As I read today's column, and not unlike many other days, I'm left with the sensation that the Trumpists who advocate for violence are the dogs that that bark incessantly and chase after their prey but have no real plan for what to do if someday they do happen to catch up with the mailman. What then?
One significant problem with the MAGA movement and its current wave of popularity is that it is grounded in generalities. The lack of specifics works to its advantage because it does not require others to accept or reject them based on an actual game plan that they intend to implement, and the real use of the theoretical violence that they are willing to employ in order to obtain it. What exactly would a Trump "revenge presidency" entail? Pardons for the January 6 perpetra(i)tors? Violence against the judges who sentenced them, even their family members? Physical persecution of political "enemies" -- in the media, as opposing candidates, even those who merely speak out against them in public (as we do here)? Elimination of public entities that run counter to their beliefs? Radical revision of K-12 and university curriculum, with consequences for those who deviate? And so much more.
The media should be doing a full-on press when talking to these people, demanding to know (and then publish) exactly what they intend to do, full of details and specifics -- if there are any. Call their bluff. Put them on the record, openly, with their game plan. It's time for the mailmen to learn exactly what kind of dog is chasing them, whether pit bull or poodle in the end.
I remain astonished at the anger. I live in Morris County, a Republican enclave and when I walk my dogs through leafy sidewalks, I wonder what GOP voters think has gone so wrong? And who is responsible? Yes we have lost factory jobs - but that began decades ago and it was the business community that sent the jobs away - not the liberals. We also have increasing rural poverty and this is at least the legacy of Earl Butz and his retooling Ag policy to favor large farms - eliminating small family farms with a mx of crops. Large monoculture farms require fewer workers per acre.
I see most middle class folks as living an ok life. Not perfect but perfection is rare. Yet we have angry pols (think of Trump, DeSantis et al).
I agree completely. I subscribe to Dinesh D'Souza's Facebook page to get a sense of what the folks on the very far right think/feel. I am astounded at their "lust for violence", their seeming enjoyment of others pain and suffering (not just intolerance) and their positive hatred of liberals and Democrats whom they believe are Marxists, Communists, Fascists, and Nazis (yep all of the above). There was a recent posting of Biden's head on the body of Hitler in a Nazi uniform. With some very small exceptions, they thought this was both brilliant and apt. These folks are very, very scary and there are millions of them. Take a look sometime to get a sense of where we are in this country,
So, is it now official? Can we all agree the WSJ drank the kool-aid and has scrambled their collective brains in order to…continue to court and polish their brand with the MAGA cult? Increase their revenue? Get ready for the second coming of trump?
The idea of violence is one thing. The use of it it another matter altogether. The MAGA elite are savvy enough to goad their supporters and stoke their passions with this generic talk of violence. It appeals to the entertainment wing of the populace that enjoys the idea as if watching a Clint Eastwood movie. It is easy to envision them yelling out "Make my day!" with each new reference to taking up arms, sticks, or whatever else, and potentially causing mayhem.
It also relies on others being willing to do the actual dirty work of fighting, while they stay high and dry. As I stated in this space yesterday already, it is clear that Roger Stone (and most if not all other MAGA theorists and wanna-be leaders) has never actually confronted a gun or knife that someone intended to use against him. If so he would be the first to turn tail and run for the exit. Actual violence is messy. It is dangerous. It has real victims and permanent consequences. It is not the G.I. Joe playdate that the MAGA heroes want to pretend that it is.
That said, where I differ from some here is in assessing the degree of likelihood for this to occur in fact rather than merely in words. The notion that MAGA violence ultimately will not happen, is doomed to fail, or otherwise will turn off a sufficient number of people to undermine the movement is based upon rational thought. But Trumpists are not rational people, and MAGA is not a rational movement. The leadership may see this as a means to an end, of gaining and exercising power with others doing the dirty work for them. But the rank-and-file, the literal foot soldiers of the movement, have been stoked to see this moment as an existential threat, and they do not care who or how many oppose them. Nor do they concern themselves with consequences for their actions. This is the battle that they have been prepped for since at least Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s. They want the fight, and they want it now. Logic and common sense do not work on them.
It also presupposes that, if the MAGA freedom fighters opt for violence, a sufficient number of others will get involved and actively fight back against them -- as opposed to hiding out in their own homes, hedging their bets against which side will prevail, and deciding that it is someone else's duty to ward them off. I'm not as optimistic as some here that we are collectively as courageous as we need to be against this armed and enthusiastic opponent, especially if Trump (or another MAGAist) wins back the presidency and regains control of the military.
January 6 was their letter of intent, and since then they have only ramped up and refined their battle plans while Donald Trump and the Roger Stones of the movement egg them on to do their bidding. They may represent a minority of the population, but they are not going away, and they do not accept defeat. That is what we are up against. Underestimate them at your own peril.
I'm no history professor, but Michael Anton seems to be twisting history inside out to me. We don't have a "right to revolution"; we have a right to democracy. That was the point of the revolution. No taxation (or anything else) without representation. Anton wants us to break the shackles of ... representational democracy? And replace it with what? Constant, recurring "revolution," ie, violence. Looking at this guy's bio in Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that his argument isn't disingenuous. He just wants to be part of the attention economy sooo badly. It's tempting to simply tell him - America, love it or leave it.
Also, why do they use 1776 as a synonym for the 7-year long revolution? Probably because they don't want people to remember that overthrowing a government is very difficult! It's time consuming and requires personal sacrifice. These attention economy hogs think their Valley Forge is not being invited on TV or to dinner parties.
Re: "...on-line home of ultra-MAGA intellectuals like Victor Davis Hanson..."
When Victor Davis Hanson was writing on ancient history, I thought a lot of him. Over the past, what?, twenty years, he's been writing political pieces that started out kinda normal, but are now utterly unhinged.
I'd really like to see The Bulwark talk to some of these people. I hear JVL and Will and Charlie and Amanda and Tim rant about these guys, but never interview them. Why not? Is it that they won't agree to it? If a supposedly serious guy like Victor Davis Hanson won't show up and defend his views, then how seriously should anyone take him?
Charlie, did you get through that entire Anton piece? I've never read anything he's written. I followed your link to the article, read maybe a quarter of it, at which point my brain started breaking. His first 8-10 paragraphs were actually fairly reasonable, but then it quickly spirals into psychotic delusion. As far as I read into it, he seemed to be justifying a revolution based on some sort of unelected fourth branch of government (read, the dreaded Deep State) prosecuting people who rioted at the US Capitol with the purpose of obstructing the certification of the electoral count. Which he characterized as "parading." Speaking of unelected branches, that are like real, actual branches, I'm guessing Anton has no issues with what Trump and McConnell did to the federal judiciary, or the unelected SCOTUS overturning a legal precedent (Roe) that had the support of the vast majority of the country.
On revolution, yes, certainly it is justifiable at times. But if we ever get to that point, we need to root the causes in facts, not baseless conspiracy theories. We could probably debate whether the American Revolution was justified; I could make a case either way, and I think it was less justifiable than the US Civil War that was fought four score and seven years later. If things were as bad as Anton paints them, yeah, you could probably justify a revolution; he basically characterizes the current administration as a police state throwing US citizens into prison for exercising their constitutional rights. When you've done your own research, and you've convinced yourself that Hillary Clinton will make your religion illegal, will personally hire an illegal immigrant to replace you at your job, will turn your son into a trans woman, and will ultimately throw you in jail, I could see how 2016 would be your Flight 93 election.
It seems like this multiple reality nonsense isn't sustainable. A lot of lessons from history out there. A lot of people who are aware of them, who know better and know what they're doing, seem heedless of them.
The more I hear about Jan 6 and everything leading up to it, the more I'm convinced that at some point before the election, trump decided he wanted to be the leader of a second American Revolution where he will not only be revered the way George Washington is, but completely eclipse him. School children will be taught to revere him for hundreds of years, dimming the memory of George Washington by his own shining brilliance.
Why, again, are we not supposed to compare this man to Hitler, who had his own sick, delusional mental health and ambitions?
Only the late Roy Cohen is a match for Roger Stone’s manipulative violence and pure evil. The most salient fact is how he’s avoided all consequences due being pardoned by his co-conspirator Trump. Astounding that a president’s pardon power extends to a criminal enterprise the president is quarterbacking! And thanks to the pardon Stone is back at it suborning violent sedition. And the Wall Street Journal endorses Kari Lake. Thank you Murdochs
Anton, Roger Stone, and the rest are the human equivalent of GI Joe dolls. They look and talk tough, but check down south and they have no balls. They'll all smooth plastic so as to not frighten Barbie.
They love, love LOVE "violence" and "revolution" and "fight" and "kill," but if one or more of us took them up on their bluster, they'd wet their pants and run. Genuine tough guys do not brag, threatened, or even talk. They do. These guys talk and talk and talk and slither and talk.
The want personal violence so badly, I will personally drive them to the gang-infested Englewood neighborhood in Chicago. They can hop out of my car, start yelling "N- N- N-" and put up their dukes as the fellas gather 'round to laugh at their keen wit.
After which Roger and the rest will become pavement pools, just like they wanted.
The violence will be their undoing. There are plenty of scumbags in the MAGA crowd who relish the thought of violence and will be happy to engage in it, but there are plenty of otherwise good people who want nothing to do with it. I've long thought that those otherwise good people will ultimately abandon Trump and the larger MAGA movement only when they see where it ultimately leads - i.e. to violence and bloodshed.
A movement that includes 30-40% of the population will remain a force in politics, even though they're not a majority. A movement that only contains 10% would be more of a nuisance, and engaging in overt political violence will ultimately cause the MAGAs to drop to that level or lower.
The Right’s Lust for Violence
are we sure Dr. Oz isn't on the take for Fetterman? Cause he's a better advocate for his opponent than anyone else I feel
As I read today's column, and not unlike many other days, I'm left with the sensation that the Trumpists who advocate for violence are the dogs that that bark incessantly and chase after their prey but have no real plan for what to do if someday they do happen to catch up with the mailman. What then?
One significant problem with the MAGA movement and its current wave of popularity is that it is grounded in generalities. The lack of specifics works to its advantage because it does not require others to accept or reject them based on an actual game plan that they intend to implement, and the real use of the theoretical violence that they are willing to employ in order to obtain it. What exactly would a Trump "revenge presidency" entail? Pardons for the January 6 perpetra(i)tors? Violence against the judges who sentenced them, even their family members? Physical persecution of political "enemies" -- in the media, as opposing candidates, even those who merely speak out against them in public (as we do here)? Elimination of public entities that run counter to their beliefs? Radical revision of K-12 and university curriculum, with consequences for those who deviate? And so much more.
The media should be doing a full-on press when talking to these people, demanding to know (and then publish) exactly what they intend to do, full of details and specifics -- if there are any. Call their bluff. Put them on the record, openly, with their game plan. It's time for the mailmen to learn exactly what kind of dog is chasing them, whether pit bull or poodle in the end.
I remain astonished at the anger. I live in Morris County, a Republican enclave and when I walk my dogs through leafy sidewalks, I wonder what GOP voters think has gone so wrong? And who is responsible? Yes we have lost factory jobs - but that began decades ago and it was the business community that sent the jobs away - not the liberals. We also have increasing rural poverty and this is at least the legacy of Earl Butz and his retooling Ag policy to favor large farms - eliminating small family farms with a mx of crops. Large monoculture farms require fewer workers per acre.
I see most middle class folks as living an ok life. Not perfect but perfection is rare. Yet we have angry pols (think of Trump, DeSantis et al).
It makes no sense.
I agree completely. I subscribe to Dinesh D'Souza's Facebook page to get a sense of what the folks on the very far right think/feel. I am astounded at their "lust for violence", their seeming enjoyment of others pain and suffering (not just intolerance) and their positive hatred of liberals and Democrats whom they believe are Marxists, Communists, Fascists, and Nazis (yep all of the above). There was a recent posting of Biden's head on the body of Hitler in a Nazi uniform. With some very small exceptions, they thought this was both brilliant and apt. These folks are very, very scary and there are millions of them. Take a look sometime to get a sense of where we are in this country,
Fetterman has a way with words. And he probably could help you change a tire.
What country is the WSJ living in?
So, is it now official? Can we all agree the WSJ drank the kool-aid and has scrambled their collective brains in order to…continue to court and polish their brand with the MAGA cult? Increase their revenue? Get ready for the second coming of trump?
The WSJ is just another radical right wing rag.
The idea of violence is one thing. The use of it it another matter altogether. The MAGA elite are savvy enough to goad their supporters and stoke their passions with this generic talk of violence. It appeals to the entertainment wing of the populace that enjoys the idea as if watching a Clint Eastwood movie. It is easy to envision them yelling out "Make my day!" with each new reference to taking up arms, sticks, or whatever else, and potentially causing mayhem.
It also relies on others being willing to do the actual dirty work of fighting, while they stay high and dry. As I stated in this space yesterday already, it is clear that Roger Stone (and most if not all other MAGA theorists and wanna-be leaders) has never actually confronted a gun or knife that someone intended to use against him. If so he would be the first to turn tail and run for the exit. Actual violence is messy. It is dangerous. It has real victims and permanent consequences. It is not the G.I. Joe playdate that the MAGA heroes want to pretend that it is.
That said, where I differ from some here is in assessing the degree of likelihood for this to occur in fact rather than merely in words. The notion that MAGA violence ultimately will not happen, is doomed to fail, or otherwise will turn off a sufficient number of people to undermine the movement is based upon rational thought. But Trumpists are not rational people, and MAGA is not a rational movement. The leadership may see this as a means to an end, of gaining and exercising power with others doing the dirty work for them. But the rank-and-file, the literal foot soldiers of the movement, have been stoked to see this moment as an existential threat, and they do not care who or how many oppose them. Nor do they concern themselves with consequences for their actions. This is the battle that they have been prepped for since at least Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s. They want the fight, and they want it now. Logic and common sense do not work on them.
It also presupposes that, if the MAGA freedom fighters opt for violence, a sufficient number of others will get involved and actively fight back against them -- as opposed to hiding out in their own homes, hedging their bets against which side will prevail, and deciding that it is someone else's duty to ward them off. I'm not as optimistic as some here that we are collectively as courageous as we need to be against this armed and enthusiastic opponent, especially if Trump (or another MAGAist) wins back the presidency and regains control of the military.
January 6 was their letter of intent, and since then they have only ramped up and refined their battle plans while Donald Trump and the Roger Stones of the movement egg them on to do their bidding. They may represent a minority of the population, but they are not going away, and they do not accept defeat. That is what we are up against. Underestimate them at your own peril.
I'm no history professor, but Michael Anton seems to be twisting history inside out to me. We don't have a "right to revolution"; we have a right to democracy. That was the point of the revolution. No taxation (or anything else) without representation. Anton wants us to break the shackles of ... representational democracy? And replace it with what? Constant, recurring "revolution," ie, violence. Looking at this guy's bio in Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that his argument isn't disingenuous. He just wants to be part of the attention economy sooo badly. It's tempting to simply tell him - America, love it or leave it.
Also, why do they use 1776 as a synonym for the 7-year long revolution? Probably because they don't want people to remember that overthrowing a government is very difficult! It's time consuming and requires personal sacrifice. These attention economy hogs think their Valley Forge is not being invited on TV or to dinner parties.
Re: "...on-line home of ultra-MAGA intellectuals like Victor Davis Hanson..."
When Victor Davis Hanson was writing on ancient history, I thought a lot of him. Over the past, what?, twenty years, he's been writing political pieces that started out kinda normal, but are now utterly unhinged.
I'd really like to see The Bulwark talk to some of these people. I hear JVL and Will and Charlie and Amanda and Tim rant about these guys, but never interview them. Why not? Is it that they won't agree to it? If a supposedly serious guy like Victor Davis Hanson won't show up and defend his views, then how seriously should anyone take him?
Charlie, did you get through that entire Anton piece? I've never read anything he's written. I followed your link to the article, read maybe a quarter of it, at which point my brain started breaking. His first 8-10 paragraphs were actually fairly reasonable, but then it quickly spirals into psychotic delusion. As far as I read into it, he seemed to be justifying a revolution based on some sort of unelected fourth branch of government (read, the dreaded Deep State) prosecuting people who rioted at the US Capitol with the purpose of obstructing the certification of the electoral count. Which he characterized as "parading." Speaking of unelected branches, that are like real, actual branches, I'm guessing Anton has no issues with what Trump and McConnell did to the federal judiciary, or the unelected SCOTUS overturning a legal precedent (Roe) that had the support of the vast majority of the country.
On revolution, yes, certainly it is justifiable at times. But if we ever get to that point, we need to root the causes in facts, not baseless conspiracy theories. We could probably debate whether the American Revolution was justified; I could make a case either way, and I think it was less justifiable than the US Civil War that was fought four score and seven years later. If things were as bad as Anton paints them, yeah, you could probably justify a revolution; he basically characterizes the current administration as a police state throwing US citizens into prison for exercising their constitutional rights. When you've done your own research, and you've convinced yourself that Hillary Clinton will make your religion illegal, will personally hire an illegal immigrant to replace you at your job, will turn your son into a trans woman, and will ultimately throw you in jail, I could see how 2016 would be your Flight 93 election.
It seems like this multiple reality nonsense isn't sustainable. A lot of lessons from history out there. A lot of people who are aware of them, who know better and know what they're doing, seem heedless of them.
You just know Mona's first draft said, "Are they out of their fucking minds?"
Re Roger Stone - I feel sick. The WSJ - I may lose my breakfast.
The more I hear about Jan 6 and everything leading up to it, the more I'm convinced that at some point before the election, trump decided he wanted to be the leader of a second American Revolution where he will not only be revered the way George Washington is, but completely eclipse him. School children will be taught to revere him for hundreds of years, dimming the memory of George Washington by his own shining brilliance.
Why, again, are we not supposed to compare this man to Hitler, who had his own sick, delusional mental health and ambitions?
Only the late Roy Cohen is a match for Roger Stone’s manipulative violence and pure evil. The most salient fact is how he’s avoided all consequences due being pardoned by his co-conspirator Trump. Astounding that a president’s pardon power extends to a criminal enterprise the president is quarterbacking! And thanks to the pardon Stone is back at it suborning violent sedition. And the Wall Street Journal endorses Kari Lake. Thank you Murdochs
Anton, Roger Stone, and the rest are the human equivalent of GI Joe dolls. They look and talk tough, but check down south and they have no balls. They'll all smooth plastic so as to not frighten Barbie.
They love, love LOVE "violence" and "revolution" and "fight" and "kill," but if one or more of us took them up on their bluster, they'd wet their pants and run. Genuine tough guys do not brag, threatened, or even talk. They do. These guys talk and talk and talk and slither and talk.
The want personal violence so badly, I will personally drive them to the gang-infested Englewood neighborhood in Chicago. They can hop out of my car, start yelling "N- N- N-" and put up their dukes as the fellas gather 'round to laugh at their keen wit.
After which Roger and the rest will become pavement pools, just like they wanted.
God save American society from these idiots.
The violence will be their undoing. There are plenty of scumbags in the MAGA crowd who relish the thought of violence and will be happy to engage in it, but there are plenty of otherwise good people who want nothing to do with it. I've long thought that those otherwise good people will ultimately abandon Trump and the larger MAGA movement only when they see where it ultimately leads - i.e. to violence and bloodshed.
A movement that includes 30-40% of the population will remain a force in politics, even though they're not a majority. A movement that only contains 10% would be more of a nuisance, and engaging in overt political violence will ultimately cause the MAGAs to drop to that level or lower.