The question becomes, how do we stopped a potential threat against a country and its people if we can't truthfully write about about that threat? What happens to this nation if Trump is elected. Like Hitler's Mein Kampf, Trump and Project 2025 lays out what he plans to do. Did Hitler's opponents read Mein Kampf and warn the German people? Why is MSNBC been the only news media channel to say anything about Project 2025?
Why is our rhetoric a threat and not Trump's when he is gleeful about violence, locking up people because of who they are, his enemies list, etc? I do not advocate violence. I believe in the ballot, but what happens if Trump loses. Trump has already said he will not accept an electoral defeat. We saw what happened on January 6. Trump used violence. His followers built a gallows. What would have happened if the had caught Pence, Adam Schiff, Pelosi, etc. Would we have seen their executions?
So we have words. We warn. We encourage people to vote against Trump. As a writer, LGBQT, woman, left-leaning, I worry about what might happen to me.
Karen, you seem to be exceedingly uncurious about the mountain of suspicious evidence surrounding the events of January 6th. Take Dan's advice and don't simply accept the "obvious and logic" conclusion. More to the point, you follow the standard line of redistributing responsibility away from where it properly belongs. Security of the Capitol and of DC were the responsibility of Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor - all Democrats. Trump implored them to beef up security days before the event, and he was pointedly rebuffed. Why is that? It's almost like they *wanted* something to happen...
My speculation is that Trump "allowed" the protest to go on as long as he did, before asking them to disperse, because he wanted Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor to wear it. If so, he was naïve to think that it wouldn't fall on his shoulders given the political climate (and his own loss of power). Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor all had better political instincts than Trump, knowing that Trump would end up taking the blame for their failures.
If my speculation is correct, then it isn't Trump who is the threat to democracy; the threat comes from those who would manipulate events against their political opponents in such a cynical and harmful way as this. We have a shit-ton of evidence from the "Twitter files" that the deep-state swamp is perfectly capable of and willing to do that. We have a shit-ton of evidence from the parade of show trials Trump has been subjected to that even the legal system is corrupted by political motivations. So pick your poison. At least one side are fascists who subvert democratic processes. Maybe both are.
Finally, as a left-leaning American LGBQT female writer, you belong to one of the most privileged segments of society in history. What will happen to you depends primarily on you. Take responsibility for your own self.
What evidence? Trump made no such requests. Have you read Project 2025? Have you listened to Trump's rhetoric over the last decade? I have. That is my evidence.
Just because you turn a blind eye to the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. Trump has stated numerous times that he requested extra security before January 6th. This is backed up by the sworn testimony of Pence's own security advisor, Keith Kellogg. But Trump shouldn't have had to make the request; it was obvious from the intelligence the security agencies had assembled weeks in advance. There were over 200 undercover FBI and CIA agents embedded in the crowd. The chief of White House security, Steven Sund, also requested extra forces six times on January 6th, and was rebuffed each time. The entire debacle is the fault of the Democrats in charge, clearly.
Did Trump write Project 2025? When did he endorse it? I don't know anything about it, sorry. I've only heard the name mentioned recently.
You rarely get the actual footage of Trump's speeches in the mainstream media. They might play it once at the beginning of the news cycle, and then spend the next 24 or 48 hours paraphrasing, drawing inferences, and misrepresenting what he said. It's the old "there are very fine people on both sides" trick. That seems to be what you have fallen victim to the past 10 years - not listening to Trump but to his dishonest critics.
Dan, I've already given you my speculation on the matter. I don't think Trump wanted the storming of the Capitol to happen - the evidence is that he had asked in advance for more security, and implored his followers to respect law enforcement and "protest peacefully" on the day. However, I DO think he was content to let the storming of the Capitol proceed after the fact, thinking that the Democrats who were responsible for Capitol security would wear it. If I'm right in that speculation, that is NOT to say that Trump's response was acceptable; it is still damning of Trump. But it is not damning him as pure evil; at most it is explaining why the non-intervention was understandable given how badly the Democrats had treated him for the four years previously.
I can look at the events of January 6th and not see a totally evil monster behind them. I don't think most of those who stormed the Capitol were evil people, either - misguided and reckless, certainly, but not evil. I think that is a pretty clear-eyed and middle-ground assessment, which nobody in either camp likes. Everyone else wants to see it in black-and-white, whereas I can discern shades of grey. It is a sad day when those who can discern shades of grey and wrongful conduct on all sides of political events are perceived as the nutbars. But we are the ones who are arguing in practical terms to tone the extremism down a notch or two.
Grant, you ignored the biggest and most obvious argument against Trump, and the voluminous evidence in support of it, while chastising someone else for "turning a blind eye." Physician heal thyself.
I'd also note that what you have conceded here amounts to a straightforward violation of Trump's oath of office and, whatever the culpability of others -- and I'm perfectly prepared to think others are blameworthy -- is impeachable. This is a man who should have been impeached and convicted but is now likely to be returned to office. You should be outraged.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
Whether this particular psycho was inspired by relentless claims that Trump is "Hitler", "an existential threat to democracy," etc. is an open question. Nevertheless, it remains the case that when politicians and media denounce someone in this manner and claim that he must be stopped "at all costs," there may be someone sufficiently unhinged to commit murder who takes them at their word. It's unclear if this is a bug or a feature in the minds of those spouting such claims.
The unhinged may be inspired by almost anything. Even a Jodi Foster movie.
And what if a candidate is in fact a threat to democracy? Should we not say so least someone conclude violence is warranted?
As to your bug or feature comment, absent evidence which you do not provide, and of which I am unfamiliar, it is a nasty, unwarranted insinuation — as baseless and unfair as similar claims pointed in the opposite direction after the shooting Congresswoman Giffords.
If you look at X a.k.a. Twitter and the number of posters saying "sorry he missed" and similar things then you might revise your conclusion that the insinuation is unwarranted. In any case, if someone really in his heart believes that Trump is "Hitler", what perfectly logical conclusions might he draw about what methods are on the table if the goal is to stop him? Do we regard the people who tried to kill the real Hitler as heroes or villains?
"And what if a candidate is in fact a threat to democracy?"
Do you imagine that anyone can possibly know such a thing and therefore be justified in taking direct action against the candidate? Certainly none of the half-hinged media commenters making such a claim actually have that knowledge.
One thing is certain, Dan: You can't claim that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and also deplore the political violence that was inflicted on Trump on the weekend. That inconsistency brands 90% of the rabid anti-Trump pundits and politicians as hypocrites at least, mendacious at worst.
I'm not aware of any significant figure who has portrayed Trump as "the reincarnation of Hitler." Care to point one out? (Yes, lots of ordinary people have. X is awash in it. But then that's hardly new. Jon Stewart did a gag years ago, before Trump became a politician, in which he held a sign saying "I disagree with what you say but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.")
You sometimes make me wonder what kind of a bubble you live in, Dan. Maybe you should expand your search criteria just a bit to see what is really happening in the world of politics. Try following Victor Davis Hansen as a start.
No, I don't care to educate you on this point, Dan. You can go on YouTube yourself and find mash-ups of endless pundits and politicians saying that Trump's words come straight out of _Mein Kampf_. You have a commenter and self-described writer just below who thinks Trump wanted his followers to murder his political enemies, including his own VP at the time. C'mon, man!
As regards the Trump shooting, there is only one point that is absolutely indisputable (kinda): Trump was shot. Well, he was "apparently" shot because some folks are already disputing even that, so I say it is kinda indisuptable.
Clearly someone was "caught in the act" and died. Well, someone died but was he "caught in the act?" Again ....
So, if we accept (again, some don't) that Trump was shot, all I can say with accuracy is
a) Trump was shot; and
b) He was shot by someone who was mentally disturbed [After all, is it "normal" to shoot someone? Don't answer that!].
While we can say that the shooter was mentally disturbed we cannot say that there was or was not an ideological motive. For the sake of argument, there are legions of stories about folks who stalk Hollywood stars (and even harm them) but have no ideological motive. Could it be the same with the Trump shooting? I certainly don't know and similarly, no member of the public knows. We have opinions but knowledge? Not so much.
I feel like "beware the obvious and logical" is terrible advice. The obvious and logical has a high chance of being correct! Non-TV police detectives are aware that the obvious suspects and motives are, actually, the best ones to investigate first. Sure, logical ideas are often wrong, but still more likely to be right than any particular offbeat one. (And I would put umbrella-wielding assassins in the offbeat category, not the logical one, myself.)
Perhaps a better takeaway is "rare events have rare causes". Assassinations are rare, strong political beliefs are common, so one is probably not a significant cause of the other, even if they seem like they should be intuitively linked.
I'm not sure what you have taken "beware the obvious and logical" to mean, so let me be explicit: It does NOT mean "dismiss the obvious and logical." It simply means to "beware" the trap of thinking that the obvious and logical is necessarily the explanation and you need not investigate further.
As to your last paragraph, I can't agree. Rare events may have rare causes. Or they may not. As to strong political beliefs causing assassinations... History records LOTS of instances of exactly that.
"Beware X" carries an implication of "X should be avoided", to me, but I suppose this longer version doesn't fit in a headline. Headlines seem hard.
Fair enough, my headline attempt doesn't hold up well either!
In any case, I love the Long anecdotes. Although I'm a bit skeptical of how you try to derive actionable morals from the stories, the history does keep me coming back.
Enjoyed this, as I do almost all of your work. Watched the NYT video you linked, and I can’t get out of my head what an odd sort of protest “umbrella man” was engaging in. It would be like me standing in front of the White House wearing a sandwich board that said “U.S. OUT [of Vietnam]-NOW!” on one side and “Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” on the other.
The talk of improbable explanations and presidential assassinations of course brings to mind JFK. A lot of improbable things needed to happen that day to bring the motorcade within the iron sights of Oswald. My favourite theory for that day relies on a most improbable component, but has huge explanatory power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error
In summary, Oswald shot at the president a few times, hit him once in the back. At the sound of gunfire, the car in front of the president speeds up, the agent standing with an AR-15 is jolted, accidentally fires the shot that kills the president (back and to the left?). A secret service led cover-up that obscures evidence commences, outlandish conspiracies start.
I don't know whether I should believe it, but I love how "simple" and "improbable" it is.
The link that is supposed to go to the Errol Morris movie goes your Google search for it. This is the direct link: https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html
Thanks, indeed a good short film
Thanks!
The question becomes, how do we stopped a potential threat against a country and its people if we can't truthfully write about about that threat? What happens to this nation if Trump is elected. Like Hitler's Mein Kampf, Trump and Project 2025 lays out what he plans to do. Did Hitler's opponents read Mein Kampf and warn the German people? Why is MSNBC been the only news media channel to say anything about Project 2025?
Why is our rhetoric a threat and not Trump's when he is gleeful about violence, locking up people because of who they are, his enemies list, etc? I do not advocate violence. I believe in the ballot, but what happens if Trump loses. Trump has already said he will not accept an electoral defeat. We saw what happened on January 6. Trump used violence. His followers built a gallows. What would have happened if the had caught Pence, Adam Schiff, Pelosi, etc. Would we have seen their executions?
So we have words. We warn. We encourage people to vote against Trump. As a writer, LGBQT, woman, left-leaning, I worry about what might happen to me.
Karen, you seem to be exceedingly uncurious about the mountain of suspicious evidence surrounding the events of January 6th. Take Dan's advice and don't simply accept the "obvious and logic" conclusion. More to the point, you follow the standard line of redistributing responsibility away from where it properly belongs. Security of the Capitol and of DC were the responsibility of Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor - all Democrats. Trump implored them to beef up security days before the event, and he was pointedly rebuffed. Why is that? It's almost like they *wanted* something to happen...
My speculation is that Trump "allowed" the protest to go on as long as he did, before asking them to disperse, because he wanted Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor to wear it. If so, he was naïve to think that it wouldn't fall on his shoulders given the political climate (and his own loss of power). Pelosi, Schumer, and the Mayor all had better political instincts than Trump, knowing that Trump would end up taking the blame for their failures.
If my speculation is correct, then it isn't Trump who is the threat to democracy; the threat comes from those who would manipulate events against their political opponents in such a cynical and harmful way as this. We have a shit-ton of evidence from the "Twitter files" that the deep-state swamp is perfectly capable of and willing to do that. We have a shit-ton of evidence from the parade of show trials Trump has been subjected to that even the legal system is corrupted by political motivations. So pick your poison. At least one side are fascists who subvert democratic processes. Maybe both are.
Finally, as a left-leaning American LGBQT female writer, you belong to one of the most privileged segments of society in history. What will happen to you depends primarily on you. Take responsibility for your own self.
What evidence? Trump made no such requests. Have you read Project 2025? Have you listened to Trump's rhetoric over the last decade? I have. That is my evidence.
Just because you turn a blind eye to the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. Trump has stated numerous times that he requested extra security before January 6th. This is backed up by the sworn testimony of Pence's own security advisor, Keith Kellogg. But Trump shouldn't have had to make the request; it was obvious from the intelligence the security agencies had assembled weeks in advance. There were over 200 undercover FBI and CIA agents embedded in the crowd. The chief of White House security, Steven Sund, also requested extra forces six times on January 6th, and was rebuffed each time. The entire debacle is the fault of the Democrats in charge, clearly.
Did Trump write Project 2025? When did he endorse it? I don't know anything about it, sorry. I've only heard the name mentioned recently.
You rarely get the actual footage of Trump's speeches in the mainstream media. They might play it once at the beginning of the news cycle, and then spend the next 24 or 48 hours paraphrasing, drawing inferences, and misrepresenting what he said. It's the old "there are very fine people on both sides" trick. That seems to be what you have fallen victim to the past 10 years - not listening to Trump but to his dishonest critics.
"Blind eye," Grant? In your lengthy comments you don't mention the most damning evidence against Trump: In the long period when the mob was attacked the capital, Trump watched live on television. A parade of major conservatives -- even Don Jr.! -- messaged the White House all but begging Trump to condemn what was happening and tell his followers to stop. Trump did nothing, only watched. For three hours. It's almost as if -- to use your phrase -- he wanted what was happening to happen. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-probes-season-finale-focus-trump-supporters-three-hour-rage-2022-07-21/. https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-panel-hearing-3e3dc618ed8cee37147cf6a792c0c0fa
Dan, I've already given you my speculation on the matter. I don't think Trump wanted the storming of the Capitol to happen - the evidence is that he had asked in advance for more security, and implored his followers to respect law enforcement and "protest peacefully" on the day. However, I DO think he was content to let the storming of the Capitol proceed after the fact, thinking that the Democrats who were responsible for Capitol security would wear it. If I'm right in that speculation, that is NOT to say that Trump's response was acceptable; it is still damning of Trump. But it is not damning him as pure evil; at most it is explaining why the non-intervention was understandable given how badly the Democrats had treated him for the four years previously.
I can look at the events of January 6th and not see a totally evil monster behind them. I don't think most of those who stormed the Capitol were evil people, either - misguided and reckless, certainly, but not evil. I think that is a pretty clear-eyed and middle-ground assessment, which nobody in either camp likes. Everyone else wants to see it in black-and-white, whereas I can discern shades of grey. It is a sad day when those who can discern shades of grey and wrongful conduct on all sides of political events are perceived as the nutbars. But we are the ones who are arguing in practical terms to tone the extremism down a notch or two.
Grant, you ignored the biggest and most obvious argument against Trump, and the voluminous evidence in support of it, while chastising someone else for "turning a blind eye." Physician heal thyself.
I'd also note that what you have conceded here amounts to a straightforward violation of Trump's oath of office and, whatever the culpability of others -- and I'm perfectly prepared to think others are blameworthy -- is impeachable. This is a man who should have been impeached and convicted but is now likely to be returned to office. You should be outraged.
Speculation is not fact. Trump incited the violence. It is there on film.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
You're certainly entitled to your opinions, even those derived mostly from your imagination. Considering Trump or anyone else to be a threat to his country is just that and, unless you have a lot of secret insider knowledge to confirm that opinion, is nothing more than an opinion and not justification for inflammatory rhetoric or desperate attempts to stop the "threat".
Whether this particular psycho was inspired by relentless claims that Trump is "Hitler", "an existential threat to democracy," etc. is an open question. Nevertheless, it remains the case that when politicians and media denounce someone in this manner and claim that he must be stopped "at all costs," there may be someone sufficiently unhinged to commit murder who takes them at their word. It's unclear if this is a bug or a feature in the minds of those spouting such claims.
The unhinged may be inspired by almost anything. Even a Jodi Foster movie.
And what if a candidate is in fact a threat to democracy? Should we not say so least someone conclude violence is warranted?
As to your bug or feature comment, absent evidence which you do not provide, and of which I am unfamiliar, it is a nasty, unwarranted insinuation — as baseless and unfair as similar claims pointed in the opposite direction after the shooting Congresswoman Giffords.
If you look at X a.k.a. Twitter and the number of posters saying "sorry he missed" and similar things then you might revise your conclusion that the insinuation is unwarranted. In any case, if someone really in his heart believes that Trump is "Hitler", what perfectly logical conclusions might he draw about what methods are on the table if the goal is to stop him? Do we regard the people who tried to kill the real Hitler as heroes or villains?
"And what if a candidate is in fact a threat to democracy?"
Do you imagine that anyone can possibly know such a thing and therefore be justified in taking direct action against the candidate? Certainly none of the half-hinged media commenters making such a claim actually have that knowledge.
One thing is certain, Dan: You can't claim that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and also deplore the political violence that was inflicted on Trump on the weekend. That inconsistency brands 90% of the rabid anti-Trump pundits and politicians as hypocrites at least, mendacious at worst.
I'm not aware of any significant figure who has portrayed Trump as "the reincarnation of Hitler." Care to point one out? (Yes, lots of ordinary people have. X is awash in it. But then that's hardly new. Jon Stewart did a gag years ago, before Trump became a politician, in which he held a sign saying "I disagree with what you say but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.")
JD Vance called Trump "America's Hitler" (in private): https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/07/15/jd-vance-trump-criticism/
You sometimes make me wonder what kind of a bubble you live in, Dan. Maybe you should expand your search criteria just a bit to see what is really happening in the world of politics. Try following Victor Davis Hansen as a start.
No, I don't care to educate you on this point, Dan. You can go on YouTube yourself and find mash-ups of endless pundits and politicians saying that Trump's words come straight out of _Mein Kampf_. You have a commenter and self-described writer just below who thinks Trump wanted his followers to murder his political enemies, including his own VP at the time. C'mon, man!
Really great article. Excellent background and context. Why do we draw conclusions before we have the facts?
Because most of us bipeds want/need/crave certainty.... these days at Internet speed?
Really great writing. Thank you.
Good column, Sir.
As regards the Trump shooting, there is only one point that is absolutely indisputable (kinda): Trump was shot. Well, he was "apparently" shot because some folks are already disputing even that, so I say it is kinda indisuptable.
Clearly someone was "caught in the act" and died. Well, someone died but was he "caught in the act?" Again ....
So, if we accept (again, some don't) that Trump was shot, all I can say with accuracy is
a) Trump was shot; and
b) He was shot by someone who was mentally disturbed [After all, is it "normal" to shoot someone? Don't answer that!].
While we can say that the shooter was mentally disturbed we cannot say that there was or was not an ideological motive. For the sake of argument, there are legions of stories about folks who stalk Hollywood stars (and even harm them) but have no ideological motive. Could it be the same with the Trump shooting? I certainly don't know and similarly, no member of the public knows. We have opinions but knowledge? Not so much.
I feel like "beware the obvious and logical" is terrible advice. The obvious and logical has a high chance of being correct! Non-TV police detectives are aware that the obvious suspects and motives are, actually, the best ones to investigate first. Sure, logical ideas are often wrong, but still more likely to be right than any particular offbeat one. (And I would put umbrella-wielding assassins in the offbeat category, not the logical one, myself.)
Perhaps a better takeaway is "rare events have rare causes". Assassinations are rare, strong political beliefs are common, so one is probably not a significant cause of the other, even if they seem like they should be intuitively linked.
I'm not sure what you have taken "beware the obvious and logical" to mean, so let me be explicit: It does NOT mean "dismiss the obvious and logical." It simply means to "beware" the trap of thinking that the obvious and logical is necessarily the explanation and you need not investigate further.
As to your last paragraph, I can't agree. Rare events may have rare causes. Or they may not. As to strong political beliefs causing assassinations... History records LOTS of instances of exactly that.
"Beware X" carries an implication of "X should be avoided", to me, but I suppose this longer version doesn't fit in a headline. Headlines seem hard.
Fair enough, my headline attempt doesn't hold up well either!
In any case, I love the Long anecdotes. Although I'm a bit skeptical of how you try to derive actionable morals from the stories, the history does keep me coming back.
Enjoyed this, as I do almost all of your work. Watched the NYT video you linked, and I can’t get out of my head what an odd sort of protest “umbrella man” was engaging in. It would be like me standing in front of the White House wearing a sandwich board that said “U.S. OUT [of Vietnam]-NOW!” on one side and “Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” on the other.
In 1993-during the Clinton administration.
The talk of improbable explanations and presidential assassinations of course brings to mind JFK. A lot of improbable things needed to happen that day to bring the motorcade within the iron sights of Oswald. My favourite theory for that day relies on a most improbable component, but has huge explanatory power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error
In summary, Oswald shot at the president a few times, hit him once in the back. At the sound of gunfire, the car in front of the president speeds up, the agent standing with an AR-15 is jolted, accidentally fires the shot that kills the president (back and to the left?). A secret service led cover-up that obscures evidence commences, outlandish conspiracies start.
I don't know whether I should believe it, but I love how "simple" and "improbable" it is.