Saturday, November 16, 2024

ANS -- The Case for Collapse

This one is kind of odd, and intriguing.  
find it here: The Case for Collapse

 

--Kim


POLITICS | 2024 ELECTION

The Case for Collapse

There's an odd reason for hope in the idea of Trump's return to power

Ben Ulansey
Thought Thinkers
·

·

Sunset in Washington D.C. / Photo by Jim Weatherford on Unsplash
Photo by Jim Weatherford on Unsplash

One of the most petrifying truths for many about Trump's impending second term is that it could very well represent the end of our democracy — of our entire system of government. But it's rare when addressing those existential risks for us to stop and ask the question, "Are our institutions still worth fighting for?"

If our worst fears come to fruition and the America as we know it devolves into authoritarianism, there may no longer be sense in trying to regain what was.

In recent years, the possibility has grown harder to ignore that the pains of holding on to our unstable government could be more damaging to the future of the nation than ripping off the band-aid completely. One issue on which both sides of the aisle can agree is that our system is by and large broken.

According to the Pew Research Center, just over 20% of Americans in 2024 trust the federal government to do what is right in any given scenario. A 2022 Gallup poll found that the public confidence in the three branches of government is at an all-time low, with the Supreme Court at 25%, the presidency at 23%, and Congress at just 7%.

Well before Trump entered our politics, people were cynical of what our democracy had become. From gerrymandering and all of the erratic uncertainty of the Electoral College to the unlimited sums of cash that we allowed to enter into our political process, it's been clear for well over a decade that our democracy is in dire straits.

So many of us live a strange dichotomy, one in which we're happy to express our fundamental discontent with the system, but will still fight tooth and nail to preserve our conflicting versions of it each time these weighty election years round the bend. Today, these disparate visions of ours have left this country on the brink of civil war. And so much of America hates living in this constant state of tension. Yet we'll toil and argue until the end of time within our two-party system about issues on which we're as likely to compromise as Israelis and Palestinians.

Despite this bipartisan disapproval of the system we have, and our fundamental disagreements about how it should operate, we continue to safeguard these age-old structures and interpret remnants of bygone times as though we channel the righteous glory of the Founding Fathers. We hurl, "That's unconstitutional!" allegations as though Americans can make head or tail of even the document's Second Amendment.

Our constitution is one of the most comprehensive, idealistic, and unifying founding documents of any nation. But the very language in which it's written is from a different world. It shouldn't be a reach to hope that the average citizen of our country can parse the meaning behind our most essential founding edicts. It shouldn't require years of study and a degree in Post Elizabethan English to process our Declaration of Independence. Expecting the generation of TikTok to grapple with these arcane, ten-clause sentences written by musket-carrying slaveowners is such an obvious problem it's a wonder we so rarely even seem to consider it.

It's generally unfair to judge figures of the past by modern standards. But nor is it logical to put these generations-old mandates on a pedestal and act as though the people who wrote them were prophetic. These venerated politicians of the past are treated as something more than human. Their words are regarded as borderline biblical.

Yet the reality remains that many of their hallowed, bedrock decrees have aged more poorly than the ornate powdered wigs our founders used to wear. Many skip over the fact that the Declaration of Independence enshrined no rights to African Americans and that the Constitution wasn't amended to allow women to vote until the 1920s.

Trump epitomizes the widening gap between our founding and our present, and in so many respects he is the leader we've earned. He'll bumble through the timeless halls of a centuries-old building without even a curiosity about the historied figures that once walked those same corridors. He'll preside over institutions whose machinations he does not understand. He'll swear to uphold a document that neither he, nor the country whose citizens can name more Simpsons characters than constitutional amendments can begin to make sense of.




It's difficult to deny the crises that can arise from a population that can't understand the literature of its most basic founding principles. And never more boldly has that damning truth been written across the wall than in this aftermath of the 2024 election.

It was the promise that Trump would drain the swamp that earned many American's attention. It was the hope he'd serve as a plain-talking face to the incomprehensible maze of jargon and manipulation that is American politics. People were tired of the same old statesman's dialect and wanted someone whose words they could comprehend. In Trump's brash simplicity, there are over 70 million Americans who see something relatable.

We've grown so detached from those documents on which our country was built that electing a reality TV personality has become conceivable. Social media needed to slowly creep its way into our politics before it was possible for a demagogue to weaponize it.

Our ignorance as a nation served as implicit permission for many of the officials we elected to ignore their oaths of office when Trump was impeached for recruiting foreign interference in our election and again when he directed his followers to stop the certification of the 2020 race after Biden had been soundly declared the winner.

If even our politicians upheld these documents, a second Trump term would never have been possible. Trump would have been barred from running. Instead, senators were happy to violate their constitutional obligation— plainly acknowledging the former leader's guilt while still voting not to impeach him. The few who broke party lines to uphold their oaths were made into pariahs, threatened, and attacked on Twitter.

It's remarkable how far these founding documents have been able to guide us — and even other emerging democracies throughout the world — but it isn't useful to imagine perfection in the words of these pre-electricity colonizers. They didn't envision weapons that could exterminate crowds within seconds or algorithms and automated intelligences that could result in coups and influence the results of elections. They didn't anticipate a world where we'd learn to rip apart an atom, nor that we'd create weapons that could level whole cities in seconds.

They didn't foresee the competitive stockpiling of WMDs, or that our planet's very biodiversity could one day collapse as natural disasters grow in frequency and intensity. They could hardly begin to fathom a thing like a a radio, let alone a modern marvel like the internet and a world so seamlessly connected through it. So bitterly divided by it.

Our founding fathers could never have expected that their words would still hold weight in such a world. They couldn't know that our planet's spin would accelerate to this maddening speed.

The framers of the Constitution could have never foreseen a leader like Trump taking high office.

It's astonishing that they were able to devise such a long-standing system of government back in 1776. The reality that it may no longer effectively serve the people of this country has loomed closer and closer for decades. It's a stark truth that's underlied each call to vote I've ever uttered — the notion that we're a democracy, but not fully. Our votes count, but wealthy donors can buy laws and leaders. We're empowered in our capacity as individuals, but not as empowered as corporations.

Much of the population has been happy all along to admit that the system we have is broken. If our institutions don't survive this next decade, the enduring life they've lived is still worth being thankful for. We've all witnessed a slow-rolling degradation of our democracy. The whimpering cries of these past few years are those of a creature in pain.

But the disintegration of the America we know doesn't only need to be a cause for grief. We've accomplished colossal things throughout this democratic experiment. Many of us have gotten to experience the fruits of all who labored before us. We've celebrated a level of luxury befitting an empire at its height. But the long arc of history is one that's measured in peaks and valleys. It was always certain that fraught times would come again.

To restructure ourselves and start anew may sound lofty or dramatic or even impossible. But if we ask ourselves honestly whether what we have works, we know that it does not. Our two-party system has never been so irreconcilably divided about how to save this country — about what this nation should look like and who should be allowed to live here. About what races they should be and what religions they should practice.

Compromise between parties in America no longer appears possible and our current system may not have much longer left. We may need to begin thinking about what will replace it, and whatever turmoil we could face as the one we know continues to simmer and erode. The America of the future may well not be one of fifty states.

The United States could fracture into something unfamiliar. We might come together under a new constitution and take a fresh stab at democracy. We might live quietly under tyranny. We might realize that the benefits that come with fifty states united under one flag are no longer worth the risks of living beside so many people we hate and fear. Or our divides might heal over time and we'll slowly figure out a way to weather this storm and come together once again.

The 100 million eligible voters who abstain come each election day might finally feel called to participate in the process if our government were only more functional. We need a country where voters' whims aren't decided by the limitless pocketbooks of nameless donors, and billionaires can't buy social media platforms to manipulate elections. We need a nation where felons, fascists, and insurrectionists can't take power to begin with.

To look at the longer arc of history, and the place at which we currently stand, it's clear that the restructuring our moment requires won't be simple or swift. Should the government during Trump's second term continue to devolve in the way that so many anticipate, then the path toward that better place is unlikely to be bloodless. But when tyrants take control, democratically or otherwise, their overthrows are rarely conflict-free.

If Project 2025 is instituted and democratic elections stop taking place, then there will be revolutions and civil unrest before we see the light at the end of the tunnel. But it's useless to deny that our system is broken. The road toward a better one won't be easy, but that winding boulevard toward that faraway place is one we need to begin walking. The future of America may not be as we know it today, but the America we know today doesn't work. It hasn't worked for a long time.

Should this period we're living in really bring the collapse of this great nation, in its ashes, there's still hope we might pave the road to a better future.


Monday, November 11, 2024

ANS -- Tolerance is not a moral precept

Those of you who have been with me for a while have seen this one before.  
Find it at: 






Tolerance is not a moral precept

Yonatan Zunger
Extra Newsfeed
·

This photo by the Degenderettes is perhaps the perfect summary of the appropriate limits of tolerance.

The title of this essay should disturb you. We have been brought up to believe that tolerating other people is one of the things you do if you're a nice person — whether we learned this in kindergarten or from Biblical maxims like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others."

But if you have ever tried to live your life this way, you will have seen it fail: "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?" This comes in all sorts of forms: accepting a person's actively antisocial behavior because it's just part of being an accepting group of friends; being told that prejudice against Nazis is the same as prejudice against Black people; watching people try to give "equal time" to a religious (or irreligious) group whose guiding principle is that everyone must join them or else.

Every one of these examples should raise your suspicions that something isn't right; that tolerance be damned, one of these things is not like the other. But if you were raised with an intense version of "tolerance is a moral requirement," then you may feel that this is a thought you should fight off.

It isn't.

Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other's throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn't directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group's acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people's stated opposition to their neighbors' lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they'll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else's religious laws on you.

This is a variation on the old saw that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." We often forget (or ignore) that no right is absolute, because one person's rights can conflict with another's. This is why freedom of speech doesn't protect extortion, and the right to bear arms doesn't license armed robbery. Nor is this limited to rights involving the state; people can interfere with each other's rights with no government involved, as when people use harassment to suppress other people's speech. While both sides of that example say they are "exercising their free speech," one of them is using their speech to prevent the other's: these are not equivalent. The balance of rights has the structure of a peace treaty.

Unlike absolute moral precepts, treaties have remedies for breach. If one side has breached another's rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant — and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach. "Mommy, Timmy hit me back!" holds no more ethical weight among adults than it does among children.

After a breach, the moral rules which apply are not the rules of peace, but the rules of broken peace, and the rules of war. We might ask, is the response proportional? Is it necessary? Does it serve the larger purpose of restoring the peace? But we do not take an invaded country to task for defending its borders.

Take the example of a group silencing another using harassment. Many responses may be appropriate. Returning harassment in turn, for example, is likely to be proportional, although it is rarely effective — harassment usually occurs in a situation where the sides do not have equal power to harm each other in that way. On the other hand, acting to restrict the harassers' ability to continue in the future — even at the expense of limiting their right to speak — may be both proportional and effective. But lining the aggressors up against a wall and shooting them would not only be disproportionate, it would be unlikely to restore the peace.

No side, after all, will ever accept a peace in which their most basic needs are not satisfied — their safety, and their power to ensure that safety, most of all. The desire for justice is a desire that we each have such mechanisms to protect ourselves, while still remaining in the context of peace: that the rule of law, for example, will provide us remedy for breaches without having to entirely abandon all peace. Any "peace" which does not satisfy this basic requirement, one which creates an existential threat to one side or the other, can never hold.

If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.

The model of a peace treaty highlights another challenge which tolerance always faces: peace is not always possible, because sometimes people's interests are fundamentally incompatible. Setting aside the obvious example of "I think you and your family should be dead!" (even though that example may be far more common than we wish), there are many cases where such fundamental incompatibility can arise despite good faith on all sides.

Imagine, for example, that you had good reason to believe that a monster was on its way to attack your town, slaughtering everyone in its path. You and your fellow townsfolk would be wise to arm yourselves and set up a defensive perimeter. If the danger were clear and present, the monster visible on the horizon, you would rightly see anyone who didn't participate without a good reason as a no-good freeloader.

Some failures to participate are more dangerous than others. If any noise might attract the monster's attention, then dancing and reveling of any sort must be forbidden; you put not only yourself at risk, but everybody around you. If it's a horror-movie monster, attracted by premarital sex, then this might be restricted as well. And what if some kinds of people pose a danger to the town by their very existence? Is it worth the town's life to let them stay? A town in enough danger might make a moral choice to exile, or even sacrifice, some of its members.

But now imagine that half the town has good reason to fear this monster — credible reports from people they trust, centuries of documentation from other towns — while the other half has equally good reason to believe that these reports are fables. One side believes, in good faith, that these strict rules are all that protect the town from a horrible fate; the other, that these rules harm, punish, exile, or even kill them for no legitimate reason at all, other than the power of the first side. So long as there is real uncertainty about the monster, each side has good reason to view the other as an existential threat.

This hypothetical is, of course, no hypothetical. For anyone who believes in a god who will torment unbelievers, the "monster" is divine wrath. This is even more true if sin — which attracts this wrath — can spread like a contagion through an entire community. If everything you have ever learned tells you that this is a real and present danger, and that certain members of the community — members of another religion, perhaps, or people of the wrong sexual orientation— are jeopardizing everyone's safety, then a fundamental, existential conflict is inevitable.

Many of you are probably reading this and saying that in this case, one side is right and the other is wrong, and the clear resolution is for one side to stop harming fellow members of the community. If one side were doing what it was doing in bad faith, that might be the answer — but the point here is that if both sides were acting in perfect faith, for either side to concede would be a death sentence. In a situation like this, there can be no peace treaty; only war or separation.

Since separation is often just as unacceptable as surrender— one side essentially needing to flee and give up everything they have in the world, from their homes and their jobs to their social ties — it is rarely a meaningful solution. It does not conform to the requirements of real peace. (This is why "white separatism" is, in practice, just a rebranding of white supremacy; white separatists never seem to suggest that they should be the ones who should leave their homes and lives behind.)

As with any peace treaty, we must consider toleration in the broader context of the war which is its alternative, and we must recognize that peace is not always a possibility.

"The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648," by Gerard ter Borch; image courtesy of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. This treaty was part of the Peace of Westphalia.

But let me offer a small measure of hope. Among the worst wars of tolerance were the religious wars which tore through Europe between 1524 and 1648. These wars were predicated on precisely the sort of incompatibility described above, with Protestants and Catholics each seeing the other as existential threats. As states aligned with each side, the penalty for disagreement became exile or death, a condition no one could accept.

But even after six generations of fighting, and tens of millions of dead, these wars came to an end. The Peace of Westphalia, the series of treaties which ended them, was built on two radical tenets: that each ruler had the right to choose the religion of their state, and that Christians living in principalities where their faith was not the established faith still had the right to practice their religion. A decision was made, in essence, to accept the risk of the monster rather than the reality of the war.

The Peace of Westphalia was the political foundation for the concept of secularism: that religious matters are so uncertain that the state should not have the power to mandate them. It remains one of the classic peace treaties between fundamentally incompatible groups. It was also, in turn, the basis for the concept of religious freedom brought by European settlers to North America; the American Bill of Rights is its direct descendant.

What this teaches us is that tolerance, viewed as a moral absolute, amounts to renouncing the right to self-protection; but viewed as a peace treaty, it can be the basis of a stable society. Its protections extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force, when that force is required to restore a just peace. We seek peace because on the whole it is far better than war; but as history has taught us, not every peace is better than the war it prevents.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

— Patrick Henry, speech to the 2nd Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775