I agree with you on the need for those first two layers. But... (I always seem to have a 'but') let me pose some questions. I'm a Red with way more Blue friends than Red friends.
Recently, a very good trans friend expressed her serious fear that if Trump were elected, she'd have to flee the country to avoid being killed or put in a concentration camp. If her fear is valid, (I think her fear is baseless, but that's not the point.) how should she view Trump supporters? Willfully ignorant at best, accomplices in her murder at worst? There's an old joke: democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner. Is my friend wrong to mistrust democracy?
I've also personally heard several Blue friends state that they wish the assassination attempt were successful. (I wonder how many silently feel that way.) To me, that seems a direct attack on the "machinery" -- assassination as a political tool. As a Red, how should I respond? As voters, have they tipped their hand -- they aren't that interested in democracy? Should I trust them with power?
You're absolutely right, we need to not "destroy democracy to save it". And (at least for my trans friend), I suspect she's deep in the certainty trap (of course, it could be me....).
Also, I don't think the danger to the "machinery" comes strictly from Trump / the right, I think the left poses a threat as well. But defending that statement is a whole essay in itself.
Good breakdown Ilana. It is however theoretical and its application to the Trump cult is naive at best. He is simply using his candidacy to stay out of jail like he has used literally 1000’s before. When you add the autocratic playbook 2025,one magnifies the danger of our democracy reaching our 250th anniversary.
The model doesn't only stand when things are easy or abstract. On the contrary, it may matter most when things are difficult.
In part, any given response depends on whether the model I described is seen as a description of what *is* or of what *ought to be.* I see it as the former.
We've managed our way through many horribly divisive issues over the last 250 years (with one that got out of control).
We relied on only the first two blocks - machinery and pluralism. Is the third neutrality block necessary for a functional society or just desirable? The current "useful idiot"/"Nazi" discourse is unpleasant, but maybe we're breaking down because the first two blocks are eroded?
I don't see how, in the long term, the bottom block can be anything other than necessary. Maybe unless we have a model of success in which it somehow doesn't matter if people want to destroy one another. I just don't see how that's sustainable.
This is the very piece I needed to share with a particular group today. Thanks for writing it!
I agree with you on the need for those first two layers. But... (I always seem to have a 'but') let me pose some questions. I'm a Red with way more Blue friends than Red friends.
Recently, a very good trans friend expressed her serious fear that if Trump were elected, she'd have to flee the country to avoid being killed or put in a concentration camp. If her fear is valid, (I think her fear is baseless, but that's not the point.) how should she view Trump supporters? Willfully ignorant at best, accomplices in her murder at worst? There's an old joke: democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner. Is my friend wrong to mistrust democracy?
I've also personally heard several Blue friends state that they wish the assassination attempt were successful. (I wonder how many silently feel that way.) To me, that seems a direct attack on the "machinery" -- assassination as a political tool. As a Red, how should I respond? As voters, have they tipped their hand -- they aren't that interested in democracy? Should I trust them with power?
You're absolutely right, we need to not "destroy democracy to save it". And (at least for my trans friend), I suspect she's deep in the certainty trap (of course, it could be me....).
Also, I don't think the danger to the "machinery" comes strictly from Trump / the right, I think the left poses a threat as well. But defending that statement is a whole essay in itself.
Thanks for more food for thought!
Good breakdown Ilana. It is however theoretical and its application to the Trump cult is naive at best. He is simply using his candidacy to stay out of jail like he has used literally 1000’s before. When you add the autocratic playbook 2025,one magnifies the danger of our democracy reaching our 250th anniversary.
Stan Green
The model doesn't only stand when things are easy or abstract. On the contrary, it may matter most when things are difficult.
In part, any given response depends on whether the model I described is seen as a description of what *is* or of what *ought to be.* I see it as the former.
We've managed our way through many horribly divisive issues over the last 250 years (with one that got out of control).
We relied on only the first two blocks - machinery and pluralism. Is the third neutrality block necessary for a functional society or just desirable? The current "useful idiot"/"Nazi" discourse is unpleasant, but maybe we're breaking down because the first two blocks are eroded?
I don't see how, in the long term, the bottom block can be anything other than necessary. Maybe unless we have a model of success in which it somehow doesn't matter if people want to destroy one another. I just don't see how that's sustainable.
Thanks Ilana. It's all true but still he's a real asshole. Democracy is a hard approach you got to fight for it so it won't get torched.