Well said! The question before us is whether we will choose to strengthen the "blueprint" that Madison and others bequeathed us or will we allow our passions to get the better of us. In times like this, I fall back on the work of sociobiologists (E.O. Wilson) that selfishness beats altruism with groups, but altruistic groups beat selfish groups. It all comes back to ongoing work to strengthen the blueprint to increase the number and resiliency of altruistic groups.
I condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk; all political violence is wrong.
With Republicans holding both houses of Congress, and SCOTUS, and Trump in the Whitehouse, our national situation will get worse. I suspect there will be more political violence, there will certainly be more school shootings.
Trump is wholly unfit for office, and Congressional Republicans refuse to check/balance him in any way. Trump is threatening to put the National Guard and military troops in more cities, and Congressional Republicans won't do anything.
I see the problem completely differently.
Your essay mentions people being afraid to compromise. OK - propose a compromise on abortion.
Charlie Kirk held extreme views on abortion that will never work in our nation, or any other first world nation.
This is important not because a large sector of Republicans feel the same (they don't), but because there is a small segment, maybe 15%, who will never compromise on this issue, and because there is a huge amount of money behind this one issue (Leonard Leo, et.al.).
No other first world nation, not even Italy, not even Ireland, ban abortion the way Confederate states have.
At the root of our divide over abortion is a sociological change in religion. That's changing, part of the natural evolution of society. This new study explains it (an the graphics are excellent):
Ok, abortion, and religious extremism, is a large part of what funds Movement Conservatives. I've only seen a few of Robert Reich's videos in the last few days, but I think he does an excellent of explaining our nation and politics (the same thing you're trying to explain with your spin on the Federalist Papers, which is never convincing to me). Reich's explanation is similar to that of Heather Cox Richardson: that politics goes in cycles, and ultimately it's up to us ordinary people to right the ship (by voting out conservatives that have screwed things up and hold us back, and by voting in people of decency and good faith that have the skills and vision to make good government).
In summary, I condemn political violence; most people do; that's a low bar to citizenship.
Your proposed solution: listening, religion, compassion, won't work. And things are going to get worse as long as Republicans control Congress and as long as Trump is in office.
Our society will continue to undergo societal evolution, and older, religious cohorts will be replaced by younger, modern generations with advanced understanding of science, society, and politics.
Eventually, we'll elect Democrats as the majority in Congress, and replace Trump.
I appreciate you reading despite being unconvinced. Dialogue is the bridge to learning, but we have to listen as well as talk.
I wasn’t writing about abortion and won’t be chided into satisfying a demand in the comment section. Ironically, I find people that do such things have no “compromise” of their own.
Back to the essay’s topic, it starts with unilateral disarmament. That there are guardrails to our republic and our humanity. There is a force beyond taking the wheel of that discourse of what you call a “low bar to citizenship.” So, excuse me if I doubt you.
Any political scientist can explain cycles of public choice. Hardly groundbreaking. Knowing who, what, or how they are caused is the element that eludes far too many people. It’s the catalyst to clicks in this environment to let the despondent feel hope, and take refuge in those words. You know, without letting you think.
This space does not advocate partisan politics or political figures. That, my friend, is what irritates people. I appreciate your insights again.
Well said! The question before us is whether we will choose to strengthen the "blueprint" that Madison and others bequeathed us or will we allow our passions to get the better of us. In times like this, I fall back on the work of sociobiologists (E.O. Wilson) that selfishness beats altruism with groups, but altruistic groups beat selfish groups. It all comes back to ongoing work to strengthen the blueprint to increase the number and resiliency of altruistic groups.
Thank you, Scott, for these wise words.
Well said, Scott!
Thank you my friend!
I condemn the shooting of Charlie Kirk; all political violence is wrong.
With Republicans holding both houses of Congress, and SCOTUS, and Trump in the Whitehouse, our national situation will get worse. I suspect there will be more political violence, there will certainly be more school shootings.
Trump is wholly unfit for office, and Congressional Republicans refuse to check/balance him in any way. Trump is threatening to put the National Guard and military troops in more cities, and Congressional Republicans won't do anything.
I see the problem completely differently.
Your essay mentions people being afraid to compromise. OK - propose a compromise on abortion.
Charlie Kirk held extreme views on abortion that will never work in our nation, or any other first world nation.
This is important not because a large sector of Republicans feel the same (they don't), but because there is a small segment, maybe 15%, who will never compromise on this issue, and because there is a huge amount of money behind this one issue (Leonard Leo, et.al.).
No other first world nation, not even Italy, not even Ireland, ban abortion the way Confederate states have.
At the root of our divide over abortion is a sociological change in religion. That's changing, part of the natural evolution of society. This new study explains it (an the graphics are excellent):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62452-z
Ok, abortion, and religious extremism, is a large part of what funds Movement Conservatives. I've only seen a few of Robert Reich's videos in the last few days, but I think he does an excellent of explaining our nation and politics (the same thing you're trying to explain with your spin on the Federalist Papers, which is never convincing to me). Reich's explanation is similar to that of Heather Cox Richardson: that politics goes in cycles, and ultimately it's up to us ordinary people to right the ship (by voting out conservatives that have screwed things up and hold us back, and by voting in people of decency and good faith that have the skills and vision to make good government).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0pRIBRcDk
In summary, I condemn political violence; most people do; that's a low bar to citizenship.
Your proposed solution: listening, religion, compassion, won't work. And things are going to get worse as long as Republicans control Congress and as long as Trump is in office.
Our society will continue to undergo societal evolution, and older, religious cohorts will be replaced by younger, modern generations with advanced understanding of science, society, and politics.
Eventually, we'll elect Democrats as the majority in Congress, and replace Trump.
Until then - things are going to get worse.
I appreciate you reading despite being unconvinced. Dialogue is the bridge to learning, but we have to listen as well as talk.
I wasn’t writing about abortion and won’t be chided into satisfying a demand in the comment section. Ironically, I find people that do such things have no “compromise” of their own.
Back to the essay’s topic, it starts with unilateral disarmament. That there are guardrails to our republic and our humanity. There is a force beyond taking the wheel of that discourse of what you call a “low bar to citizenship.” So, excuse me if I doubt you.
Any political scientist can explain cycles of public choice. Hardly groundbreaking. Knowing who, what, or how they are caused is the element that eludes far too many people. It’s the catalyst to clicks in this environment to let the despondent feel hope, and take refuge in those words. You know, without letting you think.
This space does not advocate partisan politics or political figures. That, my friend, is what irritates people. I appreciate your insights again.
The