Today’s essay reminds me of Padme’s line from Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” I keep coming back to the three variables of uncertainty: human nature - the slowest to change; norms and institutions - able to change incrementally as communities get better at identifying and correcting errors; and technology which moves too fast, often before human nature, norms and institutions can adapt. We live in one of those moments now.
Wonderful insight. I think the loss of institutional trust and faith combined with accepting what we see at face value has really created a mess for us.
Even when Abraham Lincoln chose to suspend habeus corpus and encroach on the southern states he exceeded what needed to be done to successfully defeat the Confederacy and bring us back together.
The words that stand out to me are “When we reach for troops instead of accountability…”
I think we agree that “troops” shouldn’t even be on the table as far as solutions go.
Accountability then becomes key I think. I am afraid that too many in Washington (both sides of the aisle) are more concerned with maintaining position and status quo than doing the right thing for their constituents.
And if that’s correct then I think accountability arrives in two forms. First, a free and fair press who is supposed to be delivering the news in a way that allows the electorate to make informed decisions. Second, the electorate who send the politicians to Washington in the first place. And is the electorate holding the press and the politicians accountable?
The ultimate question for me then, are the first and second things occurring such that “troops” are no longer necessary.
Excellent way to look at it. Self preservation is, regrettably, too much of the end game in Washington. It’s the last great bipartisan activity among the elected. In this piece, I do raise the issue of our own accountability, but, at some point, may need to isolate that as an issue. I am somewhat frustrated by how reactionary people are to slivers of information curated for precisely that purpose.
Scott, this piece captures something Jefferson wrestled with constantly - the tension between empirical reality and idealistic principles. Your Franklin quote is spot-on, but I keep thinking about Jefferson's approach: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion."
The challenge isn't just constitutional - it's practical. When local institutions fail (as you note about LA), we face Jefferson's dilemma: how do you apply principled governance to broken systems? Jefferson himself had to navigate between ideal constitutional frameworks and messy empirical realities.
Maybe the real question isn't whether military intervention violates liberty (it clearly does), but how we rebuild the local institutional trust that makes such interventions unnecessary. Jefferson would say: examine the evidence, acknowledge the complexity, but don't abandon the principles.
Thoughtful piece that gets at the heart of how we balance constitutional idealism with governing reality.
Excellent analysis and thank you for adding to the conversation. I am constantly considering and reconsidering how to make the Federalists real in our times. The local perspective is valuable in correcting the challenge and something to consider as I plow ahead. Keep reading and contributing. Thank you for your valuable efforts on Jefferson.
All of your points can be reversed with a "other side of the coin" argument. Abortion for example, in which government tells women what their decision will be.
Conservatives are wrong about civil rights, LGBTQ rights and the environment. No question. There's a lot of fuzziness in most other policy issues. But it is so tiresome discussing issues with conservatives who are wholly incapable of thinking to themselves "maybe I'm wrong". Progressive people are a lot more fun ("happiness") to share a nation with because they're dynamic, flexible, questioning, inclusionary, and make me feel equal.
I prefer to debate the points I made, rather than those someone else made. My chief critics of my Federalist 8 piece were not progressives. I was raised by two and taught to listen to people, even if I disagreed with them. I can't account for the rest of the world.
Your argument reinforces my point that most people tend to gravitate towards like-minded individuals and shut out differing worldviews. I'm willing to hear you out, but interestingly, you're not practicing the "maybe I'm wrong" mantra either.
Agreed, people gravitate towards like-minded others.
But progressives, and decent Americans, haven't shut out differing worldviews. We have no problem, for example, with people who still believe in god.
But we reject, and condemn authoritarianism, and Trumpism. We have no tolerance for the damage Trump, the Republican Party, and far too many conservatives are doing to the nation and the world. I see your essay as part of the current conservative dynamic that supports and enables Trump. (I got to your essay because the internet is like that - one thing leads to another.)
Do you want to debate minimum wage? I could probably find agreement with you.
Birthright citizenship? I could probably find agreement also.
But what's import is the corrupt, lying, incompetent, sociopathic fool that is president, and the risk he poses to national security, the economy, and individual persons.
And we got here because conservatives think they're somehow smarter than everyone else. (I did debate your points - I pointed out the reverse are simply opposite sides of the same coin.)
A friend of mine was conservative. I asked him why he changed. He said he finally realized that powerful political conservatives were never going to do anything to make his life better. You're in a different position. Powerful conservatives can, possibly, improve you life.
Conservatives are having a big moment right now. But our nation and the world is more progressive than when I was born, and we'll be more progressive when I die than we are now. You guys are just in our way.
I’m not sure how you read this or any other piece I have written as advancing any cause outside of my own opinion. Not a single person or group in power today can possibly improve my life unless they willingly relinquish their power. You’re right, we’re not going to agree on much. I never promised that. I promised I’d listen. Our fundamental disagreement is whether entrusting any of these people with our welfare to the degree that they can “improve” our lives. The system that can do good with that power can also be exploited to do harm. Every single piece I have written focuses on that. It’s understanding the balance and retaining the firewalls. Those opinions are not really popular with any political persuasion.
Today’s essay reminds me of Padme’s line from Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” I keep coming back to the three variables of uncertainty: human nature - the slowest to change; norms and institutions - able to change incrementally as communities get better at identifying and correcting errors; and technology which moves too fast, often before human nature, norms and institutions can adapt. We live in one of those moments now.
Wonderful insight. I think the loss of institutional trust and faith combined with accepting what we see at face value has really created a mess for us.
As always, superb. Have there been any acceptable federal incursions on Constitutional rights, or would that be an oxymoron?
Even when Abraham Lincoln chose to suspend habeus corpus and encroach on the southern states he exceeded what needed to be done to successfully defeat the Confederacy and bring us back together.
Scott.
The words that stand out to me are “When we reach for troops instead of accountability…”
I think we agree that “troops” shouldn’t even be on the table as far as solutions go.
Accountability then becomes key I think. I am afraid that too many in Washington (both sides of the aisle) are more concerned with maintaining position and status quo than doing the right thing for their constituents.
And if that’s correct then I think accountability arrives in two forms. First, a free and fair press who is supposed to be delivering the news in a way that allows the electorate to make informed decisions. Second, the electorate who send the politicians to Washington in the first place. And is the electorate holding the press and the politicians accountable?
The ultimate question for me then, are the first and second things occurring such that “troops” are no longer necessary.
Excellent way to look at it. Self preservation is, regrettably, too much of the end game in Washington. It’s the last great bipartisan activity among the elected. In this piece, I do raise the issue of our own accountability, but, at some point, may need to isolate that as an issue. I am somewhat frustrated by how reactionary people are to slivers of information curated for precisely that purpose.
Scott, this piece captures something Jefferson wrestled with constantly - the tension between empirical reality and idealistic principles. Your Franklin quote is spot-on, but I keep thinking about Jefferson's approach: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion."
The challenge isn't just constitutional - it's practical. When local institutions fail (as you note about LA), we face Jefferson's dilemma: how do you apply principled governance to broken systems? Jefferson himself had to navigate between ideal constitutional frameworks and messy empirical realities.
Maybe the real question isn't whether military intervention violates liberty (it clearly does), but how we rebuild the local institutional trust that makes such interventions unnecessary. Jefferson would say: examine the evidence, acknowledge the complexity, but don't abandon the principles.
Thoughtful piece that gets at the heart of how we balance constitutional idealism with governing reality.
Excellent analysis and thank you for adding to the conversation. I am constantly considering and reconsidering how to make the Federalists real in our times. The local perspective is valuable in correcting the challenge and something to consider as I plow ahead. Keep reading and contributing. Thank you for your valuable efforts on Jefferson.
Right. But maybe you're wrong.
All of your points can be reversed with a "other side of the coin" argument. Abortion for example, in which government tells women what their decision will be.
Conservatives are wrong about civil rights, LGBTQ rights and the environment. No question. There's a lot of fuzziness in most other policy issues. But it is so tiresome discussing issues with conservatives who are wholly incapable of thinking to themselves "maybe I'm wrong". Progressive people are a lot more fun ("happiness") to share a nation with because they're dynamic, flexible, questioning, inclusionary, and make me feel equal.
But, maybe I'm wrong.
I prefer to debate the points I made, rather than those someone else made. My chief critics of my Federalist 8 piece were not progressives. I was raised by two and taught to listen to people, even if I disagreed with them. I can't account for the rest of the world.
Your argument reinforces my point that most people tend to gravitate towards like-minded individuals and shut out differing worldviews. I'm willing to hear you out, but interestingly, you're not practicing the "maybe I'm wrong" mantra either.
Just food for thought.
Agreed, people gravitate towards like-minded others.
But progressives, and decent Americans, haven't shut out differing worldviews. We have no problem, for example, with people who still believe in god.
But we reject, and condemn authoritarianism, and Trumpism. We have no tolerance for the damage Trump, the Republican Party, and far too many conservatives are doing to the nation and the world. I see your essay as part of the current conservative dynamic that supports and enables Trump. (I got to your essay because the internet is like that - one thing leads to another.)
Do you want to debate minimum wage? I could probably find agreement with you.
Birthright citizenship? I could probably find agreement also.
But what's import is the corrupt, lying, incompetent, sociopathic fool that is president, and the risk he poses to national security, the economy, and individual persons.
And we got here because conservatives think they're somehow smarter than everyone else. (I did debate your points - I pointed out the reverse are simply opposite sides of the same coin.)
A friend of mine was conservative. I asked him why he changed. He said he finally realized that powerful political conservatives were never going to do anything to make his life better. You're in a different position. Powerful conservatives can, possibly, improve you life.
Conservatives are having a big moment right now. But our nation and the world is more progressive than when I was born, and we'll be more progressive when I die than we are now. You guys are just in our way.
I’m not sure how you read this or any other piece I have written as advancing any cause outside of my own opinion. Not a single person or group in power today can possibly improve my life unless they willingly relinquish their power. You’re right, we’re not going to agree on much. I never promised that. I promised I’d listen. Our fundamental disagreement is whether entrusting any of these people with our welfare to the degree that they can “improve” our lives. The system that can do good with that power can also be exploited to do harm. Every single piece I have written focuses on that. It’s understanding the balance and retaining the firewalls. Those opinions are not really popular with any political persuasion.
Thank you for reading and engaging.