Your post made me think of the Federalist Papers and the conception of "factions." They thought and hoped factions would develop based on various competing economic interests and that there would be enough of them so that none would be a majority. We have two political parties now that have historically had within them a few disparate factions.
I think the Founders would have appreciated greatly those you highlighted who went against party for the sake of country.
Yes, and Madison also warned against the negative effects of factions, not unlike Washington's concern about parties. But people will naturally congregate around shared beliefs, call those congregations what we will, and as EKB says below, we need more than one responsible and democratic party.
Saying "We can't stand Harris, but Trump is a threat to the republic," most people need more. I truly wish she would actually do some unscripted interviews and talk. Until she does that others will define her and her policies. Most people will look at their last grocery store and electric bill and decide how to vote. I don't think most people see Jan 6 as as much of a threat as it truly was.
The truth is for the republic, the democrats need to win the White House in a landslide, so there is no mistake and whiny baby can't complain. This may also be the only way to save the republican party from itself. We do need more than 1 functioning party in the country. There has to be the loyal opposition. While Harris may be preferable to Trump, not everything the democrats stand for is actually good for the country or the world (placating the Iranian mullahs for 1 thing). So someone has to have the ability to push back. Divided government is always what is best for the People.
She'll get to the news conference. She's had a lot to accomplish quickly, and just because the press and JD Vance have decided to focus on news conferences doesn't mean it's the actual priority. She's done an excellent job so far.
I agree with you about parties. I just strongly question a rigid attachment to preserving the GOP. Parties come and go. They should. There's been too arteriosclerotic idolatry of antiquated systems in this country (the electoral college as only one example). Stuart Stevens made a great case for the degradation of the GOP. Let actual conservatives start a new party. It will force a lot of healthy rethinking of principles and values. It would be a fresh start, a healthy breath of fresh. Let's not try to revive a dead body.
The thinking is that if whiny baby can lose significantly then whether it’s the GOP or a new incarnation it will be able to move on and regroup into something resembling a party that cares about democracy
I understand the thinking. I just think sometimes we need to stop repairing the old rattle of a car (the Cubans notwithstanding) and invest in a new one.
Aristotle's _Nichomachean Ethics_ stands on my bookshelf with words I read first in my teens as a standard to be fought for in my life's journey. What you do in this essay so strikingly is to lay out what we face every day and have had to face with more courage since the rise of Trump in our society. The world is watching. Thank you, Jay, for laying out the "golden mean" and reminding us all of what we should strive to seek and the courage of those who have stood up against all odds.
You know, Mary, we came to understand so much of importance so early in our human way, and that way since increasingly strikes me as a struggle not to forget, which we do, as we try to understand a little more. A theme I'm working toward in that interrupted memoir to which I'm about to return.
I haven’t finished your piece yet, but wanted to say I didn’t know about Stuart Stevens, and that book looks really interesting. I am always astonished by what it takes to support someone like Trump and yet how popular he has been.
I'm astonished, too, Dierdre, from the start. About Stevens, I chose to highlight just a few people who were outstanding in different ways. Though he's on TV a lot as a commentator, he couldn't be as influential as a congressperson. What strikes me about him is how complete his personal self-examination has been. He hasn't hedged by degrees his movement away from Trump and the GOP and toward voting for a Democrat. He decided, as I said, that Trump wasn't an accident that happened to the GOP but a product of it. I believe he's actually now a registered Democrat. How many people are capable of that kind of critical self-review?
I well remember reading Aristotle et al. in college. In using your own deep knowledge of classic philosophy, you underscore not only its importance in our contemporary daily life but also how it opens a window to understanding others and ourselves, especially in considering morality and ethics, in hope of finding common ground.
It pleases me that you used the word "courage" in your essay, whose derivation lies in the Latin word for "heart", which can serve as a metaphor for accessing one's inner strength to do what's right despite any real or perceived danger to oneself. That appalling letter to Adam Kinzinger, clothed as it in the garments of the "devil" and "God" (read, Christianity), takes no courage to write; it simply stakes a position and stays there and, worse, does so in a perversion of what religion and a sound education teach us. It also goes against any notion of loyalty to country, family, and self.
Yes, in some very fundamental way, courage is a matter of heart, something Kinzinger clearly shows, including in the aplomb with which he received the family criticism. He provides a good example of some heart I take (to choose a word) from someone like him. On the one hand, those family members, as you observe, demonstrate how religious conviction can be perverted. No wonder people came to believe in something called a devil. On the other, despite all the ways Kinzinger and I would disagree, our essential commonality in what matters most offers to me evidence of how people can fundamentally bond past their differences.
So what do you do when you seriously believe that the election of Harris and any kind of Democratic majority poses a long-term disaster on foreign policy and serious, possibly permanent, damage to individual freedom, both political and economic, on the domestic side - when your only alternative is Trump and the Republicans? If my vote had any possibility of being meaningful - but I live in Illinois - I’d hold my nose and vote for the odious man, for reasons explained on the domestic side in Richard Hanania’s Substack post of August 19.
What you do, since you asked, is go back to square one and rethink your orientation to reality. The current Democratic candidates are in the mainstream of Democratic politics for decades, and neither they nor mainstream Republicans before Trump governed as the disaster for foreign policy or threat to liberty you invoke. Trump is, demonstrably and avowedly. You appear to read, even pay to read, many sensible writers, so your choice to be guided by Hanania is peculiarly misguided. Even if you don't like liberalism, as many of those I praise don't, recognize as they do Democrats' allegiance to democracy in contrast to the "odious" Trump’s cruel, corrupt, pronounced commitment to tyranny and vote this one time for democracy and decency. That's my answer to you.
Your post made me think of the Federalist Papers and the conception of "factions." They thought and hoped factions would develop based on various competing economic interests and that there would be enough of them so that none would be a majority. We have two political parties now that have historically had within them a few disparate factions.
I think the Founders would have appreciated greatly those you highlighted who went against party for the sake of country.
Yes, and Madison also warned against the negative effects of factions, not unlike Washington's concern about parties. But people will naturally congregate around shared beliefs, call those congregations what we will, and as EKB says below, we need more than one responsible and democratic party.
Saying "We can't stand Harris, but Trump is a threat to the republic," most people need more. I truly wish she would actually do some unscripted interviews and talk. Until she does that others will define her and her policies. Most people will look at their last grocery store and electric bill and decide how to vote. I don't think most people see Jan 6 as as much of a threat as it truly was.
The truth is for the republic, the democrats need to win the White House in a landslide, so there is no mistake and whiny baby can't complain. This may also be the only way to save the republican party from itself. We do need more than 1 functioning party in the country. There has to be the loyal opposition. While Harris may be preferable to Trump, not everything the democrats stand for is actually good for the country or the world (placating the Iranian mullahs for 1 thing). So someone has to have the ability to push back. Divided government is always what is best for the People.
She'll get to the news conference. She's had a lot to accomplish quickly, and just because the press and JD Vance have decided to focus on news conferences doesn't mean it's the actual priority. She's done an excellent job so far.
I agree with you about parties. I just strongly question a rigid attachment to preserving the GOP. Parties come and go. They should. There's been too arteriosclerotic idolatry of antiquated systems in this country (the electoral college as only one example). Stuart Stevens made a great case for the degradation of the GOP. Let actual conservatives start a new party. It will force a lot of healthy rethinking of principles and values. It would be a fresh start, a healthy breath of fresh. Let's not try to revive a dead body.
The thinking is that if whiny baby can lose significantly then whether it’s the GOP or a new incarnation it will be able to move on and regroup into something resembling a party that cares about democracy
I understand the thinking. I just think sometimes we need to stop repairing the old rattle of a car (the Cubans notwithstanding) and invest in a new one.
Aristotle's _Nichomachean Ethics_ stands on my bookshelf with words I read first in my teens as a standard to be fought for in my life's journey. What you do in this essay so strikingly is to lay out what we face every day and have had to face with more courage since the rise of Trump in our society. The world is watching. Thank you, Jay, for laying out the "golden mean" and reminding us all of what we should strive to seek and the courage of those who have stood up against all odds.
You know, Mary, we came to understand so much of importance so early in our human way, and that way since increasingly strikes me as a struggle not to forget, which we do, as we try to understand a little more. A theme I'm working toward in that interrupted memoir to which I'm about to return.
I so get this process--in the novel I am trying to finish. xx PS: check your phone texts! Yes, it's me from that 202 exchange.
We're looking through the same lens. Oh, I know who 202 is!
Thanks for shining a light on the brave. They deserve more widespread celebration for the reasons you lay out here.
Yes, they do. Thank you, David.
I haven’t finished your piece yet, but wanted to say I didn’t know about Stuart Stevens, and that book looks really interesting. I am always astonished by what it takes to support someone like Trump and yet how popular he has been.
I'm astonished, too, Dierdre, from the start. About Stevens, I chose to highlight just a few people who were outstanding in different ways. Though he's on TV a lot as a commentator, he couldn't be as influential as a congressperson. What strikes me about him is how complete his personal self-examination has been. He hasn't hedged by degrees his movement away from Trump and the GOP and toward voting for a Democrat. He decided, as I said, that Trump wasn't an accident that happened to the GOP but a product of it. I believe he's actually now a registered Democrat. How many people are capable of that kind of critical self-review?
Yes that’s astonishing too, to see someone thoroughly examine their choices and make changes. It shouldn’t be as rare as it is.
Late to reading your essay, Jay.
I well remember reading Aristotle et al. in college. In using your own deep knowledge of classic philosophy, you underscore not only its importance in our contemporary daily life but also how it opens a window to understanding others and ourselves, especially in considering morality and ethics, in hope of finding common ground.
It pleases me that you used the word "courage" in your essay, whose derivation lies in the Latin word for "heart", which can serve as a metaphor for accessing one's inner strength to do what's right despite any real or perceived danger to oneself. That appalling letter to Adam Kinzinger, clothed as it in the garments of the "devil" and "God" (read, Christianity), takes no courage to write; it simply stakes a position and stays there and, worse, does so in a perversion of what religion and a sound education teach us. It also goes against any notion of loyalty to country, family, and self.
Yes, in some very fundamental way, courage is a matter of heart, something Kinzinger clearly shows, including in the aplomb with which he received the family criticism. He provides a good example of some heart I take (to choose a word) from someone like him. On the one hand, those family members, as you observe, demonstrate how religious conviction can be perverted. No wonder people came to believe in something called a devil. On the other, despite all the ways Kinzinger and I would disagree, our essential commonality in what matters most offers to me evidence of how people can fundamentally bond past their differences.
So what do you do when you seriously believe that the election of Harris and any kind of Democratic majority poses a long-term disaster on foreign policy and serious, possibly permanent, damage to individual freedom, both political and economic, on the domestic side - when your only alternative is Trump and the Republicans? If my vote had any possibility of being meaningful - but I live in Illinois - I’d hold my nose and vote for the odious man, for reasons explained on the domestic side in Richard Hanania’s Substack post of August 19.
What you do, since you asked, is go back to square one and rethink your orientation to reality. The current Democratic candidates are in the mainstream of Democratic politics for decades, and neither they nor mainstream Republicans before Trump governed as the disaster for foreign policy or threat to liberty you invoke. Trump is, demonstrably and avowedly. You appear to read, even pay to read, many sensible writers, so your choice to be guided by Hanania is peculiarly misguided. Even if you don't like liberalism, as many of those I praise don't, recognize as they do Democrats' allegiance to democracy in contrast to the "odious" Trump’s cruel, corrupt, pronounced commitment to tyranny and vote this one time for democracy and decency. That's my answer to you.