This is when the masses are going to need to see democratic governors pushing back and saying, Nope. Soft Secession through refusing/slowing down tax revenue transfers to Washington, making engagement with Washington very hard and painful for the Regime. It will make Blue States suffer but the line is crossed when Stephen Sadist incites violence against everyone non-MAGA 2d in a row on Fox, Trump says the same, Brian Killmeade floats killing the homeless by lethal injection and doesn’t get fired while Moran and Dowd got fired for stating facts. The Regime is backpedaling on Chicago bc they see the consolidated push back they are getting. So they pivot to Blue Dot cities in Red Southern States with black residents; Red Governors open the doors to beat up in the locals. It’s the Jim Crow Jesus Show. Bull Connor is back! We are officially entering the Reign of Terror. Kirk was a great excuse to accelerate this. Gonna say it again: SECESSION.
Full secession would immediately trigger a civil war, IMHO. Soft secession might do the same. It's hard to say. The Red states cannot afford to let the Blue states go because they are supported by Blue state's taxes. In addition, the regime would never let them go peacefully because they would (rightly) sees it as repudiation of their system.
Perhaps? Folks have to decide where the Proper Level of Desperation is to counteract forcefully. For liberals and moderates, we CLEARLY are not there yet. Other Europeans would’ve shut a country like ours down some time ago - French strikes? They mean business. Without free and fair elections in 2026, whatever the landscape looks like when we get there, we are stuck with this autocratic regime indefinitely. And if that’s what Americans choose to live with, it’s their decision, even if a poor one in my opinion. And if that’s the case, I’ll move. You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
I have been following you for a while and love everything you write. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with you about is the left's use of the words "fascist" and "fascism" in speaking about Trump and his radical followers. While the words are technically accurate, they cause a lot of Trump voters to be defensive and angry and to dig their heels in even more. As a 78 year old retired psychotherapist, I have seen how people react to putting labels on them, and for all of my adult life I have resented Republicans calling we liberals "communists" and "socialists." I agree we have to know what we are dealing with in order to combat it, but I think a lot of us jumped on the words used by prominent historians and journalists who compare the Trump administration to other authoritarian ones past and present. I don't know if using other language might have been better, but I worry that both sides are now engaged in attacks, name calling and verbal warfare and I don't think that leads to anywhere good. I think we need to find new ways to engage, smarter ways where we can call out rationalizations and double messages on the right, while at the same time trying to find a way to talk to each other, at least the voters who are still open to discussion, without putting them immediately on the defensive.
I deeply appreciate this thoughtful response, and I've grappled with exactly this question. You're right that language matters enormously, and that defensive reactions can shut down the very conversations democracy requires.
I try to be precise in my use of these terms. I don't call everyone on the right fascist—I call specific figures fascist when their behavior fits the definition: Stephen Miller calling for criminalizing opposition parties, Trump claiming unlimited authority to execute people without trial, the systematic elimination of constitutional constraints while claiming constitutional authority.
But here's my dilemma: when someone is engaging in fascist methodology, what do you call it? 'Authoritarian' feels insufficient when describing systematic constitutional destruction. "Undemocratic" understates the deliberate nature of democratic elimination. At what point does accuracy matter more than palatability?
I agree that defensive reactions shut down dialogue, but I also worry that euphemistic language makes people underestimate the severity of what's happening. When the Supreme Court eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for entire populations, when federal agents operate like secret police, when assassination gets used to silence criticism—these aren't normal political disagreements requiring diplomatic language.
Your point about Republicans calling liberals "communists" is well-taken, except that those accusations were generally false while the fascist descriptions are documentably accurate. But you're right that accuracy alone doesn't determine effectiveness.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. How do you maintain analytical precision about systematic threats while preserving the possibility of democratic conversation? How do you call authoritarianism what it is without making democratic persuasion impossible?
What language would you suggest for describing systematic constitutional destruction by people who threaten critics with death?
Thank you for responding to my comment. You are absolutely correct. We have a dilemma. Do we call it what it is or do we find another way to get our point across? Let me use an example from the marriage counseling I did for over thirty years. When I first began to work with couples, I was stumped as to how to help them get over the anger they felt, especially when there had been an affair or some other betrayal. What never worked was when one used a negative label to characterize the other. Say one had had an affair, and the other said "He (or she) is a lying cheater" or something worse. That never set the stage for effective discussion of the problems in the marriage. I had to teach the betrayed spouse to forgo using a label, however true it might be, and instead talk about what the partner had done, to describe the actions and the probable consequences if they couldn't reconcile - consequences to themselves, the marriage, their standard of living, the children, etc.
When we use a label like "fascist" or "authoritarian" or "autocrat" - in anything other than our private conversations with each other - we just invite contempt and a desire to fight back. I'm not sure I have a perfect answer here, but why couldn't we simply call out the behavior and the probable consequences? For example "Donald Trump is sending the military into cities with Democratic and often Black mayors on the pretext he is fighting crime. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and will only make matters worse. This is not what we do in a democracy, especially if we believe in a balance of powers between federal and state governments. If we want to protect our Constitution, and if we want to remain free and not under military occupation, we have to reject that as a people and work towards other solutions for crime." (Yes, we know that isn't the real reason he is sending in the military, but we don't have to call him a liar, just show how his excuse is dangerous. Challenge his rationale, however false it is.)
I know this isn't a perfect answer, but if we are going to have some success and avoid a civil war, we need to lower the temperature in tense situations and help people be less defensive and combative. And one tool is to be careful with our language. And yes, the right's characterization of liberals as socialists and communists was dead wrong, but it worked for a subset of people who want to believe the worst of people they see as enemies. I don't think we had a good answer to their decades long campaign to label us and that is on us. But if we do the same to them, where does it lead? Like I said, I don't have the answers, but I always remember what a supervisor once told me to say to the couples I worked with who each felt they were justified in their anger and neither of whom would acknowledge the perspective of the other. "Would you rather be right or would you rather be loved?
We need to identify our goal. Is it to shame the other side or find a bridge to them, at least to the ones who are the tiniest bit open to a new perspective - The ones who are beginning to see they have been conned? Is it to be right or to reach out and persuade? We don't need to convince all of them. Just enough to gum up the works and give we democracy loving people a chance to prevail.
I am starting to think you have a point. My mother escaped Nazi Germany, and I see today so much similarity to the Nazi-like rhetoric and takeover of democratic norms, and the label is justified in warning people of the danger. But the down side is as you say…. It sets up Us vs. Them positions and gets some moderates feeling defensive and accused…. So I am going to resist the satisfaction of saying Fascism and use less incendiary words. It’s not as precise to say ‘the daily attacks on democratic norms and rule of law are leading us in the wrong direction and it is urgent that we understand and resist’.
2+2=4. Truth Matters. If folks agree with me, it’s a start. I find out real fast if beliefs and tribalism get in the way of saying yes to those statements, I know to move on.
Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article" explores an alternate 1947 in which Germany defeated the United Kingdom and has taken control of India after defeating the forces of the Raj: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
Sono d'accordo, da italiano ,vorrei sottolineare che, in Italia alla fine degli anni settanta gruppi di sinistra estrema (brigate rosse) ,uccidevano ,politici,giornalisti,sindacalisti, che consideravano "nemici della classe operaia" .
Anche da noi ci fu chi incito' allo stato di emergenza ed a leggi "speciali". Lo stato democratico con il supporto totale della sinistra liberale , SCONFISSE questa barbarie senza bisogno di rinunciare a nessuna libertà ed opinione.
I wonder what you think of the methods of defensive democracy such as are used in Germany to outright ban or severely hamper political organisations found to be threatening the basic values of liberal democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Do you think such responses justified or would you fear that it would become too open to abuse?
I think they might ultimately backfire. People forget that the Nazi Party was banned, and Hitler was thrown in jail in Weimar Germany, only for them to end up in power and then ban their opposition. "Late you come, but still you come" — Hitler says to Otto Wells, who begs Hitler not to repress his opposition, implying "You did it to me. Now I do it to you".
We see a similar reaction with cancel culture. The right is now reveling in cancelling their opposition, and the left can only call them hypocrites. But can claim no higher ground.
The liberal argument is that the state should never have the tools to ban political opposition, so even if the state if seized by those who would, they can't—or can't be seen to be legitimately doing so. Many on the left would like to weaken the First Amendment to allow hate speech to be criminalized for instance. But then one might wonder what Trump and Miller would be designating as "hate speech" right now if they had that power.
Granted Germany has its own constitutional norms and rules surrounding things like judicial appointments that may render this procedure less vulnerable to political manipulation than it might be elsewhere. The procedure for banning parties was in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as originally promulgated in 1949 and is part of the basic fabric of German democracy. (A German acquaintance of mine claims that the procedure was included at the insistence of the United States.)
I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. And yet, the far right is continuing to gain steam in Germany. Another example that I am worried about, is when the far-right won parliamentary elections last year, they invalidated the election results. Which just gives the far-right ammunition to claim that the democrats don't believe in democracy. I think it's a dangerous game.
Are you referring to the annulment of the first round of the 2024 Romanian presidential election? I freely concede that I'm not familiar with Romanian law on the matter, but constitutions and electoral laws exist to safeguard democracy against its own worst excesses (though as another acquaintance of mine likes to put it, the river of democracy slowly erodes the republican institutions meant to check its flow). As you yourself have written, arguably a large part of why the US is in the situation it's in is because those safeguards weren't properly enforced in 2024. The defense is not of pure democracy ("Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Federalist No. 55) but rather of the constitutional and legal order within which democratic governance and debate occur.
I supported none of these people. I don't know what you're talking about. I hate all dictators, left and right. I think Maduro should hanged. I think Putin should be drawn and quartered. Go project your bullshit somewhere else.
This is when the masses are going to need to see democratic governors pushing back and saying, Nope. Soft Secession through refusing/slowing down tax revenue transfers to Washington, making engagement with Washington very hard and painful for the Regime. It will make Blue States suffer but the line is crossed when Stephen Sadist incites violence against everyone non-MAGA 2d in a row on Fox, Trump says the same, Brian Killmeade floats killing the homeless by lethal injection and doesn’t get fired while Moran and Dowd got fired for stating facts. The Regime is backpedaling on Chicago bc they see the consolidated push back they are getting. So they pivot to Blue Dot cities in Red Southern States with black residents; Red Governors open the doors to beat up in the locals. It’s the Jim Crow Jesus Show. Bull Connor is back! We are officially entering the Reign of Terror. Kirk was a great excuse to accelerate this. Gonna say it again: SECESSION.
Full secession would immediately trigger a civil war, IMHO. Soft secession might do the same. It's hard to say. The Red states cannot afford to let the Blue states go because they are supported by Blue state's taxes. In addition, the regime would never let them go peacefully because they would (rightly) sees it as repudiation of their system.
Perhaps? Folks have to decide where the Proper Level of Desperation is to counteract forcefully. For liberals and moderates, we CLEARLY are not there yet. Other Europeans would’ve shut a country like ours down some time ago - French strikes? They mean business. Without free and fair elections in 2026, whatever the landscape looks like when we get there, we are stuck with this autocratic regime indefinitely. And if that’s what Americans choose to live with, it’s their decision, even if a poor one in my opinion. And if that’s the case, I’ll move. You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
I have been following you for a while and love everything you write. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with you about is the left's use of the words "fascist" and "fascism" in speaking about Trump and his radical followers. While the words are technically accurate, they cause a lot of Trump voters to be defensive and angry and to dig their heels in even more. As a 78 year old retired psychotherapist, I have seen how people react to putting labels on them, and for all of my adult life I have resented Republicans calling we liberals "communists" and "socialists." I agree we have to know what we are dealing with in order to combat it, but I think a lot of us jumped on the words used by prominent historians and journalists who compare the Trump administration to other authoritarian ones past and present. I don't know if using other language might have been better, but I worry that both sides are now engaged in attacks, name calling and verbal warfare and I don't think that leads to anywhere good. I think we need to find new ways to engage, smarter ways where we can call out rationalizations and double messages on the right, while at the same time trying to find a way to talk to each other, at least the voters who are still open to discussion, without putting them immediately on the defensive.
I deeply appreciate this thoughtful response, and I've grappled with exactly this question. You're right that language matters enormously, and that defensive reactions can shut down the very conversations democracy requires.
I try to be precise in my use of these terms. I don't call everyone on the right fascist—I call specific figures fascist when their behavior fits the definition: Stephen Miller calling for criminalizing opposition parties, Trump claiming unlimited authority to execute people without trial, the systematic elimination of constitutional constraints while claiming constitutional authority.
But here's my dilemma: when someone is engaging in fascist methodology, what do you call it? 'Authoritarian' feels insufficient when describing systematic constitutional destruction. "Undemocratic" understates the deliberate nature of democratic elimination. At what point does accuracy matter more than palatability?
I agree that defensive reactions shut down dialogue, but I also worry that euphemistic language makes people underestimate the severity of what's happening. When the Supreme Court eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for entire populations, when federal agents operate like secret police, when assassination gets used to silence criticism—these aren't normal political disagreements requiring diplomatic language.
Your point about Republicans calling liberals "communists" is well-taken, except that those accusations were generally false while the fascist descriptions are documentably accurate. But you're right that accuracy alone doesn't determine effectiveness.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. How do you maintain analytical precision about systematic threats while preserving the possibility of democratic conversation? How do you call authoritarianism what it is without making democratic persuasion impossible?
What language would you suggest for describing systematic constitutional destruction by people who threaten critics with death?
Thank you for responding to my comment. You are absolutely correct. We have a dilemma. Do we call it what it is or do we find another way to get our point across? Let me use an example from the marriage counseling I did for over thirty years. When I first began to work with couples, I was stumped as to how to help them get over the anger they felt, especially when there had been an affair or some other betrayal. What never worked was when one used a negative label to characterize the other. Say one had had an affair, and the other said "He (or she) is a lying cheater" or something worse. That never set the stage for effective discussion of the problems in the marriage. I had to teach the betrayed spouse to forgo using a label, however true it might be, and instead talk about what the partner had done, to describe the actions and the probable consequences if they couldn't reconcile - consequences to themselves, the marriage, their standard of living, the children, etc.
When we use a label like "fascist" or "authoritarian" or "autocrat" - in anything other than our private conversations with each other - we just invite contempt and a desire to fight back. I'm not sure I have a perfect answer here, but why couldn't we simply call out the behavior and the probable consequences? For example "Donald Trump is sending the military into cities with Democratic and often Black mayors on the pretext he is fighting crime. This is a clear violation of the Constitution and will only make matters worse. This is not what we do in a democracy, especially if we believe in a balance of powers between federal and state governments. If we want to protect our Constitution, and if we want to remain free and not under military occupation, we have to reject that as a people and work towards other solutions for crime." (Yes, we know that isn't the real reason he is sending in the military, but we don't have to call him a liar, just show how his excuse is dangerous. Challenge his rationale, however false it is.)
I know this isn't a perfect answer, but if we are going to have some success and avoid a civil war, we need to lower the temperature in tense situations and help people be less defensive and combative. And one tool is to be careful with our language. And yes, the right's characterization of liberals as socialists and communists was dead wrong, but it worked for a subset of people who want to believe the worst of people they see as enemies. I don't think we had a good answer to their decades long campaign to label us and that is on us. But if we do the same to them, where does it lead? Like I said, I don't have the answers, but I always remember what a supervisor once told me to say to the couples I worked with who each felt they were justified in their anger and neither of whom would acknowledge the perspective of the other. "Would you rather be right or would you rather be loved?
We need to identify our goal. Is it to shame the other side or find a bridge to them, at least to the ones who are the tiniest bit open to a new perspective - The ones who are beginning to see they have been conned? Is it to be right or to reach out and persuade? We don't need to convince all of them. Just enough to gum up the works and give we democracy loving people a chance to prevail.
I am starting to think you have a point. My mother escaped Nazi Germany, and I see today so much similarity to the Nazi-like rhetoric and takeover of democratic norms, and the label is justified in warning people of the danger. But the down side is as you say…. It sets up Us vs. Them positions and gets some moderates feeling defensive and accused…. So I am going to resist the satisfaction of saying Fascism and use less incendiary words. It’s not as precise to say ‘the daily attacks on democratic norms and rule of law are leading us in the wrong direction and it is urgent that we understand and resist’.
But is is definitely a tough call.
‘You are a better man than I, Gunga Din. ‘ But you have inspired me to do better. Thank you.
Laurie
😊 I am grateful for 'Brock's Bibliotherapy'.
Still reeling here from the horrible remarks made on Fox News about unhoused human beings.
May their viewers change the channel.
May their advertisers leave the network in their dust and destroy the network's revenue streams.
May their employees quit.
2+2=4. Truth Matters. If folks agree with me, it’s a start. I find out real fast if beliefs and tribalism get in the way of saying yes to those statements, I know to move on.
Glad you delayed him!!🇺🇸
I remember people debating how Gandhi would have fared in the Weimar Republic during the raise of fascism.
The idea of Satyagraha relying on the force of truth, and the brand of fascism that the Nazis adhered to rejecting moral and democratic ideals.
Harry Turtledove's "The Last Article" explores an alternate 1947 in which Germany defeated the United Kingdom and has taken control of India after defeating the forces of the Raj: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
Sono d'accordo, da italiano ,vorrei sottolineare che, in Italia alla fine degli anni settanta gruppi di sinistra estrema (brigate rosse) ,uccidevano ,politici,giornalisti,sindacalisti, che consideravano "nemici della classe operaia" .
Anche da noi ci fu chi incito' allo stato di emergenza ed a leggi "speciali". Lo stato democratico con il supporto totale della sinistra liberale , SCONFISSE questa barbarie senza bisogno di rinunciare a nessuna libertà ed opinione.
Un'amico italiano
Cordialmente
I wonder what you think of the methods of defensive democracy such as are used in Germany to outright ban or severely hamper political organisations found to be threatening the basic values of liberal democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
Do you think such responses justified or would you fear that it would become too open to abuse?
I think they might ultimately backfire. People forget that the Nazi Party was banned, and Hitler was thrown in jail in Weimar Germany, only for them to end up in power and then ban their opposition. "Late you come, but still you come" — Hitler says to Otto Wells, who begs Hitler not to repress his opposition, implying "You did it to me. Now I do it to you".
We see a similar reaction with cancel culture. The right is now reveling in cancelling their opposition, and the left can only call them hypocrites. But can claim no higher ground.
The liberal argument is that the state should never have the tools to ban political opposition, so even if the state if seized by those who would, they can't—or can't be seen to be legitimately doing so. Many on the left would like to weaken the First Amendment to allow hate speech to be criminalized for instance. But then one might wonder what Trump and Miller would be designating as "hate speech" right now if they had that power.
Here's a further, if summarised, explanation of how the process works in Germany: https://infosec.exchange/@celeste_42bit/114448567433279595
Granted Germany has its own constitutional norms and rules surrounding things like judicial appointments that may render this procedure less vulnerable to political manipulation than it might be elsewhere. The procedure for banning parties was in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as originally promulgated in 1949 and is part of the basic fabric of German democracy. (A German acquaintance of mine claims that the procedure was included at the insistence of the United States.)
I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. And yet, the far right is continuing to gain steam in Germany. Another example that I am worried about, is when the far-right won parliamentary elections last year, they invalidated the election results. Which just gives the far-right ammunition to claim that the democrats don't believe in democracy. I think it's a dangerous game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Romanian_election_annulment_protests
Are you referring to the annulment of the first round of the 2024 Romanian presidential election? I freely concede that I'm not familiar with Romanian law on the matter, but constitutions and electoral laws exist to safeguard democracy against its own worst excesses (though as another acquaintance of mine likes to put it, the river of democracy slowly erodes the republican institutions meant to check its flow). As you yourself have written, arguably a large part of why the US is in the situation it's in is because those safeguards weren't properly enforced in 2024. The defense is not of pure democracy ("Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates; every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." Federalist No. 55) but rather of the constitutional and legal order within which democratic governance and debate occur.
I supported none of these people. I don't know what you're talking about. I hate all dictators, left and right. I think Maduro should hanged. I think Putin should be drawn and quartered. Go project your bullshit somewhere else.
https://x.com/brockm/status/1817885268059570537 (From a year ago)
Biden didn't "personally" murder them. You are unhinged.
Breathe deeply Mike! Let it go, let it go. Me too!