Sal jaywalks. Tom slips a candy bar in his pocket at a 7-11 and leaves without paying. Jim robs a bank. Chris kills someone in cold blood.
Sal, Tom, Jim and Chris are all criminals. They all broke the law.
So, if jaywalker Sal condemns killer Chris for the murder he committed, does it make sense to respond, “Oh yeah? You’re a lawbreaker too, Sal. You’re a fine one to talk!”
That is false equivalence at its essence: equating two things which share one quality but are far different in intensity. Offenses — whether they’re related to crime, politics, lying, what have you — are not created equal. Pundits and politicians like to play the false equivalence game when someone is condemned for something they’ve done. “Oh yeah, what about …?” Whenever that happens, we have to ask ourselves, are the two offenses close to the same in intensity? Or in frequency? A serial shoplifter is more deserving of condemnation than the one-time offender, just as a serial liar is a worse offender than the occasional liar. Here’s the general rule of thumb when defining false equivalence: jaywalking and shoplifting aren’t in the same league as bank robbery and murder.
Example. Recently, Trump lied more than a dozen times when he was talking to the press corps on the White House lawn. Lying is so reflexive with him, I’m not sure he can distinguish lies from the truth. A standard response from his supporters is, “Oh yeah, what about when Obama said you’ll be able to keep your doctor if we pass the Affordable Care Act?” It’s true, Obama lied when he said that, and he very likely knew he was lying in an effort to help pass the ACA. Do we have an equivalence here, Obama’s ACA lie versus Trump’s compulsive, corrosive, hateful, hurtful lying which he resorts to whenever he wants to “prove” his point or distort the reasons behind his policy? Absolutely not. Not by any reasonable standard of comparison.
But let’s forget about Trump for a moment. When Obama was saying everyone could keep their doctor, which turned out to be true for many but not all people, Republicans were saying Obamacare included “Death Panels.” “They want to pull the plug on grandma!” Republicans screamed. That lie was far more explosive and corrosive than Obama’s, and it was never true. “Death Panels” was named Lie of the Year in 2009 by PolitiFact. Creating a “What about?” equivalence between Obama and Trump when it comes to lying is blatantly absurd. But even at the moment when the ACA was in the balance, the Republican lies about the program — there were many, “Death Panels” was the worst — far outstripped Obama’s lie. They are not equivalent. Anyone who says they are is distorting the record.
Trump and his followers are screaming about Sarah Huckabee Sanders being kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant and Rep. Maxine Waters urging people, when they see Trump cabinet members, to tell them they’re not welcome. Even some Democrats and non-conservative pundits are tut-tutting The Red Hen and Rep. Waters.
Are the Red Hen’s actions and Maxine Waters’ statement uncivil? You bet. Are they anywhere near the equivalent of what Trump and members of his administration have done? Not even close. So unless anti-Trumpers believe they have to turn every cheek they have, over and over, until their faces and asses are red and sore; Unless they think they have to be ten times more civil than Trump, starting with the first statements of his candidacy and continuing to the latest tweet—and more civil than Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Jeff Sessions, and John Kelly, not to mention the Bannons and Lewandowskis of the world; Unless they think they will gain respect and votes from the electorate by demonstrating that they refuse to stand up for themselves against a man who puts the “bully” in “bully pulpit” in a way no presidency in history has ever done; Unless all that is true, people who are against Trump need to exercise their right to speak and act strongly, even harshly and uncivilly.
On one side: Trump and his administration have purposely ripped thousands of children from their immigrant parents, not even bothering to keep track of their whereabouts so families can be reunited. Their actions have caused permanent physical and emotional trauma to the children and unspeakable grief and worry to their parents. To add insult to injury, Trump has used his speeches and tweets to demonize immigrants regularly and relentlessly.
On the other side: A restaurant told Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a prominent, powerful, well paid member of the Trump administration, it would not serve her because of complaints employees made to the owner. As I understand it, and as I have seen posted on the outside many restaurants, The Red Hen has the right to refuse service to anyone. The exception is when the refusal is a violation of the customers’ civil rights because it’s based on race, religion, sexual orientation or similar type of illegal discrimination. Sanders fit into none of those categories. The Red Hen was well within its rights to refuse her service.
The worst thing that happened to Sanders is she felt insulted and was forced had to take her ample bank account and use it to buy food at another establishment. That insult does not come within a D.C. mile of the pain and trauma Trump has caused thousands of immigrants and Sanders has justified from her podium. There is absolutely no equivalence.
Maxine Waters made a statement whose focus has been mainly ignored. Waters referred specifically to “anybody from that Cabinet.” Not every Republican congressperson. Not every White House staffer. Not every Trump supporter. Just a few dozen people who, beneath the president, occupy the highest positions of power in the country and are directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of the Trump administration which so many of us believe are a clear and present danger, destructive to the core principles of this country. Waters recommended when members of that exclusive group leave the sanctuary of the White House or their homes, people should “tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Waters used the term “push back on them,” which some have interpreted as advocating violence but Waters clarified to mean verbal pushback, which makes sense in the context of her statement.
The worst thing that will happen if people follow Waters’ advice is, a few dozen very privileged, very powerful people who can travel in the privacy of government limousines if they wish will be subjected to verbal derision when they step onto the D.C. sidewalks or walk into business establishments. People have been doing that well before Waters said anything, and it’s a perfectly legal form of protest. The minor emotional injury cabinet members may suffer doesn’t compare in any way with the harm they have done to others. There is absolutely no equivalence.
Anyone who wants to refer to the Red Hen incident or Rep. Waters’ words should do it to say to their critics, “This is what you’re yelling about? Are you serious? Let me tell you what deserves to be yelled about.”
This article appears in Jun 21-27, 2018.
If we look at the 24-month election cycle as a 24 hour day, we are heading into the 20th hour since the last election. It’s 8 PM with the clock ticking toward midnight with Dems (Axelrod, Brian Schatz, Pelosi, Sherrod Brown) counseling moderation in discussing the latest outrages of Trump and his minions.
Great strategy. Great message from the party of despair.
The Democrats do not have another Obama waiting in the wings and its viable potential presidential nominees fit the pattern of latter-day Humphreys, McGoverns, Mondales, and Dukakises. If a party led by the timid can’t stomach a fight in the face of the greatest threat to the nation’s (and its own) existence, it deserves the drubbing it is going to endure this coming November and in 2020.
If a neofascist bent on tearing down our institutions, including the presidency and Constitution is not reason enough to get mad and fight using every weapon available to beat him, it is time for the mild to make way for the wild. Instead of mouthing Hillary’s (untried) tactic of going high when the opponent goes low, the Democrats have to put on the gloves and slug it out.
But they won’t. They don’t know how.
Murmuring “be kind” from a bunker is the Neville Chamberlain approach to dealing with an existential threat. So yeah, I agree with David, are you feaking serious?
Obama did not find himself able to deliver Hope and Change, and the American people did not like the goods Hillary Clinton was selling while running the DNC from her campaign office and chiseling Sanders out of the nomination in every possible underhanded way. They liked them so little that close to 50% of those who voted chose what, it should have been clear, was the most dangerous nominee for office the 20th century has presented. These are just two of the many problems (the Better Deal embarrassment being a third that springs immediately to mind) that linger in the background as the midterms approach.
We hate Trump is not a program for governing the country or solving citizens increasing economic problems. Its too bad, because a lot of people now seem very motivated, to the point of obsession, by that hatred. Many things more important than Trump, that should be of enduring value, could go on bonfires currently being lit by EMOTIONAL REACTION in this country. And once certain legal precedents have been set and standards for behavior deteriorate further, starting with Trump and his followers and spreading to those reacting to Trump, it will be hard for those who accepted the invitation to jump into the cesspool and for the rest of us living, unfortunately, in a country where public discourse has become the verbal equivalent of dumpster diving to climb back out again.
The New Yorker just published a long and interesting piece on recent free speech controversies at Berkeley. Look it up and read the various enlightened liberal scholars interviewed questioning whether, in the current climate and given some of the current actors on the scene, the constitutional interpretations that undergird our existing free speech protections should stand. The dean of Berkeleys law school, the distinguished 1st amendment scholar Chemerinsky, gets it right. Others do not. Who will prevail? What will we be left with when the current rages and reactions subside? Its looking more and more like it will be nothing like what we had before Trump took office. Hysterical reaction on the left: a big win for team Trump. Making America Great Again by provoking liberals to throw all of their precedents, principles and standards on the bonfire of their hatreds.
P. S. Elizabeth Warren, who has a good track record holding the finance industry accountable, looks good to many economic progressives for the next Democratic presidential nominee, But as appetite for extremism and ideological warfare grows, it seems unlikely she will be to the taste of an electorate whipped up into a fury by ignorant demagogues.
The left has come unhinged with hatred and are bleeding voters to the Independent Party. Given that Americans would not tolerate eight years of an Obama type progressive, they have no ideas so it’s fitting they have no candidate.
Trump gets results. Whether you like them or not, he gets results. It was way past time this country started acting like a world power. For far too long Republicans and Democrats have exported our jobs and our money, and imported foreign workers. No more. It’s time to solve some of our problems. So America elected a problem solver.
A new day is dawning. Come along for the ride.
“Obama lied when he said that” – actually he didn’t. You were able to keep your doctor. Insurance companies used the ACA as an excuse when they did their annual renewal of contracts. They change their reimbursement rates and sometimes doctors will drop the insurance. It happens all the time, but that year they got to blame the ACA for it.
It’s like saying Al Gore lied when he said he invented the internet. Al Gore never, ever said that. He rightly took credit for championing legislation that allowed the internet to come into widespread use.
We are all right in our multicultural & many beliefs. Lets all agree on mandatory term limits for anyone elected , hired or appointed ; earning from tax payer dollars more than $60,000 or even $80,000 (inflation flaring up again) annually. No cheating with fake math like bonus, housing allowance, use of cars paid by tax payers, clothing on & on.
Safier, Spanier et al.” here is the authentic voice of what Democratic Party leaders have found it possible to be in other eras, readily available in Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez’s campaign video:
“Every day gets harder for working families like mine to get by. The rent gets higher, health care covers less, and our income stays the same. […] It’s time to fight for a New York that working families can afford. […] This race is about people versus money. We’ve got the people, they’ve got the money. It’s time to acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn’t live here, doesn’t send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breath our air cannot possibly represent us.”
https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1001795660524457985
Amen to that. Compelling, effective, and there’s not a word about Trump in it.
At the age of 28, SHE took out a veteran Democratic party politician who was thought to be in line to be next Speaker of the House.
Keep raving about Trump, gentlemen. Meanwhile, the leaders who will replace Clinton Democrats’ bankrupt vision for the country are rising, and the voters are listening to them.
bslap…. so here’s another thing that Obama said about the ACA – and he said it dozens of times, “Were going to lower your premiums by up to $2500 per family per year. Clearly a lie. Forget saving $2500 per year, have your premiums decreased at all since passage of the ACA?
This is what authentic progressive leadership looks like
Couldn’t agree with you more about the terrific result in NYC. Thrilling denunciation of the clique I was referring to (Axelrod, Brian Schatz, Pelosi, Sherrod Brown, et. al.). The difference, as I see it, is with “leaders” in the party counseling meek responses while Ocasio took a powerful message to the people and beat “their” candidate. The party (DNC/DCCC) is falling apart at the seams and has no message of its own except for “A Better Way.” Thank goodness there are candidates beating the machine and its money.
And doing it with class.
August 11, 2018 would have been CBP Officer Brian Terry’s 48th birthday. Brian Terry was murdered in the southern Arizona desert in December, 2011 by an illegal immigrant.
The President should declare August 12, 2018 to be “Guardians Day” – a day set aside for Americans to honor the service and sacrifices made by our brave public servants in ICE and Customs and Border Protection, who risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe. The President should call for public demonstrations and marches on that day in support of ICE and CBP.
In addition to giving ICE and CBP a well-deserved pat on the back, such an event would give our liberal friends the opportunity to practice a bit of civility. Or not. Either way they want to go would be instructive to the voters in the run-up to the 2018 mid-terms.
Obama lied about keeping my doctor and my savings with the ACA. Lost my doctor and now I am spending $8,000 more per year for a $10,000 deductible.
Royal liar! Eight years in office and that is what we got. I would say it’s his fault Trump won.
Thank you BO.
Here is another of Obama and Hillary’s lies that came full circle, just today:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/libyan-gets-22-years-attacks-us-consulate-benghazi-192954473–politics.html
So it wasn’t a protest about a video? Susan Rice you are a stooge for these liars. And if this guy did not kill Ambassador Stevens, has he given up who did?
Good to know, Rick Spanier. As I understood it, in the context of previous dialogues in these comment streams, the debate was between those who believe non-stop Trump hysteria (and tactics like public heckling and shaming of Trump’s cabinet members in private venues) will help win the mid-terms, and those who believe a strong message to the voters on economic, labor and education policy is what’s needed. Ocasia-Cortez is an example of the latter, in my opinion. Granted, in the primaries she needed to distinguish herself from her Democratic opponent, but in the general, running against a Republican opponent, it should still be possible to keep the focus on needed changes to policy and not on “Trump is the devil!!!” Improving the lives of people who work for a living in this country is the desired achievement. Heckling politicians and public administrators in restaurants is a debased form of “advocacy” that proves nothing, achieves nothing.
(And an aside to Safier: when it comes to our local issues, I doubt Ocasia-Cortez would ever be one to sign off on outsourcing substitute teacher labor, taking donations from the private company managing the outsourcing, jettisoning commentary that makes the public aware that a disproportionate number of classrooms manned full-time by subs are in poor neighborhoods, or paying a Superintendent $500K per year to manage a district where starting teacher salaries are $30-somethingK per year and there are more than 100 classrooms filled with hourly wage, no-benefit outsourced subs rather than permanent, fully qualified teachers. When you campaign on the specifics of a labor-friendly policy agenda, not on “Trump and / or the Republicans are horrible!!!” you can be held accountable for your achievements in office on POLICY, not on what you achieve on election day in gaining the seat and blocking a candidate from the opposing party.)
This is what authentic progressive leadership looks like
I see the great showing by Ocasia-Cortez somewhat differently and was absolutely thrilled to see her win. She took out an invisible, nondescript symbol of her party’s hubris and sense of entitlement and trashed yet another empty suit preferred by the party leadership. That same hubris and sense of entitlement were responsible for the unimaginable (to some) and improbable (to many) win by Trump.
And that’s the rub. The Dems somehow managed to run the only candidate even remotely capable of losing an election to a vapid, hate-mongering carnival barker. She, Ocasia-Cortez, in this contest was viewed, as many of those supported by Sanders’ Our Revolution, by the party elite as interlopers … party crashers…barbarians at the gates. I imagine they (tonight) are a bit more than merely concerned there is more to come.
I hope they are terrified. They should be. The ‘blue wave” is ebbing before it nears the shore.
That said, I don’t see Ocasia-Cortez’ win as a repudiation of anti-Trump hysteria, and the public shaming of low life cabinet officials and other administration officials (the other Sanders). Yes, certainly, campaigns like hers may win contests against inbred Democrats and, in a district where Dems heavily outweigh Republicans, a congressional seat. Cool.
But ultimately, the vicious filth emanating from the White House on a daily basis does need to be confronted with more than words and policy pronouncements. We, the people, are in a battle for our democracy. Many of us are angry at Trump, angry at the Democrats who enabled his election and angry at being counseled to simmer down by the same folks. Those who engineered this fiasco in the first place by guaranteeing the nomination of a candidate disliked and distrusted by a majority of voters while under investigation for the glaring misuse of a personal email server while ensconced as secretary of state. Angry people do fight back. Some throw tea in Boston Harbor and some declare independence from tyrants. And some refuse to serve their oppressors dinner.
So in the end, if Hillary, Nancy, Chuck, Tony or any of the other party do-nothings come to my restaurant, hey, they won’t be seated.
Now I’m going to have to open a beanery.
Rick Spanier, good points, and eloquently made, as usual. I would only add:
In my extended family’s network there are people who voted for Trump. I’ll give you the rationale I heard from one of them, whose values are about as far from Trump’s values as they could possibly be: “When you want to get rid of a sewage problem, you hire a sewage pumper. You may not like the sewage pumper, but the important thing is he gets rid of your sewage problem.” What was meant was that there is corruption in Washington DC that is resulting in damage to the livelihood of working Americans: outsourcing, globalization, policy serving the interests of lobbyists and political elites not citizens, etc., i.e. the policy areas where there was actually overlap between Bernie Sanders’ agenda and Trump’s.
At this point many of the cohorts in which large numbers voted for Trump, for example independent contractors in the trades and housing sectors in Southern Arizona, which took a crippling blow after 2008, are seeing significant improvements in demand for their work and their economic prospects. A good number of them attribute this to Trump “getting rid of the sewage problem.” To win the presidency back the Democrats need to make it plain that they will implement a labor-supportive policy agenda and it will be better for the economically motivated voters who voted for Obama and then Trump than the policy agenda Trump is implementing.
What do Democrats have to offer them? “Trump is loathsome!” won’t work. People who thought Trump was loathsome before November 2016 still think so. Some voted against loathsome, some voted for “loathsome, but not a corporate-affiliated Dem and I hope economically effective.”
The Ocasia-Cortez policy agenda could reach some of those people. Safier’s “THREAT watches” and the general anti-Trump hysteria, which now has expanded to include public heckling of cabinet members, cannot. The latter approach is in fact very likely to alienate the very cohorts that need to be recruited. (Not sure adding the heckling of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, etc. would help, but I certainly understand the sentiment.)
Bottom line is there are not enough voters in the country motivated by the things the furious, frothing at the mouth anti-Trump-ers depend on appealing to, and TEMPER TANTRUM-ING HARDER AND MORE BROADLY AND IN MORE VENUES!!! will not change that. Hillary Clinton, through the years, was very clear about her contempt for those who did not agree with her life choices and values. Those who “stayed home and baked cookies,” the red neck deplorables, Trump.
She is not in office.
To win an election in a pluralistic country where only a small percentage of voters have received a comprehensive program of “values re-education” at an elite college like Wellesley, coalitions have to be built, and they have to be based, not just on identity politics, but on SOUND POLICY that serves the interests of the 99%. “People who work for a living” is a much larger group in this country than all identity groups combined. Figure out how to bypass corporate funding and serve labor, while ALSO supporting and protecting constitutional rights for identity groups, and you will win the election.
(As fantastic as it is that Ocasia-Cortez belongs to the community which she represents and promotes the right policies, the more important fact about her for her potential effectiveness in office is that, to date, she has not taken corporate donations. Let’s see whether she can win the general on that basis and whether, once in office, she keeps it up or becomes co-opted by the corporate-indebted Dem machine like some of our Southern Arizona former progressives / progressives-in-name-and-rhetoric-only-and-not-in-actions-in-office.)
Former Dem,
Well said. I think Ocasia-Cortez is in very good shape given the demographics of her district so the general election really is hers to lose. She will win easily.
I agree with nearly all your points except that the temper tantrums across venues are not unexpected when the administration uses kidnapping and ransom as bargaining chips in a game they can’t even explain to its own party members. It is more than cool to be pissed off and take action under those circumstances.
Serving labor? I don’t think so. Not even the Democrats took the unions seriously in ’16. They are now part of the slice and dice calculus that served Clinton et. al. so well in the past election.
Good dialogue, Rick Spanier, but we will have to agree to disagree on tactics, while agreeing on much else.
By “labor,” I meant the 99%, people who work for a living. Not organized labor. There are policies that exist in other countries that could be easily and objectively shown to be more beneficial for the 99% than the policies that are currently being implemented by the Trump administration.
Why does the “Democratic” party not propose them and win easily with that policy agenda?
Partly because too many of the 99% have been taught to believe in supply side economics, but mainly because Democratic Party funders don’t want those policies. It’s a lot cheaper for the funders to get on board with identity politics policy than it is with across-the-board labor entitlements and protections. The funders want to maximize profits and they benefit from maintaining a prostrate labor force. What a big win for them it was, the transition that was accomplished during the last 30 years to astronomically high tuition for higher ed and the practice of funding it through undismissable student loan debt, i.e. indenturing the college-educated labor force to the banks. But no one discusses issues like this, which have entirely shifted the economic / class structure of our country, while everyone is busy putting out the fires Trump strategically sets and provokes his opponents to react to. Wonder what else we are missing while the vast majority of headlines for the last year and a half begin with “Trump.”
You are winning the “likes” in this comment stream hands down, which may be a reflection of current feelings on the left side of the field, or may not mean anything: in this venue, people who care to do so can like or dislike posts multiple times from different devices and on different days. Why these comment streams are structured that way and who benefits from it or uses / abuses it is an interesting question that Jim Nintzel should be asked to address one of these days.
Whatever the likes and dislikes may be in this stream, whether a preference on the Democratic side of the fence for giving vent to (understandable) emotions rather than sticking with analysis and clear communication will be a good thing for the country remains to be seen. When we look at redistricting and the Supreme Court, it’s hard to avoid concluding that people who analyzed the structure and recruited whatever distasteful agents they needed to get it changed to serve their purposes seem to have the upper hand at this point.
Stay tuned…
Former Dem
We agree on one issue especially, the indenturing of college students. Probably the most disgusting feature of our economy and a real generational differentiator between the old guard Democrats and Republicans who are equally responsible for the state of affairs and younger folks paying the price for elected leaders being so obviously on the take.
As far as likes/dislikes here or on other venues: who cares? I like to think the exchange of ideas is valuable. Whether mine or anyone else’s is popular is pretty much irrelevant. And don’t take this personally, I’ve made it a point to post using my name and wonder why so many use pseudonyms (simple or elaborate) or whatever to mask their identities. Anonymity is curious in the marketplace of ideas.
Rick Spanier,
Having seen a range of behaviors from high to unbelievably low in the Southern Arizona Dem community and having wasted more time and money than I care to recall on some of their candidates and causes, I reached a point where I was distinctly not interested in mixing into their scene. That includes my name in these comment streams.
But I still care about the issues, especially the educational issues, and on the ones I think are important, I comment. Probably not much of a point to it, but somewhere, in some fashion, there should be representation of the viewpoints Southern Arizona Dems actively try to suppress in the venues they control. I distinctly DO NOT care about the likes / dislikes, beyond that they are understood for what the actually are, which is not an accurate representation of the number of discrete individuals reading and approving / disapproving of the comments.
David Safier is well ensconced w/ the local party, and his columns are a pretty reliable guide to what they want to get across on educational issues.
He seems to be one of those who believes that there is no viable alternative to working outside of existing political structures, and so he will serve the machine most of the time whether they are right or wrong, probably because he believes that a few worthwhile things will get done through the power they’ve accumulated, and also that if he’s with them 95% of the time, the 5% of the time he chooses to take a stand, he will be listened to and may change the direction of their operations. I’ve seen him do it a few times.
The THREAT watches and pieces like this seem to be more reflective of his personal concerns. I think the tactics are wrong, but I sympathize with the concern. My read is that he is genuinely upset about Trump and really believes that what we’re seeing here is some kind of incipient fascism. I disagree. I think it’s ruthless neoliberal capitalism and diversionary tactics to break up resistance to dismantling beneficial regulations and worker entitlements. Unfortunately for the left’s unity and effectiveness, different response strategies are appropriate to the two different situations. One more reason the left currently appears to be outmaneuvered and / or Ratf**ked, (to quote David Daley’s aptly titled book on redistricting).
We’ll see what happens this November. In the meantime, keep commenting. Your posts are always worth reading and considering.
The distinguished international human rights reporter and NYTimes Op-ed regular Nicholas Kristof: “Im afraid that Trumps craziness is proving infectious, making Democrats crazy with rage that actually impedes a progressive agenda.”
From this article in THE NATION, which is spot on about the quality of what has gone on in the American media since November 2016:
https://www.thenation.com/article/journalism-age-trump-whats-missing-matters/
The article successfully demolishes the absurd FALSE EQUIVALENCE which calls what is going on in the U.S. “fascism” and compares Trump to dangerous figures like Erdogan:
“Currently, some 70 journalists are in prison [in Turkey], and most independent newspapers have been closed or bullied into silence. In addition, more than 100,000 Turkish officials and civil servants have been dismissed; at least 2,200 judges and prosecutors have been jailed pending investigation; and 11,000 teachers have been suspended. The repeated characterization of Trump, by Sullivan and others in the national media, as a full-blown fascist, an autocrat, a Putin, a Mussolini, or a Hitler itself refutes those claims. So, too, do the marches in the streets, the rallies on campuses, the grassroots activism, the filing of lawsuits, the bitterly contested midterm elections, and all the other signs of a fully engaged civil society. Roger Berkowitz, the director of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College, which is dedicated to promoting Arendts legacy and ideas, became so exasperated with the facile way people have used her writings that he recently warned about the danger of ‘seeing fascism everywhere’: The ‘outbreak of civil unrest in the United States,’ he noted, ‘is a good indication that the country is not fertile ground for fascism.'”
Perhaps Safier et al., should do what THE NATION recommends: real reporting on facts relevant to the situation of working class Americans and progressive economic policy, not more self-adulatory, destructive and distracting hysteria-mongering.