to tribalism and childish emotionalism.
An aside about Reconstruction. I can’t point to specifics here, and I’m operating from a typically faulty memory, but I’ve seen historical discussion suggesting that the North did in fact rub the South’s nose in their defeat, in some ways. I’m thinking of the decision to force them to accept Black governance, etc.
I don’t argue this is inconsistent with what you say here; I suspect that to the extent my impression is correct, it’s just more evidence that it’s unwise to assume any simplistic conclusion about that era.
I think it’s wiser to accept the idea that a large chunk of our country was shot through with rotten ideas before the nation even was begun, and a certain amount of pragmatic acknowledgment was required to even have a United States at all.
This scourge continued through the civil war and reconstruction, and the civil rights era, and up until today.
Any notion that all of this can be fixed with a simple gesture is fatuous.
First do no harm? What about the tremendous harm already inflicted on the country by Trump, the GOP, and their cheerleaders and propagandists in the rightwing media? The chances that the GOP will accept as legitimate an election where a Democratic candidate wins by the margins Obama did the first go round are next to zero. They barely accepted Obama's victories and, in the intervening years, have made clear that Democrats can only win when they cheat. Since the heyday of Newt Gingrich, they've painted Democrats not just as political opponents but as anti-American enemies of the state, communists who want to take away the guns of real Americans and turn the U.S. into the next gulag.
As long as the electorate inhabits two different media bubbles which portray two very different realities, there can be no healing of the deep, underlying breaches of the country, or even grudging acceptance of those who hold differing political views. Yes, prosecuting Trump will only make things worse but so too will failing to prosecute him if there is sufficient evidence to prove he committed identifiable crimes. We're pretty much screwed as a country either way.
First, I agree that we don't know if Trump broke any federal law. That remains to be seen. Once that would be established, the nature and seriousness of the activity has to be taken into account. If it turns out that what can be proven is trivial, I agree with your assessment. If it turns out that what can be proven has compromised the security of the country, such as sharing classified information with a foreign power, that would be another matter. Whatever course the DOJ takes is fraught. Doing nothing may provoke some people to resort to violence. Prosecution would lead to civil unrest and the temptation of a Republican congress doing the same to a Democrat. In either case, anything that can be done legislatively to prevent such future actions should be pursued. At this time, we just don't know what course of action will be the best.
I like how you say this, Ken. It may depend on the seriousness of the infractions. I don’t want an unending series of tribunals dependent on who is in power. Also, I do not know either if he’s done anything illegal or if technically illegal, only on the level of petty theft.
What worries me is that loud members of the Dem base may move the needle past wisdom for the Dems, much as Trump successfully did for the Republicans.
That certainly is a risk. Let's hope the Democrats keep their wits about them!
Somebody somewhere said this recently. The Dems will never take the extreme actions the Rs have because there isn't a comparable Dem leader to lead them.
I’m with you on this one. I see the other side but I don’t agree with it. It will be seen as revenge through just about any filter shaded red for Republican or leaning.
One of the largest reasons is truly people don’t give much thought to what’s factual politically because they’re more worried about paying their bills and getting their kids to bed at a decent hour. So snatches of information from their favorite news source is enough for many, many citizens to reach the conclusion that the Dems are persecuting a president they didn’t like.
If that makes me pragmatic, so be it.
My question to Mr. Linker: what do you think the Trump supporters will do if he is indicted that they haven't already done? They currently use threats, intimidation, and violence to get what they want. How many Republicans said they wouldn't vote for impeachment because of fear for their family safety or their career, even though they thought it was right? What they do many intensify, and that is a concern, but we are already there. The only thing to do now is see it through.
Good question. I don't understand why Mr. Linker does not respond to commenters who have paid to comment.
There is no ideal option to proceed should there be sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Trump with a federal crime. 74 million Americans voted for him, and a significant portion of that 74 million worship him like he’s a god, something that is beyond my comprehension (although I do understand his appeal to poor and blue collar rural people, or at least 2016 appeal).
No matter the outcome, Trump highlights the tiered justice system we have. Very powerful, very rich people are treated differently because they have advantages over people who are less rich and powerful. Although this is an extreme case, tiered justice is shot through the system.
> That’s a rousing call to arms. But like most such calls, it’s written in the form of a categorical imperative. There are certain things we “must” do. This displays not merely indifference toward unanticipated bad consequences—“the only way out is through”—but even a touch of contempt toward those, like myself, who do our best to anticipate and avoid at least some of those bad consequences. Bouie seems to fear that getting tripped up in such cautionary thoughts will sap our will to fight our enemies, which is all that matters. (Consequences apparently matter a lot when opting for restraint, but not when contemplating action.)
This last parenthetical is unfair. It charges Jamelle with a contradiction in logic, but JB makes the categorical imperative specifically because of, not despite, his prediction of bad consequences. If that parenthetical represents the thrust of Damon's objection to JB, which seems to be the case, it fails.
In essence we have two predictions. DL predicts that convicting DJT will lead to X and JB predicts that it will lead to Y. This is a fair disagreement. If JB's prediction is correct, then DL's employment of the axiom, of "do no harm," squares with JB's analysis.
I would challenge DL that if he believes it is possible for Americans to overwhelmingly defeat DJT at the ballot, then maybe that also means that there are not enough Americans so gung-ho for DJT that their reaction to a conviction would end the country.