I let Dave Brooks' piece stand unpolluted by my thoughts. Here is my pollution.
It's a bit squishy, no? What would Dave do? Is that even clear?
-"mobilizing for an accurate election outcome, before it is too late": What does that mean? That is now, not after the Nov. 3 "nightmare scenario." What are we, maybe not him, but we, to do in this mobilization? Squishy.
After Nov. 3 Dave wants non-violence. I'm for that. Who amongst us isn't for non-violence? Like in America during the Civil Rights marches of Dr. King, et al. I'm for that. The good guys, the good, non-violent guys won that one. Yes, like the Civil Rights marchers, that is who Dave means: "The realist militants who walk in King’s shadow..." Like in Hong Kong and Belarus. How'd that turn out in Hong Kong, though? I don't know anything about Belarus. How'd it turn out in Hong Kong? Did the good, non-violent protesters win? Not that I know of! PRC is still in charge, no? If I am right that the PRC still rules Hong Kong, maybe the difference between Hong Kong and 1960's America is that the good, non-violent guys were demonstrating against the states' violent suppression, not the president's? Dr. King had President Kennedy on his side in the beginning; he had the support of President Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Both JFK and LBJ enforced federal law against the states, against state governors like Ross Barnett and George Wallace. Might and right were merged. That is different from now. Under Trump, federal might has already been mobilized in the states against right. Has been mobilized with the modern-day Ku Klux Klan civilian forces, QAnon, neo-Nazis, "citizen's militias"--50% of Republicans and simpatico Indies who favor violence!--"people who will do anything to stop" a racially inclusive democracy. Now, the president has federal might, state might and armed civilian mobs arrayed against David Brooks' non-violent "realist militants." How is that going to turn out? Be real: non-violence cannot win against all state power plus 60,000,000 white nationalists in brownshirt.
"Realist militants": Militant: "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods" (Merriam-Webster). Brooks wants atypical militants. Do they exist in reality or is that an oxymoron? Are "realist militants" different from Dr. King and the Civil Rights marchers? Squishy.
Who are these realist militants and what are they, us, to do? Not "the left." They are "in the streets, too." "On the fringe" of the left are the violent. "Violent leftist militants" as opposed to "realist militants" we may say, I guess.
A new force looms...a certain sort of conservative has been cowering from the Trump onslaught. Certain sorts of moderates and liberals have also been keeping their heads down...But now the very existence of the Republic is at stake.
"The realist militants who walk in King’s shadow...know that it is the U.S. Constitution that keeps us from slipping into chaos...They know, too, that this crisis is not just about race, but also the greatness of American institutions."
It's a bit squishy, no? What would Dave do? Is that even clear?
-"mobilizing for an accurate election outcome, before it is too late": What does that mean? That is now, not after the Nov. 3 "nightmare scenario." What are we, maybe not him, but we, to do in this mobilization? Squishy.
After Nov. 3 Dave wants non-violence. I'm for that. Who amongst us isn't for non-violence? Like in America during the Civil Rights marches of Dr. King, et al. I'm for that. The good guys, the good, non-violent guys won that one. Yes, like the Civil Rights marchers, that is who Dave means: "The realist militants who walk in King’s shadow..." Like in Hong Kong and Belarus. How'd that turn out in Hong Kong, though? I don't know anything about Belarus. How'd it turn out in Hong Kong? Did the good, non-violent protesters win? Not that I know of! PRC is still in charge, no? If I am right that the PRC still rules Hong Kong, maybe the difference between Hong Kong and 1960's America is that the good, non-violent guys were demonstrating against the states' violent suppression, not the president's? Dr. King had President Kennedy on his side in the beginning; he had the support of President Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Both JFK and LBJ enforced federal law against the states, against state governors like Ross Barnett and George Wallace. Might and right were merged. That is different from now. Under Trump, federal might has already been mobilized in the states against right. Has been mobilized with the modern-day Ku Klux Klan civilian forces, QAnon, neo-Nazis, "citizen's militias"--50% of Republicans and simpatico Indies who favor violence!--"people who will do anything to stop" a racially inclusive democracy. Now, the president has federal might, state might and armed civilian mobs arrayed against David Brooks' non-violent "realist militants." How is that going to turn out? Be real: non-violence cannot win against all state power plus 60,000,000 white nationalists in brownshirt.
"Realist militants": Militant: "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods" (Merriam-Webster). Brooks wants atypical militants. Do they exist in reality or is that an oxymoron? Are "realist militants" different from Dr. King and the Civil Rights marchers? Squishy.
Who are these realist militants and what are they, us, to do? Not "the left." They are "in the streets, too." "On the fringe" of the left are the violent. "Violent leftist militants" as opposed to "realist militants" we may say, I guess.
A new force looms...a certain sort of conservative has been cowering from the Trump onslaught. Certain sorts of moderates and liberals have also been keeping their heads down...But now the very existence of the Republic is at stake.
The cowards? Can cowards, those heretofore "cowering," "loom"? The Looming Cowards, that's a "force"? Well, yes, now that the existence of the Republic is at stake.
Who comprise this Looming Cowards Force? "Certain sorts of conservatives," LIKE WHO, DAVE? Mitt Romney?
"Certain sorts liberals" like who, Barack Obama? President Obama told North Carolina on November 2, 2016 that the "fate of the Republic" was at stake six days later. "The fate of the Republic rests on your shoulders," President Obama said that day, not on his shoulders, on yours, like Dave's "what are you going to do about it?", not Dave, not we, you, yours, us, voters.
So, the Looming Cowards Force, who were cowering the first time and lost the Republic, are now going to rise up and take it back, unarmed, peaceably, against all the state's might and the 60,000,000?
"The realist militants who walk in King’s shadow...know that it is the U.S. Constitution that keeps us from slipping into chaos...They know, too, that this crisis is not just about race, but also the greatness of American institutions."
Okay, I'll walk for the Constitution. Tres civilized, no?
a few marches in the streets will not be an adequate response. [How about marching with AK-47's? Sorry.] There may have to be a sustained campaign of civic action...to rally the majority that wants to preserve democracy, that isolates those who would undo it.
"May have"? Not sure? "Sustained civic action"? Dave, I don't know what that means, Jesus Christ.
Two themes would have to feature in such civic action. The first is ardent patriotism. The country survives such a crisis only if most people’s love of nation overwhelms...partisan fury...
"Ardent patriotism:" Edging close to extreme, there, Dave; don't want anybody to be orgasming!
The second is the preservation of constitutional order...if there were to be any violence and anarchy, it would come from the foes...
Damn straight it would come from the foes! They've got all the big boy toys! We've got "love," what, fucking flower power, We Are The World, against "fury"?
Realist Atypical Non-Violent Power Walking Lovers of the Constitution Against Stormtroopers, it’s time to start thinking about what you would do. I'll be in Bimini.
a few marches in the streets will not be an adequate response. [How about marching with AK-47's? Sorry.] There may have to be a sustained campaign of civic action...to rally the majority that wants to preserve democracy, that isolates those who would undo it.
"May have"? Not sure? "Sustained civic action"? Dave, I don't know what that means, Jesus Christ.
Two themes would have to feature in such civic action. The first is ardent patriotism. The country survives such a crisis only if most people’s love of nation overwhelms...partisan fury...
"Ardent patriotism:" Edging close to extreme, there, Dave; don't want anybody to be orgasming!
The second is the preservation of constitutional order...if there were to be any violence and anarchy, it would come from the foes...
Damn straight it would come from the foes! They've got all the big boy toys! We've got "love," what, fucking flower power, We Are The World, against "fury"?
Realist Atypical Non-Violent Power Walking Lovers of the Constitution Against Stormtroopers, it’s time to start thinking about what you would do. I'll be in Bimini.
