Shootings at UNC and in Jacksonville should remind us that the GOP has one policy objective: spreading fear. The party's cynical embrace of universal gun ownership is part of that program.
I share Potters distaste for what passes for the Republican Party in 2023, and I can do that without resorting to cheap, sensationalized quips like the “party is a terrorist organization”. That’s just silly and in reality counterproductive. The % of people that headline will attract or appeal to I less than the % of Republican voters supporting the Orange God King.
I keep waiting for someone, anyone to ask a candidate the same question posed to Dukakis in 1988, albeit using their kids or grandkids as the victim of gun violence instead of a spouse. Their reaction may mirror that of Joe the Plumber, but it would be embarrassing to say the least for them to admit that the 2nd Amendment is more important than their children’s or grandkids lives.
Because it minimizes the true horror and threat represented by actual terror groups, foreign and domestic. There are plenty of definitions out there and DHS has one as well. It deflects from the violent threats posed by white supremacist groups, far right violent groups, fundamentalist Islamic groups and all other kinds around the world. The Republican Party espouses political and cultural views that are reprehensible, unserious and dangerous and all those can be fought on the ground here by political and legal means. As we are doing. The Republican Party will eventually colapse like a supernova and splinter because it has to; there is no going back to pre-2008.
So, I think you make a fair point. And yet, it's hard to know how else to describe a group that rules by creating and intensifying fear. Guns, and the GOP's embrace of white supremacists groups like the Proud Boys, the Michigan Militia, and other militia groups are one feature of it. The second is laws terrorizing LGBT people, and concerted campaigns to eliminate conversation about race. But finally, January 6 and the constant threat that opposing extremism will incite civil war--I mean, these ongoing threats of violence, and then the eruption of actual violence are marekdly similar to the strategies of terrorist groups.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs and our differences are less than they appear. My concern is that labeling that party as a terrorist organization may prevent a proper and effective strategy to counter it and, forever stigmatize some members of it that still depart the dark side.
Technically - Terrorism proper is the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. Ultimately this is a battle, and war that will be fought state by state at the ballot box and courtroom. But - I do enjoy your writing and appreciate your engaging with me on this issue.
Actually.I don't think you are splitting hairs. You aren't wrong that a spicy, extreme headline is a way to get people to open my newsletter, given that they are probably subscribed to twelve of them and getting endless emails from politicians. My brother-in-law, who votes Republican but is registered independent, wrote me in a good-natured way to ask if I really though he supported terrorism.
In your second `graph you are exactly getting at what I was poking at in the piece--what if generating fear is a way to win elections when you have no policies and cannot win on the issues? And I do think that the guns, the alliances with white supremacists, overblown rhetoric about crime and immigrants and Antifa, the horrible book bans and attacks on trans kids--all are a way to generate pervasive, ongoing fear. And in the case of guns, it causes people who might not have otherwise been inclined to do so to arm themselves.
Jason Stanley, philosophy professor at Yale, would agree with your characterization of the Republican Party. He would add that it is not extreme but right on the nose. With all due respect to Mr. Gonzalez, he he includes on his list fundamentalist Islamic groups but fails to include the greater threat of fundamentalist Christians. According to Gonzalez, I should be nice to the terrorists so as not to stigmatize those who who were once a part of the problem but decided to leave? That is a prescription for normalizing evil. What is shocking is how few there are out there who have learned anything from history. Also what astounds me is that no one takes the time to clarify their labels. That might be why your brother-in-law reached out. I would have replied that our political situation is no longer about Democrats and Republicans, but rather it is about authoritarianism vs democracy. Recently, this was stated quite eloquently by conservative judge J. Michael Luttig. He also said, “There is no Republican Party.”
I share Potters distaste for what passes for the Republican Party in 2023, and I can do that without resorting to cheap, sensationalized quips like the “party is a terrorist organization”. That’s just silly and in reality counterproductive. The % of people that headline will attract or appeal to I less than the % of Republican voters supporting the Orange God King.
I keep waiting for someone, anyone to ask a candidate the same question posed to Dukakis in 1988, albeit using their kids or grandkids as the victim of gun violence instead of a spouse. Their reaction may mirror that of Joe the Plumber, but it would be embarrassing to say the least for them to admit that the 2nd Amendment is more important than their children’s or grandkids lives.
How would you describe the Republican Party then? “Terrorist organization” fits on so many levels. Why not call it like it is?
Because it minimizes the true horror and threat represented by actual terror groups, foreign and domestic. There are plenty of definitions out there and DHS has one as well. It deflects from the violent threats posed by white supremacist groups, far right violent groups, fundamentalist Islamic groups and all other kinds around the world. The Republican Party espouses political and cultural views that are reprehensible, unserious and dangerous and all those can be fought on the ground here by political and legal means. As we are doing. The Republican Party will eventually colapse like a supernova and splinter because it has to; there is no going back to pre-2008.
So, I think you make a fair point. And yet, it's hard to know how else to describe a group that rules by creating and intensifying fear. Guns, and the GOP's embrace of white supremacists groups like the Proud Boys, the Michigan Militia, and other militia groups are one feature of it. The second is laws terrorizing LGBT people, and concerted campaigns to eliminate conversation about race. But finally, January 6 and the constant threat that opposing extremism will incite civil war--I mean, these ongoing threats of violence, and then the eruption of actual violence are marekdly similar to the strategies of terrorist groups.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs and our differences are less than they appear. My concern is that labeling that party as a terrorist organization may prevent a proper and effective strategy to counter it and, forever stigmatize some members of it that still depart the dark side.
Technically - Terrorism proper is the calculated use of violence to generate fear, and thereby to achieve political goals, when direct military victory is not possible. Ultimately this is a battle, and war that will be fought state by state at the ballot box and courtroom. But - I do enjoy your writing and appreciate your engaging with me on this issue.
Actually.I don't think you are splitting hairs. You aren't wrong that a spicy, extreme headline is a way to get people to open my newsletter, given that they are probably subscribed to twelve of them and getting endless emails from politicians. My brother-in-law, who votes Republican but is registered independent, wrote me in a good-natured way to ask if I really though he supported terrorism.
In your second `graph you are exactly getting at what I was poking at in the piece--what if generating fear is a way to win elections when you have no policies and cannot win on the issues? And I do think that the guns, the alliances with white supremacists, overblown rhetoric about crime and immigrants and Antifa, the horrible book bans and attacks on trans kids--all are a way to generate pervasive, ongoing fear. And in the case of guns, it causes people who might not have otherwise been inclined to do so to arm themselves.
Happy to have you as a subscriber!
Jason Stanley, philosophy professor at Yale, would agree with your characterization of the Republican Party. He would add that it is not extreme but right on the nose. With all due respect to Mr. Gonzalez, he he includes on his list fundamentalist Islamic groups but fails to include the greater threat of fundamentalist Christians. According to Gonzalez, I should be nice to the terrorists so as not to stigmatize those who who were once a part of the problem but decided to leave? That is a prescription for normalizing evil. What is shocking is how few there are out there who have learned anything from history. Also what astounds me is that no one takes the time to clarify their labels. That might be why your brother-in-law reached out. I would have replied that our political situation is no longer about Democrats and Republicans, but rather it is about authoritarianism vs democracy. Recently, this was stated quite eloquently by conservative judge J. Michael Luttig. He also said, “There is no Republican Party.”