Just had this convo with my husband. I've had to figure this out for myself, trusting my intuitive understanding of the differing roles, but still going through a lot of self-doubt in the process. I feel so seen! This understanding is foundational -- it must be taught at scale for meaningful democracy to survive.
So true. Any healthy society consists in an ecology of roles, a diversity of people, never monoculture, which is always fragile, prone to collapse.
You touched in passing on a question: "My friend raised what he called the 'Unicause' problem—the way progressive politics bundles every issue together so that defending democracy gets packaged with open borders, gender ideology, Gaza solidarity, and every other progressive cultural position." Is there any example of anyone's politics where the application of their position isn't across a range of issues?
Yet who is doing the packaging there? Generally it's right-wing ranters who claim that progressives are for "open borders" (a phrase no progressive has ever written in support of, to my knowledge; a few libertarians did in the past). It's wing-nuts who seek to panic people about trans rights, portraying progressives as being centrally focused on what's frankly, while a real issue, not something most of us have at the top of our lists.
As for Gaza, if someone thinks it's "Never again" except when Israelis do it, they've missed the moral lesson of the Holocaust. That's not a political question. An admiration for Jewish culture -- or German culture -- need not lead to granting that polity a right to commit genocide. It is neither antisemitic nor antigermanic to deny them that.
What you call "bundling" here is something I have described as "flattening" of moral categories elsewhere. And it's always done by opponents. What they're really doing, and the most cognitively efficient way to think about it—I think—is that they're collapsing constitutional questions, universal moral principles, policy disagreements, and cultural preferences into a single dimension: 'Are you on our side or their side?'
You're absolutely right that Gaza isn't bundling—it's applying consistent moral principles. "Never again" means never again, period. But the propaganda works by flattening even this universal principle into a tribal marker, making it harder for others to recognize it as such.
More perniciously, the more intelligent ones seem to understand this is exactly what they're doing, when they invoke Carl Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction.
"I feel like too many people don't recognise fascism because they think fascism will arrive selling oppression and tyranny, but if you're part of the privileged group fascism is selling you safety, normalcy, and tradition."
Thank you for this, it’s very helpful. I’m definitely on the Moral Witness crew. I’ll focus on what I’m good at and encourage the coalition crew, because we do need both.
Very much so -- no conflict. Separate and essential sequential steps to getting where we want to go. It surprises me how many smart people seem to speak in regurgitated soundbytes. So the internal processing clears out the cobwebs laid by social media, and refreshing our moral attention is a critical part of that. It is reified by interaction, and our moral intelligence is built up by communicating. In the end, it's preparation for action to disenfranchise the rentiers.
I've written before about conservative friends and family criticizing me for calling out fellow travelers on the right for not opposing Trump and his Republican enablers. They claim I'm eating my own and providing the left with ammunition against the right. I'm sorry, but Trump and his enablers have already turned their back on the constitution and provided for themselves all of the ammunition the left needs. I'm just trying to bolster the nerve of other conservatives like me who don't like the path the New Right is on.
Great piece. I think it absolutely holds true for those not holding/seeking public office, even if they have "public" voices. Problems can arise though when political figures of the coalition-building type are called upon to make statements on their support (or lack thereof) for the opinions of their "moral clarity" compatriots. What to do then? (I personally tend towards the latter category, so probably would not make a great politician...)
This is spot on. There are two types of anti-Trump views in the relationship between Trump and voters. The first is that the people who voted for Trump are responsible for Trump's victory and actions. The second is the people who DIDN'T vote for Trump are responsible for Trump's victory and actions. The first includes voices like The Bulwark and The Dispatch and the second voices like Andrew Sullivan and the Liberal Patriot. Why would anti-Trump people support the counterintuitive second option over the intuitive first? Quite simply in the age of populism they fear any criticism of Trump's voters will be lambasted as "Elitist." This leads to a very real ELECTORAL problem to be transformed into an ideological and rhetorical moral problem wherein the correct POLITICAL answer to a problem , ie whatever a majority of the working class supports at this particular moment, is also the RIGHT answer in every dimension possible and any other answer is not just electorally wrong but wrong in every other way. This has also resulted a rhetorical bifurcation of the electorate with Trump voters being constantly referred to as "average," "ordinary" "normal" and even "real" Americans and non-Trump voters being NOT these things simply because of the relative numbers of educated, higher income voters in the Democratic party. Much like non-Trump voters are the "wrong" voters electorally speaking we are also told that any of our opinions that do not match those of working class voters and it is the wrongness of our positions, which we unthinkingly adopt in our all encompassing "bubble" that FORCES clear thinking, common sense-driven, propaganda-proof "normal" Americans to vote for Trump. I am a centrist, non-work moderate Democrat who believes in moderating social issues but I am truly sick of other anti-Trump voices telling me that I'm not a "normal" American, not an "ordinary" American because I was born into the coastal middle class and have a gin the performative degree. I refuse to participate in the performative self loathing that I must defer to the "wisdom" of Trump voters and that we are responsible for giving them no alternative but to support Trump.
How interesting -- realizing/recognizing/observing/feeling is static, non-productive, locked into consumer choices that someone else offers. It lacks agency. Citizenship actually requires participation. We've become button-pushers? Stuck with the game board the masters of the universe provide? Things won't change if those who do the work don't change. Get the finance industry out of the game; create public finance, insurance, to do the public work, the public bidding, and work with your neighbors to iron out what to ask for. You are so right to start with remembering who we are and what we stand for, but then we have to get off the couch, off the bed, wherever we play someone else's game, start gaming our own family priorities.
I appreciate the emphasis on participation and agency. But rendering moral witness, building intellectual frameworks, and helping people understand authoritarian danger through writing—these ARE forms of participation, not spectating. Not the only forms, but necessary ones. Different roles serve the same resistance. We need people doing local organizing AND people maintaining intellectual clarity AND people filing legal challenges AND people running for office. These aren't competing alternatives—they're complementary parts of a healthy resistance ecosystem.
Just had this convo with my husband. I've had to figure this out for myself, trusting my intuitive understanding of the differing roles, but still going through a lot of self-doubt in the process. I feel so seen! This understanding is foundational -- it must be taught at scale for meaningful democracy to survive.
EXCELLENT ARTICLE- very thoughtful- thanks
So true. Any healthy society consists in an ecology of roles, a diversity of people, never monoculture, which is always fragile, prone to collapse.
You touched in passing on a question: "My friend raised what he called the 'Unicause' problem—the way progressive politics bundles every issue together so that defending democracy gets packaged with open borders, gender ideology, Gaza solidarity, and every other progressive cultural position." Is there any example of anyone's politics where the application of their position isn't across a range of issues?
Yet who is doing the packaging there? Generally it's right-wing ranters who claim that progressives are for "open borders" (a phrase no progressive has ever written in support of, to my knowledge; a few libertarians did in the past). It's wing-nuts who seek to panic people about trans rights, portraying progressives as being centrally focused on what's frankly, while a real issue, not something most of us have at the top of our lists.
As for Gaza, if someone thinks it's "Never again" except when Israelis do it, they've missed the moral lesson of the Holocaust. That's not a political question. An admiration for Jewish culture -- or German culture -- need not lead to granting that polity a right to commit genocide. It is neither antisemitic nor antigermanic to deny them that.
What you call "bundling" here is something I have described as "flattening" of moral categories elsewhere. And it's always done by opponents. What they're really doing, and the most cognitively efficient way to think about it—I think—is that they're collapsing constitutional questions, universal moral principles, policy disagreements, and cultural preferences into a single dimension: 'Are you on our side or their side?'
You're absolutely right that Gaza isn't bundling—it's applying consistent moral principles. "Never again" means never again, period. But the propaganda works by flattening even this universal principle into a tribal marker, making it harder for others to recognize it as such.
More perniciously, the more intelligent ones seem to understand this is exactly what they're doing, when they invoke Carl Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction.
"I feel like too many people don't recognise fascism because they think fascism will arrive selling oppression and tyranny, but if you're part of the privileged group fascism is selling you safety, normalcy, and tradition."
Thank you for this, it’s very helpful. I’m definitely on the Moral Witness crew. I’ll focus on what I’m good at and encourage the coalition crew, because we do need both.
Very much so -- no conflict. Separate and essential sequential steps to getting where we want to go. It surprises me how many smart people seem to speak in regurgitated soundbytes. So the internal processing clears out the cobwebs laid by social media, and refreshing our moral attention is a critical part of that. It is reified by interaction, and our moral intelligence is built up by communicating. In the end, it's preparation for action to disenfranchise the rentiers.
I've written before about conservative friends and family criticizing me for calling out fellow travelers on the right for not opposing Trump and his Republican enablers. They claim I'm eating my own and providing the left with ammunition against the right. I'm sorry, but Trump and his enablers have already turned their back on the constitution and provided for themselves all of the ammunition the left needs. I'm just trying to bolster the nerve of other conservatives like me who don't like the path the New Right is on.
Yes brother
Great piece. I think it absolutely holds true for those not holding/seeking public office, even if they have "public" voices. Problems can arise though when political figures of the coalition-building type are called upon to make statements on their support (or lack thereof) for the opinions of their "moral clarity" compatriots. What to do then? (I personally tend towards the latter category, so probably would not make a great politician...)
This is spot on. There are two types of anti-Trump views in the relationship between Trump and voters. The first is that the people who voted for Trump are responsible for Trump's victory and actions. The second is the people who DIDN'T vote for Trump are responsible for Trump's victory and actions. The first includes voices like The Bulwark and The Dispatch and the second voices like Andrew Sullivan and the Liberal Patriot. Why would anti-Trump people support the counterintuitive second option over the intuitive first? Quite simply in the age of populism they fear any criticism of Trump's voters will be lambasted as "Elitist." This leads to a very real ELECTORAL problem to be transformed into an ideological and rhetorical moral problem wherein the correct POLITICAL answer to a problem , ie whatever a majority of the working class supports at this particular moment, is also the RIGHT answer in every dimension possible and any other answer is not just electorally wrong but wrong in every other way. This has also resulted a rhetorical bifurcation of the electorate with Trump voters being constantly referred to as "average," "ordinary" "normal" and even "real" Americans and non-Trump voters being NOT these things simply because of the relative numbers of educated, higher income voters in the Democratic party. Much like non-Trump voters are the "wrong" voters electorally speaking we are also told that any of our opinions that do not match those of working class voters and it is the wrongness of our positions, which we unthinkingly adopt in our all encompassing "bubble" that FORCES clear thinking, common sense-driven, propaganda-proof "normal" Americans to vote for Trump. I am a centrist, non-work moderate Democrat who believes in moderating social issues but I am truly sick of other anti-Trump voices telling me that I'm not a "normal" American, not an "ordinary" American because I was born into the coastal middle class and have a gin the performative degree. I refuse to participate in the performative self loathing that I must defer to the "wisdom" of Trump voters and that we are responsible for giving them no alternative but to support Trump.
What I’m certain of as a woman is that no one will really have my back when it counts and that I’m on my own.
You’re not being “impractical,” FFS!
How interesting -- realizing/recognizing/observing/feeling is static, non-productive, locked into consumer choices that someone else offers. It lacks agency. Citizenship actually requires participation. We've become button-pushers? Stuck with the game board the masters of the universe provide? Things won't change if those who do the work don't change. Get the finance industry out of the game; create public finance, insurance, to do the public work, the public bidding, and work with your neighbors to iron out what to ask for. You are so right to start with remembering who we are and what we stand for, but then we have to get off the couch, off the bed, wherever we play someone else's game, start gaming our own family priorities.
I appreciate the emphasis on participation and agency. But rendering moral witness, building intellectual frameworks, and helping people understand authoritarian danger through writing—these ARE forms of participation, not spectating. Not the only forms, but necessary ones. Different roles serve the same resistance. We need people doing local organizing AND people maintaining intellectual clarity AND people filing legal challenges AND people running for office. These aren't competing alternatives—they're complementary parts of a healthy resistance ecosystem.