Tony, Author at Coffee and Politics

November 14, 2024November 14, 2024

Empathy in Action: Stand Up and Stand Together

Empathy isn’t merely a nice-to-have quality—it’s the glue that holds together civil society.

The ability to recognize and resonate with others’ experiences and struggles is fundamental to any society that values justice and equality. Marcus J. Carey’s article, “Hammers and Nails vs. Nails and Hammers,” resonates deeply with this sentiment, illustrating that we often see problems through the narrow lens of our own tools or experiences. However, civil society requires that we broaden our perspective, especially toward issues that may not directly impact us. It’s easy to ignore struggles that don’t affect us personally, but in doing so, we risk building a world where injustice flourishes unchallenged.

This principle has never been more relevant. Across the United States, fundamental rights for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalized groups are under threat. The reversal of Roe v. Wade, the passage of discriminatory legislation targeting transgender individuals, and the rollback of other hard-won protections are reminders of how swiftly societal progress can be undone.

I won’t claim to be completely unaffected, but I am very aware of my own privilege in that most of the adverse effects won’t directly apply to me. I am a hardcore atheist and will adamantly fight for separation of church and state—but as a straight cis white male military veteran who was raised Protestant and officially converted to Judaism along the way, I can blend in and pass as MAGA-identifying as long as I don’t reveal that I have actually read the Bible, respect the Constitution, and recognize that science outweighs opinions. So, mostly I will be fine.

But, it’s not about me. For those of us not directly impacted, empathy compels us to speak up and stand alongside those who are. As the famous poem “First They Came…” by Pastor Martin Niemöller reminds us, silence in the face of others’ suffering only ensures that we will be left alone when it is our turn.

Empathy in Action: Understanding Why It Matters

Empathy is more than a feeling—it’s a social responsibility. When we cultivate empathy, we break down the barriers between “us” and “them.” This isn’t just philosophical; research has shown that diverse support strengthens advocacy efforts and builds resilient communities. When people unaffected by an issue join the fight, it amplifies the voices of those who are directly impacted. It signals a shared humanity and strengthens the movement for change.

For example, reproductive rights advocacy has drawn support from unexpected allies, including male-dominated groups who understand that restricted rights impact families, communities, and society at large. Similarly, cisgender individuals are increasingly standing in solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community, recognizing that attacks on gender expression and identity affect the societal fabric as a whole. These acts of solidarity don’t just help those directly impacted; they also encourage others to listen, empathize, and take action.

Current Challenges: The Erosion of Rights and Marginalization

Today, several marginalized communities face existential threats to their rights. Here’s a closer look at the struggles that demand empathy and support from all of us:

Women’s Reproductive Rights: The reversal of Roe v. Wade has left many women, especially those from low-income and marginalized communities, with restricted or nonexistent access to essential healthcare. This rollback signifies a troubling trend toward governmental control over personal autonomy, which should prompt empathy from those unaffected. Recognizing that erosion of rights for one group could pave the way for further limitations for all is critical in preserving freedom and equality.
LGBTQ+ Protections: Legislation targeting LGBTQ+ rights, particularly those of transgender individuals, has increased, limiting access to gender-affirming healthcare, participation in sports, and discussions of LGBTQ+ topics in schools. These laws foster a climate of fear and exclusion, undermining the inclusivity crucial to a healthy civil society. Empathy here means supporting the dignity and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of identity.
Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities face historical and ongoing racial discrimination across education, employment, healthcare, and the justice system. This persistent inequality limits opportunities and entrenches social and economic divides. Empathy here involves actively opposing systemic discrimination and fostering equal access for all racial and ethnic groups.
Religious Minorities: Many religious minorities, including Muslims, Sikhs, and Jews, face hate crimes, discrimination, and legal challenges that impact their ability to practice their faith freely. In a diverse society, empathy toward religious minorities involves safeguarding freedom of religion and promoting tolerance and understanding.
People with Disabilities: Those with physical, cognitive, and mental disabilities often face a lack of accessibility, limited accommodations, and societal stigma that hinder their ability to live independently and with dignity. Empathy for people with disabilities means advocating for inclusive policies and ensuring equitable access to resources and opportunities.
Immigrants and Refugees: Immigrants and refugees, particularly those without legal documentation, face discrimination, exploitation, and limited access to essential services like healthcare, housing, and education. Language barriers and cultural differences often add to social exclusion. Empathy here includes supporting fair immigration policies and working toward a more inclusive environment.
Low-Income and Homeless Individuals: Poverty often leads to systemic exclusion from education, healthcare, and housing, while homelessness carries additional health risks and social stigma. Low-income individuals face constant financial stress, limiting their chances to break the cycle of poverty. Supporting programs that address basic needs and economic opportunities is an empathetic approach to addressing this issue.
Neurodivergent Individuals: Neurodivergent individuals, including those with autism, ADHD, and other neurological conditions, face challenges due to societal misunderstanding, limited accommodations, and discrimination. Many encounter barriers in education, employment, and public spaces that are not designed for diverse neurological needs. Empathy involves promoting understanding and creating inclusive environments that accommodate neurodiversity.
Women of Color and Intersectional Identities: Women of color experience compounded discrimination based on race, gender, and economic background, impacting their healthcare, employment, and representation in society. Empathy for individuals with intersectional identities involves recognizing these layered challenges and advocating for policies that address inequality on multiple fronts.

The Role of the “Unaffected”: Why Empathy is Needed From All of Us

When we look at injustice through the narrow lens of our own experiences, we risk becoming passive bystanders. As Marcus J. Carey points out in “Hammers and Nails vs. Nails and Hammers,” it’s vital to approach issues with the understanding that solutions—and the perspectives that drive them—must be adaptable. We are all in this together, and empathy requires those of us with power or privilege to amplify the voices of those less heard.

When unaffected people lend their support, it validates and strengthens marginalized communities’ calls for justice. Silence, on the other hand, enables oppressive systems to thrive. Pastor Niemöller’s poem serves as a timeless reminder of this truth: when we allow the rights of others to be taken without objection, we’re setting a dangerous precedent that could eventually affect us all. The lack of empathy becomes the silent tool of oppression.

Empathy as a Skill: How to Cultivate and Demonstrate Empathy in Daily Life

Empathy isn’t an automatic response—it’s a skill we can cultivate. Here’s how you can make empathy part of your daily life and help support marginalized communities:

Listen and Learn: Start by engaging with the stories of those who are different from you. Read books (ESPECIALLY any book that others are attempting to ban), watch documentaries, and follow people from marginalized communities on social media to better understand their experiences.
Speak Out: Taking a public stance may be uncomfortable, but that discomfort pales in comparison to the challenges faced by those under attack. Empathy involves actively supporting the rights of others and advocating for their protection.
Engage Locally: Look for local organizations and events advocating for marginalized rights. Attending rallies, participating in community discussions, and supporting local advocacy groups are impactful ways to show solidarity.
Use Influence Wisely: Whether you have a large social media following or a strong network within your community, use your influence to amplify issues affecting marginalized communities. Educate others and promote the value of empathy-driven action.

The Path Forward for a Thriving Civil Society

Empathy isn’t just about feeling another person’s pain; it’s a civic duty that can help us create a more just, compassionate, and resilient society.

Every time we choose to stand up for someone else’s rights, we’re reinforcing the principles of justice and inclusion that are vital to a strong democracy. Empathy doesn’t mean imposing limits on freedom; it means understanding that our actions—or lack thereof—affect the lives and freedoms of others.

By embracing empathy and supporting the marginalized, we aren’t just helping others; we’re helping ourselves by ensuring that civil society remains a place where everyone has a voice and a place. After all, in a world that often prioritizes self-interest, empathy is the revolutionary act that holds the potential for lasting societal change.

Take Action by Supporting Organizations that Advocate for Marginalized Rights

Standing up for empathy in civil society involves aligning ourselves with organizations that are working tirelessly to protect marginalized rights. Here are some groups to consider supporting or joining:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Defends the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the U.S. by the Constitution and laws.
- https://www.aclu.org/
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP): Focuses on eliminating race-based discrimination and ensuring the health and well-being of all people.
- https://www.naacp.org/
Planned Parenthood: Provides reproductive healthcare, education, and advocates for women’s health and rights.
- https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/
GLAAD: A leading advocacy organization dedicated to promoting understanding, acceptance, and equality for LGBTQ+ individuals.
- GLAAD
Human Rights Campaign (HRC): Advocates for LGBTQ+ equality and works to create a world where everyone is treated with respect and fairness.
- https://www.hrc.org/
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): Combats hate, intolerance, and discrimination through education, litigation, and advocacy.
- https://www.splcenter.org/
Amnesty International: Works globally to protect human rights and promote social justice, fighting for the freedoms and rights of marginalized communities everywhere.
- https://www.amnesty.org/

These are just a few of many, many such organizations. By joining or supporting these organizations, we can each contribute to building a civil society rooted in empathy, respect, and justice for all. Together, we have the power to shape a future that values every individual and protects their rights, regardless of who they are or where they come from.

November 13, 2024November 13, 2024

Free Speech vs. the Paradox of Tolerance: Why Critical Thinking Is Essential for a Healthy Democracy

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is perhaps one of the most celebrated foundations of American democracy. Its free speech clause grants citizens the right to express opinions without fear of government censorship. But this cherished freedom brings with it a complex question: how can a society uphold free speech, yet prevent harmful speech from tearing at the fabric of tolerance and democracy? Here, we confront a philosophical dilemma called the “Paradox of Tolerance”—and it becomes especially relevant in a world flooded with misinformation.

When nearly anyone can say nearly anything to millions online, a society lacking critical thinking skills is at risk. People may struggle to tell fact from fiction or dismiss dangerous ideas as merely “another opinion.” This isn’t a call to curtail free speech or weaken the First Amendment. Instead, it’s an appeal to strengthen the public’s ability to discern truth from deception, ultimately allowing us to enjoy the full potential of free speech without self-destructing.

The First Amendment and Common Misconceptions

The First Amendment’s free speech clause, at its core, protects citizens from government censorship. This means that the government can’t legally silence voices simply because they’re inconvenient or unpopular. The amendment was designed to safeguard open debate, create space for dissent, and give individuals the freedom to speak truth to power without fear of government retribution.

But here’s a detail that’s often misunderstood: this protection applies only to government actions. The First Amendment does not—and was never meant to—restrict the choices of private companies, including social media platforms and media outlets. Facebook, Twitter, or any other privately owned company has the right to control what’s allowed on their platforms, setting community guidelines, banning hate speech, or even deciding to prohibit words like “blue” or “Christmas.” They aren’t obligated to host any particular view or opinion because they aren’t government entities.

This doesn’t mean free speech is meaningless in today’s digital landscape; it simply means that our online speech exists within the limits set by private companies, which operate under their own policies. The confusion surrounding these boundaries often fuels frustration, especially when controversial voices are banned or content is flagged. Understanding this is critical to navigating free speech debates in a private enterprise-dominated digital world.

Another misconception of the First Amendment right revolves around the response to free speech. Freedom of speech protects your right to express ideas, even unpopular or controversial ones, without fear of government censorship. However, it doesn’t shield you from the personal or social consequences of what you say. The classic example of “yelling fire in a crowded theater”—a phrase made famous by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes—illustrates this well. If the speech causes harm or danger, legal consequences can follow, and, similarly, certain statements can have personal or professional fallout.

You’re free to believe and say what you want, but that doesn’t mean others have to accept or agree with you. Friends, family, and employers are all entitled to react to what you say. For instance, anyone who has the audacity and lack of situational awareness to actually say the words “Your body, my choice,” should expect to face serious—and probably very painful—backlash.

Society values freedom of speech, but it also values accountability—at least for average citizens. The lack of consequences or accountability for powerful or wealthy people is a completely separate issue for another day. Exercising freedom comes with responsibility, and the expectation that others may—and often will—respond.

The Paradox of Tolerance: Tolerating the Intolerable

Now, let’s dive into the Paradox of Tolerance. Coined by philosopher Karl Popper in 1945, this paradox argues that a society committed to unlimited tolerance may ultimately undermine tolerance itself. Why? If a tolerant society allows intolerant viewpoints to go unchecked, those viewpoints can eventually erode the very tolerance that made them possible.

In today’s context, this paradox takes on new weight. Our online spaces, teeming with unfiltered opinions, can amplify voices that promote intolerance or spread misinformation. While these opinions might not seem immediately threatening, over time, they shape beliefs, attitudes, and, in some cases, actions that destabilize social cohesion.

Consider how rapidly harmful misinformation spreads online—echo chambers emerge, creating spaces where harmful beliefs are not only tolerated but reinforced. The result is a society in which people become more polarized, and misinformation that could genuinely harm public welfare is given equal footing with facts. This tolerance of all ideas, even those built on lies or promoting hate, paradoxically eats away at the stability tolerance is meant to support.

The Impact of Digital Echo Chambers

Social media platforms, which dominate so much of our communication, often function as amplifiers for the Paradox of Tolerance. Algorithms frequently prioritize content that confirms existing beliefs, reinforcing the echo chamber effect. In these spaces, users can comfortably avoid opposing views, consuming only information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs and biases.

While this can lead to greater engagement for the platform, it has social consequences. When people only see views they agree with, they are more likely to believe that those views represent the “truth.” Without opposing ideas to balance perceptions, misinformation can flourish, and intolerant beliefs can gain credibility among like-minded groups. This kind of environment is ripe for fostering intolerance and undermining the critical thinking skills essential for healthy public discourse.

This challenge is bipartisan and affects all sides of a debate. In fact, it has been documented that our adversarial nation-states like Russia actively promote propaganda, lies, and false narratives on both sides of an issue because they aren’t invested in one side or the other—the goal is to undermine civil discourse and foment chaos.

I have seen a flood of posts across Threads and Tik Tok in the last 24 hours claiming that hateful misogynist Nick Fuentes’ house in Illinois has been burned down by an arson. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened given the rage he has chosen to spark by exercising his right to free speech, but a quick search online finds that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence this actually happened. Still, the posts have hundreds of thousands of views, likes, and shares because the algorithm feeds the echo chamber and people are quick to amplify things without doing any research or applying critical thinking skills—which perpetuates and expands the echo chamber.

We’ve seen the real-world impact of misinformation—from public health crises to political unrest. When citizens aren’t equipped with the skills to question sources and evaluate evidence, misinformation can alter perceptions, destabilize institutions, and, in some cases, incite violence. In this light, the Paradox of Tolerance warns us of the risks associated with our modern media landscape.

Critical Thinking as the Solution

But let’s be clear: I’m not advocating for any form of censorship or limits on free speech. Free speech is essential to a free society, even when it’s messy or uncomfortable. The solution is not to control what people can say but to prepare people to discern truth from deception, and critical thinking is the best tool for this job.

Critical thinking—the ability to objectively analyze information, consider alternative viewpoints, and draw reasoned conclusions—is the antidote to the challenges posed by the Paradox of Tolerance. While the ideal of free speech ensures that people can speak their minds, critical thinking ensures they can understand and evaluate what they hear.

So how can we strengthen critical thinking skills? The answer lies in education, not only in schools but through public initiatives that promote media literacy. From elementary school through college, critical thinking, logical reasoning, and media literacy need to be part of the curriculum. Additionally, online resources, workshops, and educational campaigns can help equip adults with the skills necessary to engage responsibly in public discourse.

That is also why those who benefit from the Paradox of Tolerance and the chaos of spreading propaganda and verifiably false information are also the ones who want to silence dissenting views, ban books they don’t agree with, and control or dismantle the US education system. An educated population with critical thinking skills is a threat.

Not Limiting Speech, but Empowering Minds

A society equipped with critical thinking tools can approach the free speech paradox responsibly, sustaining tolerance without sacrificing truth. Imagine a public that can sift through information, understanding that not every opinion is fact and that not every belief deserves equal weight. In such a society, freedom of speech remains intact, but citizens are empowered to engage thoughtfully and respectfully.

The First Amendment doesn’t need adjusting, nor should the government step in to dictate speech boundaries. Instead, we as a society must recognize that free speech, for all its benefits, can be self-destructive if wielded irresponsibly. It’s our collective responsibility to foster a society where truth and tolerance thrive, bolstered by citizens who are ready and able to engage critically with the world around them.

We face a choice as a nation: do we continue to tolerate misinformation and allow it to jeopardize our democratic ideals, or do we empower people with the skills to navigate a complex information landscape?

November 12, 2024November 12, 2024

Let the Dog Catch the Mail Truck: Why Democrats Should Let Trump Be Trump

The metaphor of a dog chasing a mail truck is often used to describe relentless pursuit without consideration of the consequences. With Donald Trump’s recent election victory, this analogy takes on new significance. Voters who fervently supported Trump’s return to the presidency have, in essence, caught the mail truck. Now, the question arises: Should Democrats expend their political capital to obstruct Trump’s policies, or should they allow these policies to unfold, letting the consequences speak for themselves?

This article draws inspiration from a thought-provoking piece in The Bulwark and recent Threads posts by Jonathan V. Last, who explores the idea of stepping back and “letting Trump be Trump.”

While this approach might highlight the destructive nature of certain policies in a way that words alone never could, it’s important to acknowledge the gravity of this concept if played out in reality. Allowing Trump’s policies to unfold without resistance would likely lead to catastrophic consequences for global peace, geopolitical stability, the U.S. economy, women’s rights, marginalized communities, and countless families.

It’s a scenario that, while theoretically illuminating, poses immense moral and practical challenges. As much as the end result—a public reckoning with these choices—might seem desirable, the devastating costs make it almost impossible to watch it happen without intervention. This tension, the near impossibility of standing by while harm unfolds, is part of the reason why Democrats often intervene, inadvertently shielding these policies from the full measure of accountability.

Historical Context: The Democratic Dilemma

Historically, Democrats have often intervened to mitigate the impact of Republican policies, sometimes shielding their opponents from the full political fallout. For instance, in Arizona, when a 19th-century law criminalizing nearly all abortions was reinstated, Democrats provided the necessary votes to repeal it, thereby sparing Republicans from potential backlash . This pattern of intervention raises the question: Is it more strategic for Democrats to step back and allow Republican policies to proceed unimpeded, thereby exposing their flaws and shifting public opinion?

Key Policy Areas to Consider

Foreign Policy: The Ukraine Example

Trump has signaled a potential withdrawal of support for Ukraine, a move that could have significant geopolitical ramifications. Instead of obstructing this policy, Democrats might consider allowing it to proceed, thereby highlighting the dangers of such a move when the consequences become apparent. This approach could serve to underscore the importance of sustained international alliances and the risks associated with isolationist policies.

Economic Policy: Tariffs and Trade

Trump’s reintroduction of tariffs is poised to impact the economy, potentially leading to higher consumer prices and strained international trade relations. Rather than blocking these policies, Democrats could focus on exposing instances of cronyism and the adverse effects on consumers. By shining a light on how these tariffs may benefit a select few while harming the broader population, Democrats can make a compelling case against such economic strategies.

Public Health: Vaccine Policies

The appointment of vaccine skeptics to key positions within the administration poses a threat to public health initiatives. In response, Democratic-led states could implement their own public health campaigns, promoting vaccination and countering misinformation. Allowing federal missteps to become evident may reinforce the importance of science-based policies and the dangers of politicizing public health.

Immigration: Mass Deportations

Trump’s proposal for large-scale deportations raises concerns about feasibility and societal impact. By not obstructing these policies, Democrats could allow the public to witness the chaos and human cost associated with such actions. This exposure might lead to a shift in public opinion, particularly among communities directly affected by these policies.

The Risks of Obstruction

Obstructing Trump’s policies could have unintended consequences, such as shielding Republicans from accountability and wasting political resources that could be better used in proactive policy development. By stepping back, Democrats allow the full impact of these policies to be felt, potentially leading to a more informed and engaged electorate.

The Benefits of Allowing Policy Implementation

Allowing policies to proceed without obstruction can lead to greater public awareness of their impacts. This strategy builds a case for change based on observed outcomes rather than theoretical arguments, fostering a more informed public discourse and potentially leading to more sustainable policy solutions.

Ethical Considerations

Balancing the duty to protect vulnerable populations with the strategic benefits of non-intervention presents an ethical dilemma. While immediate harm may occur, the long-term gains in public policy and opinion could justify a strategy of allowing policies to unfold. This approach requires careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits, ensuring that the pursuit of political strategy does not come at the expense of ethical responsibility.

Strategic Patience

Revisiting the dog and mail truck metaphor, Democrats face a choice: continue to intervene and potentially shield Republicans from the consequences of their policies, or step back and allow these policies to demonstrate their effectiveness or failure. By adopting a strategy of strategic patience, Democrats can let Trump be Trump, allowing the electorate to witness firsthand the outcomes of his administration’s policies.

Call to Action

Engaging the public in this discourse is crucial. Voters should stay informed and critically assess policy outcomes, holding elected officials accountable for their decisions. Democratic leaders are urged to consider the potential benefits of allowing certain policies to unfold without obstruction, fostering a more informed and engaged electorate that can make decisions based on observed realities rather than partisan rhetoric.

Bottom line: Trump, his sycophants, and the MAGA cult-at-large have fucked around. It’s about time they find out. However, we already know Trump idolizes both Hitler and Putin, and one thing we can learn from their rise, or the rise of neofascist authoritarians like Viktor Orbán—is that when the “finding out” happens, it may very will be too late to reverse the damage.

September 26, 2023September 26, 2023

A Plea for Rational Republican Voices

US Capitol House representative MAGA extremists

The concept of normalcy seems a distant memory in our current political landscape. The nation currently faces a situation where a handful of partisan MAGA extremists possess disproportionate power. The House of Representatives, with a slim Republican majority, is at a crucial juncture, where merely five Republicans out of 222 have the capability to scuttle legislation and plunge the US economy into uncertainty through a government shutdown.

However, the dilemma extends beyond any five individuals. The entire Republican faction of 222 members appears to have pledged allegiance to a controversial and polarizing figure—twice impeached and quadruple indicted, who continues to command the MAGA movement. Whether this unwavering loyalty stems from genuine affinity, apprehension of repercussions from extremist followers, or a prioritization of individual political ambition over national interests, the unity observed within the Republican party is palpable.

The prevailing narrative showcases a party bound by allegiance, enabling a minority to wield substantial influence and shape Congressional dynamics. This scenario calls for a reassessment and reflection within the Republican party. It is an appeal for the emergence of rational voices and patriotic stances that can steer the party and, consequently, the nation, away from the brink of internal destruction.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, along with his Republican colleagues, is at the forefront of this transformative opportunity. The path to normalcy necessitates cooperation and dialogue across the aisle, embracing democratic principles and eschewing the dictates of extremism. Five individuals with extremist viewpoints have showcased their potential to bring governmental processes to a halt, underscoring the urgency of addressing this imbalance.

However, this situation also presents an opportunity and a glimmer of hope. It signifies that the emergence of just five rational, courageous Republicans can alter the course of the narrative. These individuals, by taking a stand against extremism and prioritizing the welfare of the nation, can send a powerful message that the United States will not succumb to the whims of extremists.

The path to normalcy is undoubtedly fraught with challenges, yet it is not unattainable. The first step entails recognizing the magnitude of the situation and acknowledging the detrimental impact of allowing a minority to dictate the nation’s trajectory. Rational Republicans must rise above the divisive rhetoric and engage in constructive dialogue with Democrats to address pressing issues and foster bipartisan solutions.

This plea for sanity and rationality extends beyond party lines. It is a call for unity and a collective effort to safeguard democratic values and institutions. The American people, irrespective of their political affiliations, have a stake in the preservation of a functioning government and the prevention of a descent into chaos. Public discourse should encourage and celebrate those who prioritize the greater good over partisan interests.

The power dynamics within the House of Representatives serve as a microcosm of the broader political landscape. The actions and decisions of a few can reverberate across the nation, shaping public opinion and influencing future generations. In this context, the emergence of rational voices within the Republican party is not just a necessity but a moral imperative.

The time for reflection and introspection is now. The Republican party, and indeed the nation, stand at a crossroads. The choices made today will determine the legacy of this generation of political leaders and shape the future of American democracy. The pursuit of normalcy and stability necessitates courage, conviction, and a commitment to democratic principles.

I’m not holding my breath. I’m not confident there are enough Republicans with the moral compass necessary to put the nation above their own aspirations. But, it would take remarkably few to change the course of history and restore democracy—the same number it takes to disrupt and destroy democracy from within. We just need 5 who are as committed to preserving democracy as the minority extremists are to destroying it.

September 21, 2023September 21, 2023

Choosing to Forget: A Crucial Error for Liberalism

MAGA cult extremists attempted a violent coup on January 6, 2021.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. This oft-repeated phrase is as powerful as it is succinct, encapsulating the cyclical nature of human error. But while many focus on the unintentional act of forgetting, there is an even more troubling trend: the willful choice to forget or ignore history, which only aids those who consciously opt to duplicate it.

It is more fitting, then, to say: “Those who CHOOSE to forget the past are condemned to suffer at the hands of those who CHOOSE to repeat it.”

Consider the contemporary political landscape. Liberals, with their idealistic and often forgiving nature, seek to move on swiftly, embracing peace, unity, and the prospect of a brighter future. They are eager to appease and return to the status quo, a tranquil rhythm where the challenges of the past are left behind. However, this mindset, while noble, is also their Achilles’ heel.

Contrarily, Conservatives appear to remember history more fervently. Events like the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 or the Veterans’ Riot in Paris in 1934 are not merely historical footnotes for them. These aren’t events to be glanced over in shame; they are milestones, each carrying a lesson, a tactic, and a strategy. Such events are studied, analyzed, and sometimes even idealized.

Today, with the significant shift of the Republican Party towards a white, Christian nationalist patriarchal stance, history appears to be echoing. Movements like the Tea Party and now the MAGA cult (led by the twice-impeached, four times indicted former president–a reality TV star who never had an approval rating above 50% and has never won a popular vote) draw parallels to previous incidents. The tactics, strategies, and even the rhetoric employed during these waves are eerily reminiscent of historical events. Moreover, these echoes from the past are often used to shield or even justify actions that challenge the Constitution or venture into illegal territory.

Meanwhile, Liberals operate under the presumption of normalcy. They approach the political arena as a battleground for ideas, hoping for reasonable dialogue and fruitful negotiation. But when faced with a faction that neither negotiates in good faith nor entertains compromise, the liberal strategy falters. It’s like expecting a civilized game of chess when the opponent is intent on torching the board. As Liberals extend an olive branch, some Conservatives are loading their weapons.

This isn’t a mere difference in political perspectives. It’s a deep-rooted ideological clash. While Liberals view Conservatives as political opponents, a growing faction within the Conservative realm perceives Liberals as enemies–nothing less than existential threats, undermining their vision of a white Christian patriarchy.

For Liberals, the solution isn’t to abandon their principles but to learn from history. The past is replete with examples of movements that embraced extremism, and understanding these movements can provide valuable insights into contemporary challenges. The MAGA movement and its allies within the Republican Party aren’t drawing from a forgotten history; they’re replicating a well-studied past.

The natural inclination to move forward is commendable, yet it is vital to remain grounded in the lessons history offers. Choosing to forget or ignore these lessons not only jeopardizes the present but could also reshape the future in ways we may come to regret.

The past, as they say, is prologue. It’s high time we started reading it.