So we have stand tough against what Trump is doing without letting it harden us toward the people we disagree with, while treating those opponents decently without letting it weaken us. This is going to take one hell of a balancing act.
The sort of dictatorships where all you have to do is shut up and obey may be soul-sapping, but at least it's easier.
So sad. We have a president who fails to see the opportunity to bring some faith in our government to the fore by expressing sympathy and a need to come together as one people to oppose violence. Donald Trump's math is limited. He knows only division and subtraction. Sad.
As a history nerd it actually calls to mind Woodrow Wilson of all people. That man couldn’t accept an ounce of criticism.
I genuinely think one of the really destructive parts of Trump is not having a kind of head of state mode where he can be the national father figure the president usually has. He would have had a Covid bump and would have been much more popular if he could ever turn off this dangerous asshole Schtick.
I'm puzzled by this response — and in turn, by what you all stand for at The Argument. Defenders of political liberalism should applaud any effort to loosen the grip that illiberalism has on both political parties in the United States. Are you all defenders of political liberalism — the philosophical commitments to universalism, equality under the law, liberty, etc.? Or are you defenders of what gets called "liberalism" in the United States — aka, anything left of center on the political spectrum? After subscribing for a few weeks, I truly don't know. I hope to God it's the former.
Perhaps it's hard for you all to mark the distinction cleanly because you conflate a crackdown on the illiberal left — which has a genuine history of domestic terrorism, just as the illiberal right does — with a crackdown on Trump's opposition party. Yes, many illiberal leftists vote for Democrats — but including them in the party, and bestowing the honorific "liberal" upon them has clearly been the biggest brand mistake Democrats have made in the last 15 years. Every liberal democrat in the US needs to work to root out the left-illiberalism that has dominated the party's moral energies since the critical theoretic turn in the 1970's.
I agree we should wait for more information about motives. But when you say "if it turns out this killer was funded, trained, or indoctrinated by a specific group, the law should deal with them" I'm left wondering — "ok, then, is your disagreement with Rufo?" I'm guessing it would come down to two things: scale, and tactics. Scale should be targeted, and tactics shouldn't cross over into extra-legal grey areas. And of course, that all seems right. But then lead with that! Make that the story, and stop conflating issues that muddy the water and make it harder for normies to accept the Democratic party brand.
When you turn this into an oppositional thing, you make it harder to influence the consensus view in Washington — in turn making it harder to influence the folks who will influence the executive branch. Make no mistake, the radicals on both sides want division and escalation, and this piece falls into that trap. We have to be crystal clear here, and this piece is not that.
Thanks for writing out a lengthy reply. I think of our publication as defending small-l liberalism. Speaking only for myself — and some of my colleagues truly might not agree — I think the primary advocates for that in the 20th and 21st century have been left of center, though there have been and continue to be very important liberal strains on the parts of the right, especially when it came to articulating the value of free markets or (at least through the GWB administration) immigration.
With that out of the way: I think you are reading Trump — and the right-wing influencers I mentioned — more generously than they deserve. First, when the president talks about the "radical left," or when Rufo and Cernovich talk about NGO networks, they're not really talking about fringe actors. They're talking about the left and center-left writ large, including many fully mainstream Democrats. To the extent it even matters, they're not really making the "clean distinction" you imagine.
Second, I don't think it's the job of the government to root out nonviolent ideologies. It's one thing to make an argument, or prosecute a group that is actually breaking the law. (Likewise, I think it's fine to regulate conduct like racial discrimination in public and business contexts, because otherwise there's no such thing as equality of opportunity). But trying to clamp down on one part of civil society is another.
To put it another way: I thought it was fine for Biden to argue that MAGA Republicanism was a threat in a speech or prosecute the Jan. 6 perpetrators. If he had attempted to intimidate Republican funders through legal action and obliterate the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, or America First Policy Institute, I would have objected. And I think anyone who shares small l-liberal values would feel the same. So no, I'm not excited about a government crusade against what it perceives as the "illiberal" left.
I would add that Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. Look at how he has gone after universities, law firms, and private businesses that he perceives as being too liberal.
Plus, the shooter is most likely a lone wolf, if past is prologue. For Trump to immediately start blaming a vague cabal of left groups before we have any evidence this wasn’t a lone wolf attack shows he’s itching to use this to crack down on his opponents.
People familiar with such crimes, whom I’ve seen interviewed, indicate that the assassin was a trained rifleman. His weapon was probably a hunting rifle. He was trained, probably informally. Perhaps he took courses at a local shooting range or some group that trains deer hunters, etc.
At first I had feared he was a military assassin, a sniper trained by the military. However, such a sniper would have used a different rifle, and probably at a longer range. Military grade assassinations can be carried out at 500 or 1,000 yards. This assassin was less than 200 yards away, which increased the chances of his being caught.
Still, two football fields says the assassin was well practiced in shooting/hunting.
As someone on Eric Zorn’s Substack noted, “Now they have their Horst Wessel.” I’m waiting for some Nazisinger to come out with The Anthem of Charlie Kirk, and to hear the NRA chorus singing it.
However, the shooter’s leavings do indicate that one can’t rule out the right wing provocateur theory. His talents smell like the NRA.
I’m glad to hear the Utah governor seems to be acting responsibly!
Excellent discussion of historical and present situations.
So we have stand tough against what Trump is doing without letting it harden us toward the people we disagree with, while treating those opponents decently without letting it weaken us. This is going to take one hell of a balancing act.
The sort of dictatorships where all you have to do is shut up and obey may be soul-sapping, but at least it's easier.
So sad. We have a president who fails to see the opportunity to bring some faith in our government to the fore by expressing sympathy and a need to come together as one people to oppose violence. Donald Trump's math is limited. He knows only division and subtraction. Sad.
As a history nerd it actually calls to mind Woodrow Wilson of all people. That man couldn’t accept an ounce of criticism.
I genuinely think one of the really destructive parts of Trump is not having a kind of head of state mode where he can be the national father figure the president usually has. He would have had a Covid bump and would have been much more popular if he could ever turn off this dangerous asshole Schtick.
I'm puzzled by this response — and in turn, by what you all stand for at The Argument. Defenders of political liberalism should applaud any effort to loosen the grip that illiberalism has on both political parties in the United States. Are you all defenders of political liberalism — the philosophical commitments to universalism, equality under the law, liberty, etc.? Or are you defenders of what gets called "liberalism" in the United States — aka, anything left of center on the political spectrum? After subscribing for a few weeks, I truly don't know. I hope to God it's the former.
Perhaps it's hard for you all to mark the distinction cleanly because you conflate a crackdown on the illiberal left — which has a genuine history of domestic terrorism, just as the illiberal right does — with a crackdown on Trump's opposition party. Yes, many illiberal leftists vote for Democrats — but including them in the party, and bestowing the honorific "liberal" upon them has clearly been the biggest brand mistake Democrats have made in the last 15 years. Every liberal democrat in the US needs to work to root out the left-illiberalism that has dominated the party's moral energies since the critical theoretic turn in the 1970's.
I agree we should wait for more information about motives. But when you say "if it turns out this killer was funded, trained, or indoctrinated by a specific group, the law should deal with them" I'm left wondering — "ok, then, is your disagreement with Rufo?" I'm guessing it would come down to two things: scale, and tactics. Scale should be targeted, and tactics shouldn't cross over into extra-legal grey areas. And of course, that all seems right. But then lead with that! Make that the story, and stop conflating issues that muddy the water and make it harder for normies to accept the Democratic party brand.
When you turn this into an oppositional thing, you make it harder to influence the consensus view in Washington — in turn making it harder to influence the folks who will influence the executive branch. Make no mistake, the radicals on both sides want division and escalation, and this piece falls into that trap. We have to be crystal clear here, and this piece is not that.
Hi Blake —
Thanks for writing out a lengthy reply. I think of our publication as defending small-l liberalism. Speaking only for myself — and some of my colleagues truly might not agree — I think the primary advocates for that in the 20th and 21st century have been left of center, though there have been and continue to be very important liberal strains on the parts of the right, especially when it came to articulating the value of free markets or (at least through the GWB administration) immigration.
With that out of the way: I think you are reading Trump — and the right-wing influencers I mentioned — more generously than they deserve. First, when the president talks about the "radical left," or when Rufo and Cernovich talk about NGO networks, they're not really talking about fringe actors. They're talking about the left and center-left writ large, including many fully mainstream Democrats. To the extent it even matters, they're not really making the "clean distinction" you imagine.
Second, I don't think it's the job of the government to root out nonviolent ideologies. It's one thing to make an argument, or prosecute a group that is actually breaking the law. (Likewise, I think it's fine to regulate conduct like racial discrimination in public and business contexts, because otherwise there's no such thing as equality of opportunity). But trying to clamp down on one part of civil society is another.
To put it another way: I thought it was fine for Biden to argue that MAGA Republicanism was a threat in a speech or prosecute the Jan. 6 perpetrators. If he had attempted to intimidate Republican funders through legal action and obliterate the Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute, or America First Policy Institute, I would have objected. And I think anyone who shares small l-liberal values would feel the same. So no, I'm not excited about a government crusade against what it perceives as the "illiberal" left.
I would add that Trump has not earned the benefit of the doubt here. Look at how he has gone after universities, law firms, and private businesses that he perceives as being too liberal.
Plus, the shooter is most likely a lone wolf, if past is prologue. For Trump to immediately start blaming a vague cabal of left groups before we have any evidence this wasn’t a lone wolf attack shows he’s itching to use this to crack down on his opponents.
People familiar with such crimes, whom I’ve seen interviewed, indicate that the assassin was a trained rifleman. His weapon was probably a hunting rifle. He was trained, probably informally. Perhaps he took courses at a local shooting range or some group that trains deer hunters, etc.
At first I had feared he was a military assassin, a sniper trained by the military. However, such a sniper would have used a different rifle, and probably at a longer range. Military grade assassinations can be carried out at 500 or 1,000 yards. This assassin was less than 200 yards away, which increased the chances of his being caught.
Still, two football fields says the assassin was well practiced in shooting/hunting.
As someone on Eric Zorn’s Substack noted, “Now they have their Horst Wessel.” I’m waiting for some Nazisinger to come out with The Anthem of Charlie Kirk, and to hear the NRA chorus singing it.
However, the shooter’s leavings do indicate that one can’t rule out the right wing provocateur theory. His talents smell like the NRA.