▲ 22 points
back
21 comments
I have to say, the cognitive dissonance in our modern time is pretty crazy to me. Yes, the Jan 6 riots were bad and certainly embarrassing. No, I don't think that a bunch of MAGA morons running around in the capitol is a serious threat to our democracy. At the time, I just thought it was more pathetic than anything else. We have a freaking military to safeguard against these kinds of things. But if I said that in public then I'd probably be called some kind of X-ist.
Meanwhile, the BLM protests last summer changed my life pretty drastically. The dystopian free speech crackdown is still ongoing. My old college town got completely boarded up. Literally every major city in the US experienced violent unrest for months. And the craziest part? You STILL aren't allowed to talk about this without being called an X-ist or being ostracized.
One event was just one day, and I only experienced it through the news, and it was literally a bunch of idiots running around for less than an afternoon. The other crippled US cities for months, prompted a wave of censorship, and inflamed social tensions like I have never seen before. But no, the first one is the threat to democracy, because my media overlords told me so.
I'm aware that this probably isn't a very popular opinion, please know that I don't mean it in ill will. I just think it's kind of absurd that we can freak out and denounce one thing but not even criticize the other.
> aren't allowed to talk about this
Please note former President Obama has talked about the problems with wokeness and cancel culture over the years, saying people aren’t perfect and it’s not activism [0, 1, 2].
[0]: https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-cancel-culture-overboard
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/politics/obama-woke-ca...
I absolutely 100% agree with Obama on this.
Unfortunately, our society is awash in double standards. Obama is a former president and a Black man. That means in the eyes of the Twitter mob, he can pretty much say whatever he damn well pleases. I unfortunately am just a white nobody, and people won't give me the benefit of the doubt.
All I can do is hope that people like Obama, or people like John McWhorter, continue to use their platforms to try and spew some sanity into the discourse. Because my megaphone is booby trapped, if I tried to voice these opinions under my real identity I'd likely lose my job or something.
> I unfortunately am just a white nobody
I'm a nobody as well but I don't use my White skin color as an excuse.
Everyone can find ways in which they feel put upon by society, but Whites in the U.S. are probably not worried about being executed in routine traffic stops.
I think the Bible parable about the lost sheep puts it rather concisely and you and I are not the lost sheep.
> continue to use their platforms to try and spew some sanity into the discourse.
Agreed, great points.
Our democracy has mostly worked for almost 250 years - other than during the civil war - because of a single fact: all participants agreed to play by the rules.
A democracy is a social construct, it only exists because we all accept to follow its rules, and the single most important factor is that participants accept the results of elections. And this responsibility falls especially on candidates. It’s not a perfect system but it’s certainly better than the alternative.
BLM riots were never a danger to our democracy, there have been riots many times in our nation’s history.
But what has never happened before is a sitting president refusing to accept the result of an election, even after all reasonable legal recourse have been exhausted and it is clear that the election was fair, as certified by republican judges and republican officials in charge of that election.
BTW yours is not an unpopular opinion, unfortunately it is a very popular opinion with at least 70%+ of republicans, and that is why our democracy is in danger, the big lie about the election being stolen is the real danger.
I don't think this is necessarily true. We have had similarly disputed election results in the past, like the corrupt bargain of 1824, or the compromise of 1876. It's more of an annoyed grumble about the "stolen election" rather than a hysterical battle cry.
And while I'm at it, let's not pretend like it's just the right that does this stuff. I seem to recall 4 shrill years of people freaking out about how Russia hacked the election (which turned out to be a big nothing burger). Wasn't this just as damaging to democracy?
I think at the end of the day idiots will be idiots, and I'm not too concerned about a bunch of idiots complaining about the election they lost.
Clinton conceded. Where is trump’s concession? That is how democracy functions, losers have to concede or you end up in the situation we are in right now.
The russia investigation’s conclusions was that there was interference.
An annoyed grumble? yeah right. it’s not a bunch of idiots complaining, it is the entire reasoning of the republican party right now, and anyone who dares to question it and dear leader is swiftly canceled/primaried.
You absolutely can criticize both. Come on, man, you're doing it right now.
> I don't think that a bunch of MAGA morons running around in the capitol is a serious threat to our democracy.
You should be worried as to how and why it is they felt inclined to prevent and reverse a peaceful and legal election. There were/are some extremely powerful people pressing narratives in order to obtain power by means outside our democratic election process. Our democracy/society feels very much like it is teetering. The degree to which the crowd was embarrassing a year ago does not in any way temper my worry about the future.
Just a few notes on this comment:
-No, we don't "have a military to safeguard against" this kind of attack—that's not what the military is supposed to be for, and of course in fact, as we know in great detail, the military was entirely useless on that day and people died because of that
-You don't think that storming the Capitol and successfully stopping the counting of electoral votes in an intentional effort to overturn an election is a threat to democracy? Well, you're just wrong. It was a very direct threat to one of the most important rituals of our democracy.
-How precisely did BLM "change your life drastically"? What free speech crackdown?
-You're "allowed" to talk about whatever you want. But part of free speech is being held responsible for your speech and having to deal with others' reactions to your speech. If you can't handle that, or think that's unfair, you don't truly understand what "free speech" actually means.
-The attack on democracy embodied by Jan. 6th did not just last "one day"; no. It is ongoing to this very day.
The Reichstag Fire only lasted two and a half hours, nobody was killed or hurt, and life in the city of Berlin was not interrupted at all.
I stopped reading at "almost succeeded". Maybe the rest of the article is good, but I'm so turned off by sophistry.
Yeah. I feel like the media doesn't realize it, but their spell is completely broken for many people. I'm now hyper-aware of all the disingenuous arguments and lies they put out. I guess this is what happens when you staff your newsroom with only young college leftists and allow them to bully the sane people out.
I’m glad he wrote this. One of the things I’m the most disappointed in over the last year is that the other living presidents haven’t strongly come out against the events of January 6th (and, preferably, the claims of fraud leading up to it).
I realize it’s traditional for ex-presidents to step out of the office and largely step away from presidential politics (except to promote a candidate).
But I feel like following that tradition over the last year has done a very large disservice to our democracy.
If Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had released some sort of strong joint statement I think it may have meant a lot.
I'm just as worried about the damage to democracy caused by the response to January 6th. January 6th set a series of destructive events in motion, but the threat of the insurrection itself could have been neutralized in minutes if someone in power had made the call to do so.
The problem was a great portion of those in power stood to benefit from it. So they weren’t going to neutralize it.
Jimmy is a good and intelligent man, and probably the most effective and accomplished of our ex-presidents. Everything he says in this op-ed piece is true.
However, I fear he is too idealistic and living in a past where a principled call to action for people of integrity could have a positive effect. We may well be too far down the rabbit hole at this point.
By what measure is Carter "probably the most effective and accomplished of our ex-presidents"? In terms of being effective, I don't think he is even comparable to FDR or LBJ. He didn't even manage to get reelected.
The hostage crisis and the botched Operation Eagle Claw [1] happened during his presidency. I kinda think that could make him a candidate for the list of the not-very-competent US ex-presidents.
I think GP means effective and accomplished in terms of what he did after leaving office.
I assumed allears meant living ex-presidents.