Max, you asked these two not so rhetorical questions at the end of your essay: "Most of all, what comes after? What happens when there’s no need to feign unity any longer?"
You've read enough history to know the answers. Fire and the sword.
Many decades ago now, James F. Dunnigan wrote a classic book: "How to Stop a War". https://www.amazon.com/How-Stop-War-James-Dunnigan/dp/0385240090/ Bottom line is that sometimes the process of getting into a conflict reaches a point from which there is no coming back. i pray we are not at that point. But I am not so sure we are not.
Max, if you haven't read Sebastian Junger's book Tribe you should. It's about how the military uses tribal loyalty on a small scale and the ways out society has attempted to foster it on a very large one. Most usefully, it was written before Trump's first presidency.
My favorite quote from the book: "A country is just a very large foxhole. Anyone who doubts this hasn't thought it through."
I'll have to read it eventually. I'll say now that you can't make a country a giant foxhole unless that country fights an existential war for survival.
"It appears they decided that proving their critics right was the better move. Maybe it was, too. I disagree with Vanessa Mares that it was a bad look. Most Democrats aren’t going to break with the party over this, because they agree - there’s no difference between Americans and foreigners. We’re all human, so why draw boundaries?"
I disagree. Politics is now a game of inches in US. I think that way less than half the country agrees with what Dems did here and for those voters to get a slap in the face on this issue is clarifying. Protecting the country from invaders is really the highest priority issue and Dems have now shown that they won't do it. Even in the Minneapolis situation, Frey/Walz tried to pretend that they cared about violence and crime, even if they didn't. Now that they can't really hide their true attitude, it's a powerful issue and foolish of them to offer this up.
If a Dem president asked how many people in the audience believed that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, it would look bad if all GOP stayed in their seats. You want to come across as reasonable and fact based even if there are nuanced differences between you and the other party. Dems failed here.
There are very few independent voters left. Most everyone's votes trend Democratic or Republican, even if they're not strong partisans. It doesn't really matter how people think because it rarely changes voting patterns.
The Trump administration really believed they won by a landslide in 2024. They certainly won the electoral vote decisively, but the popular vote by less than 2%. Biden won by a much wider margin in 2020. Still, the Trump administration acted like they won 60% of the vote. They're really paying for that foolishness now.
Max, you asked these two not so rhetorical questions at the end of your essay: "Most of all, what comes after? What happens when there’s no need to feign unity any longer?"
You've read enough history to know the answers. Fire and the sword.
Many decades ago now, James F. Dunnigan wrote a classic book: "How to Stop a War". https://www.amazon.com/How-Stop-War-James-Dunnigan/dp/0385240090/ Bottom line is that sometimes the process of getting into a conflict reaches a point from which there is no coming back. i pray we are not at that point. But I am not so sure we are not.
Max, if you haven't read Sebastian Junger's book Tribe you should. It's about how the military uses tribal loyalty on a small scale and the ways out society has attempted to foster it on a very large one. Most usefully, it was written before Trump's first presidency.
My favorite quote from the book: "A country is just a very large foxhole. Anyone who doubts this hasn't thought it through."
I'll have to read it eventually. I'll say now that you can't make a country a giant foxhole unless that country fights an existential war for survival.
I agree with everything Max says. Now for the separation, 'intentional communities' first.
Second point, Trump's antics are damaging to Vance by association. Someone needs to speak to him.
"It appears they decided that proving their critics right was the better move. Maybe it was, too. I disagree with Vanessa Mares that it was a bad look. Most Democrats aren’t going to break with the party over this, because they agree - there’s no difference between Americans and foreigners. We’re all human, so why draw boundaries?"
I disagree. Politics is now a game of inches in US. I think that way less than half the country agrees with what Dems did here and for those voters to get a slap in the face on this issue is clarifying. Protecting the country from invaders is really the highest priority issue and Dems have now shown that they won't do it. Even in the Minneapolis situation, Frey/Walz tried to pretend that they cared about violence and crime, even if they didn't. Now that they can't really hide their true attitude, it's a powerful issue and foolish of them to offer this up.
If a Dem president asked how many people in the audience believed that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, it would look bad if all GOP stayed in their seats. You want to come across as reasonable and fact based even if there are nuanced differences between you and the other party. Dems failed here.
There are very few independent voters left. Most everyone's votes trend Democratic or Republican, even if they're not strong partisans. It doesn't really matter how people think because it rarely changes voting patterns.
The Trump administration really believed they won by a landslide in 2024. They certainly won the electoral vote decisively, but the popular vote by less than 2%. Biden won by a much wider margin in 2020. Still, the Trump administration acted like they won 60% of the vote. They're really paying for that foolishness now.