fight fight

A day away from the moment I was setting up my profile on X, I saw the trending phrase 'HOW COULD YOU MISS'.

I've been away from social media for a few years now. In that time, I've lowered my expectations to roughly one goal. I would like to minimize political violence, as much as possible. 

Most Americans share this goal, if you ask them on a day they forget to check social media.

*****

Quick tour to explain why this seems out of reach.

The United States federal government is a revolutionary government. The country endured a bloody civil war, with what most would agree is the positive result of ending slavery. Violence is always on the table. 

The country has a comparatively unregulated stance on gun proliferation, and a matching cultural affinity. In my opinion, the strongest argument for widespread gun ownership is the threat of tyranny. The US has the most powerful military on the planet. If things go bad here, they go bad everywhere. 

We all want less political violence. But we can imagine circumstances where we would tolerate a little to avoid a lot. This is the terrible logic of assassination. We only need to remember Bin Laden as an example of cultural acceptance of the practice.

Without delving too deep into the trolley problem, most of us can talk ourselves into a circumstance where it becomes thinkable to take the shot. Or to condone or allow someone else to commit the act.

Many of us are already there.

What we think of as the political left and right are divided by a variety of issues, but I can zero in on two that enable justifications for violence. On the left, a unifying belief is that we are in a climate crisis that will kill a large number of people. On the right, a unifying belief is that we are allowing the murder of a large number of unborn babies.

(In this essay, 'large number' means a sum that is large enough not to be easily counted or understood, but which compels government action, at least.)

There are some commonalities between these belief systems. The fate of these unseen victims is worth more moral consideration than Americans of differing political beliefs. There is certainty about the science. Certainty of the objective. A lack of faith in achieving similar ends through speech and persuasion (despite overall public sentiment).

There are also key differences. Many on the left believe it is too late, and that the extinction of all life on earth is imminent. This faction is still capable of violence, however. They see themselves as similar to the Bruce Willis character in 12 Monkeys, having a moral pass for any violent action because the future is set in stone. And obviously, the right has a more overt religious bent, despite the lack of scripture backing their views. For them, the imminent end is a judgment day, where heroic acts are sure to win the favor of the Lord.

*****

There is another faction though, that isn't clearly tied to the left or the right. This group is very concerned about the future of liberal democracy, and believe that we are close to a point where it could be lost. However, the wedge in this group is over whether democracy can be saved by the presence or absence of one prominent demagogue.

This demagogue is closely associated with some policies, but the policies don't really matter. The platform of the last Republican convention was blank, because they had such trouble keeping track of their candidate's views. (At the time of writing, the next Republican convention is about to start.)

The only common thread I can spot in his policies is that all of them are meant to polarize.

The media coverage of his candidacies were overwhelmingly negative, in large part, because his tone and personality encourages people to be their worst selves. On a mammalian, instinctive level, the thought of 'ally' or 'enemy' overwhelms whatever neutral opinion one might have of his policies. If you decided to vote for him after seeing bloody images, you didn't reason yourself into the decision.

*****

I'm not particularly interested in describing the demagogue or his actions. He casts such a large shadow, that it is difficult to imagine what his supporters will be doing in five years.

However, I do want to describe TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, No. 23–939.

I would like to encourage every American to read all 119 pages, or at least ask the AI assistant to summarize.

Since that won't happen everywhere, here's my review. The 6-3 majority opinion (which includes 3 Trump appointees) outlines that the president should have presumptive immunity for all official acts. Several pages are devoted to the differences between official and unofficial acts, and another section breaks down each of Trump's actions in the 2020 aftermath, and whether the court has standing to rule on each of them.

In the aftermath of Trump's 2020 loss, he tried to steal the election through using false electors. The January 6th riot was intended to intimidate Mike Pence and other Republicans into participating in the scheme.

Justice Sotomayor, in the dissenting opinion, easily dismantles the majority opinion.

Relying on a textualist interpretation, it is lain out how the Framers could have created limited or unlimited immunity for those in the presidential role. Having just overthrown a king, they had no desire to create a new one.

The three arguments which created immunity are not based on existing law. They aren't based on anything but the desire for a new king.

Last, Justice Jackson tries to grapple with what the ruling could mean for the future of the US. As I read this section, I realized something terrible.

Once the government created a class that is no longer accountable to laws, political violence became the only method left to hold them accountable.

The decision was published July 1, 2024. The shooting was July 13th.


*****

At this point, I personally don't plan to support either of the major candidates. I disagree with them on too many policies, think they are both too old to do the job effectively, and though I was once a delegate for Bernie Sanders, I no longer identify with either party. I'm even distancing myself from using the terms 'left' and 'right' as coherent descriptors.

There is no one on earth that I think should be immune from criminal prosecution.

You likely hold a different set of values, which is fine. But if you are trying to elect someone that is unaccountable to the law, you are encouraging a violent reaction. If you are trying to incite violent revolt, you are encouraging an authoritarian response. I don't support either of your goals.

*****

It seems like we're entering another season of political violence, similar to 1968. I'll refrain from speculating further, so it isn't wishcasted into existence. But I have some straightforward advice.

Political events such as protests or rallies are dangerous. If you value your life, avoid them. If you value your individual perspective, avoid them. If you feel that your participation is an important exercise of the first amendment, attend them.

Have friends that disagree with your political views. Be honest with them. Have a clear idea of the point where you would have to break ties.

If you want to convince people, learn sales and persuasion.

If someone seems trapped in an ideology with a negative outcome, practice pattern interrupts. Defy their expectations. Resist categorization and the political binary.

In many respects, this is still a good country, where a good life can be lived. Consider stepping away from politics, and focusing on problems with clearer solutions.