Civil War-again?

[Bootstrap]

It is very interesting to me to see how people switch trust in government on and off depending on their political views. It's hard to keep up.

That's why we need the balance of powers, more than one party, etc. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Because they are not, it's important to build systems that don’t depend on trusting whoever happens to be in power, but distribute authority, require due process, and provide checks on the use of force.

[mike]

It is very interesting to me to see how people switch trust in government on and off depending on their political views. It's hard to keep up.

That's why we need the balance of powers, more than one party, etc. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Because they are not, it's important to build systems that don’t depend on trusting whoever happens to be in power, but distribute authority, require due process, and provide checks on the use of force.

We already have all that. And again, this is meaningless to people who have chosen at this time to turn the trust switch off. And as soon as we have a D instead of an R at the top of government, they will flip the switch right back. Mark my words.

[Valerie]

It is very interesting to me to see how people switch trust in government on and off depending on their political views. It's hard to keep up.

That's why we need the balance of powers, more than one party, etc. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Because they are not, it's important to build systems that don’t depend on trusting whoever happens to be in power, but distribute authority, require due process, and provide checks on the use of force.

We already have all that. And again, this is meaningless to people who have chosen at this time to turn the trust switch off. And as soon as we have a D instead of an R at the top of government, they will flip the switch right back. Mark my words.

Prophecy

They say that Trump could invent the cure for cancer and the left would still be unhinged at him. There is so much hatred in their hearts like I’ve never seen anywhere else.

[Bootstrap]

That's why we need the balance of powers, more than one party, etc. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Because they are not, it's important to build systems that don’t depend on trusting whoever happens to be in power, but distribute authority, require due process, and provide checks on the use of force.

We already have all that. And again, this is meaningless to people who have chosen at this time to turn the trust switch off. And as soon as we have a D instead of an R at the top of government, they will flip the switch right back. Mark my words.

I think there's an attempt to "move fast and break things" - faster than the systems of accountability can show up, using "shock and awe" to intimidate people. And an attempt to use social media and media as a "court of public opinion", getting people dug in long before anything can be investigated.

To me, Congress is missing in action here. But even Congress is being intimidated. The courts are weighing in, slowly, because courts move slowly. So the balance of powers is missing.

[mike]

That's why we need the balance of powers, more than one party, etc. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

Because they are not, it's important to build systems that don’t depend on trusting whoever happens to be in power, but distribute authority, require due process, and provide checks on the use of force.

We already have all that. And again, this is meaningless to people who have chosen at this time to turn the trust switch off. And as soon as we have a D instead of an R at the top of government, they will flip the switch right back. Mark my words.

I think there's an attempt to "move fast and break things" - faster than the systems of accountability can show up, using "shock and awe" to intimidate people. And an attempt to use social media and media as a "court of public opinion", getting people dug in long before anything can be investigated.

But it's social media and the media who are doing this court of public opinion thing before it can be investigated, in this example of ICE allegedly 'kidnaping a child.'

[Bootstrap]

We already have all that. And again, this is meaningless to people who have chosen at this time to turn the trust switch off. And as soon as we have a D instead of an R at the top of government, they will flip the switch right back. Mark my words.

I think there's an attempt to "move fast and break things" - faster than the systems of accountability can show up, using "shock and awe" to intimidate people. And an attempt to use social media and media as a "court of public opinion", getting people dug in long before anything can be investigated.

But it's social media and the media who are doing this court of public opinion thing before it can be investigated, in this example of ICE allegedly 'kidnaping a child.'

Ah, I may have been unclear. To me, that's the problem in a nutshell. DHS, DOJ, and ICE are creating viral content for social media instead of being accountable to Congress or the Courts.

By the time it is actually investigated and verifiable information is widely available, everybody is entrenched. Social media moves so much faster than the courts or investigations, but it is a terrible substitute for them.

[mike]

I think there's an attempt to "move fast and break things" - faster than the systems of accountability can show up, using "shock and awe" to intimidate people. And an attempt to use social media and media as a "court of public opinion", getting people dug in long before anything can be investigated.

But it's social media and the media who are doing this court of public opinion thing before it can be investigated, in this example of ICE allegedly 'kidnaping a child.'

Ah, I may have been unclear. To me, that's the problem in a nutshell. DHS, DOJ, and ICE are creating viral content for social media instead of being accountable to Congress or the Courts.

By the time it is actually investigated and verifiable information is widely available, everybody is entrenched. Social media moves so much faster than the courts or investigations, but it is a terrible substitute for them.

Of course, which is why I don't get all that excited when I see headlines like "ICE DETAINS 5-YEAR OLD" on social media.

[ohio jones]

Of course citizens are not subject to removal. However, a wrongful deportation isn't a punishment - it's a civil remedy which is easily remedied by simply re-entering the United States.

Right. Unless you've actually done this, I don't think it's as easy or simple as that. Being deposited in another country without money or a passport or, in this day and age, a phone, introduces a few barriers. Just getting into the embassy (which may be in another city) for a temporary or replacement passport usually requires an online appointment, for starters.

[MattY]

I do not have the time or desire to keep up with everything in this thread, let alone everything out there in the news, and decide what I believe and who to trust about every single occurrence, accusation, and counter-accusation that comes up. As fast as this thread has been growing, I don't have time to go back and read everything and figure out everything that I agree with and don't agree with either.

But I suspect that's part of this administration's strategy. Constantly throwing out stuff, keeping people stirred up and angry at one side or the other, and getting reasonable people in the middle to get cynical about it all, throw up their hands and decide that no one can be trusted and mentally check out of the whole thing.

I am hearing the following possible positions:

1. I don't trust government, they should be transparent and accountable. There is a real chance that government can shoot someone without cause or mistakenly accuse someone who is innocent or perhaps even intentionally make up charges against someone to harass them.
2. I trust my political faction, but I don't trust anyone else's political faction. This is war, and I want my political faction to defeat the other side. If they say someone is guilty, I believe them. If someone from the other side is shot, I trust them. Sometimes we are even at war between different branches of government.
3. I trust my government completely. If they say someone is guilty, I trust them. If they shoot someone, I trust them.
...
4. I don't know who to trust except for God. I pray for the good of the country, but I do not put my trust in man, period, and I do not want to say how it should be governed.

Of course I want to trust God more than men. But I don't see myself in any of these boxes. It really depends on who is in the government and who is making the claims, but option #2 doesn't work either, for that's simply a path to hatred and "othering" people on the other side who are just like you except that they merely have different opinions than you.

But if (back to #1) I get so cynical and paranoid that I really don't trust anything government says without complete and perfect knowledge of everything they are saying - I have to be able to see it with my own two eyes and verify that what I am seeing is real, nothing "feels" fishy or incredible, and all trust of official sources, experts, news sources, etc. is gone - that is a path to utter cynicism and denial that we can really know anything that news and science have ever told us. That results in all sorts of conspiracy theories like denial of the moon landings, Bin Laden's assassination, JFK's assassination, the ideas that the US government deliberately orchestrated the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, orchestrated the pandemic, stole the 2020 elections, and flat earth-ism. What in options #1 or #4 guard against that kind of thinking? (I take the conventional view, or one of the more conventional views, on all those things). I have felt there was way too much stupidity and silliness in conspiracy theories in American politics for at least 15 years, and it's only gotten worse. (Yes, I have a tendency toward elitism).

My own view is probably best expressed as "Trust, but verify." Obviously #3 - trust completely - is way too gullible. But I'm not starting out with a deliberately distrustful mindset. However, depending on the person, the institution, or administration that we're talking about, trust can be completely lost. So it really depends on their track record. Some administrations have been more trustworthy than others. This one - honestly, if the current President says one thing, there's a good chance it's really the opposite.

Regarding another Civil War: No, we are not in a war. But girding up for it and talking as though we are in such a war is a path to more violence and hatred and should be antithetical to a Christian view of politics and of people with different opinions than you. Talking about politics as the moral equivalent of war has been a pernicious and anti-democratic aspect of progressivism for a long time in the 20th and 21st centuries (think "War on Poverty" and some aspects of New Deal programs); it fuels an illiberal understanding of the role of the state. But it was also a feature of fascism in the 20th century, which was all about militaristic mobilization of society, and perhaps not coincidentally, of the way MAGA looks at things now. Political arguments using "moral equivalent of war" type of logic are an attempt to short-circuit democratic debate by bullying people into compliance with a collective enterprise, whether they agree with it or not. There is an enemy, ICE is going up against them, it's a Battle Royale. Etc.

[Bootstrap]

But if (back to #1) I get so cynical and paranoid that I really don't trust anything government says without complete and perfect knowledge of everything they are saying - I have to be able to see it with my own two eyes and verify that what I am seeing is real, nothing "feels" fishy or incredible, and all trust of official sources, experts, news sources, etc. is gone - that is a path to utter cynicism and denial that we can really know anything that news and science have ever told us. That results in all sorts of conspiracy theories like denial of the moon landings, Bin Laden's assassination, JFK's assassination, the ideas that the US government deliberately orchestrated the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers, orchestrated the pandemic, stole the 2020 elections, and flat earth-ism. What in options #1 or #4 guard against that kind of thinking? (I take the conventional view, or one of the more conventional views, on all those things). I have felt there was way too much stupidity and silliness in conspiracy theories in American politics for at least 15 years, and it's only gotten worse. (Yes, I have a tendency toward elitism).

My own view is probably best expressed as "Trust, but verify." Obviously #3 - trust completely - is way too gullible. But I'm not starting out with a deliberately distrustful mindset. However, depending on the person, the institution, or administration that we're talking about, trust can be completely lost. So it really depends on their track record. Some administrations have been more trustworthy than others. This one - honestly, if the current President says one thing, there's a good chance it's really the opposite.

To me, #1 really is more along the lines of "trust, but verify". A trustworthy government has mechanisms for verifying, and that happens regularly as part of the process. That's what I meant by "transparent and accountable":

1. I don't trust government, they should be transparent and accountable. There is a real chance that government can shoot someone without cause or mistakenly accuse someone who is innocent or perhaps even intentionally make up charges against someone to harass them.

For instance, if the police shoot and kill someone, there is an investigation, period. You cannot deport someone unless they are legally deportable, and immigration courts exist to determine that.

A government that shuns transparency and shuns accountability is very likely to be a government that has something to hide.

Regarding another Civil War: No, we are not in a war. But girding up for it and talking as though we are in such a war is a path to more violence and hatred and should be antithetical to a Christian view of politics and of people with different opinions than you. Talking about politics as the moral equivalent of war has been a pernicious and anti-democratic aspect of progressivism for a long time in the 20th and 21st centuries (think "War on Poverty" and some aspects of New Deal programs); it fuels an illiberal understanding of the role of the state. But it was also a feature of fascism in the 20th century, which was all about militaristic mobilization of society, and perhaps not coincidentally, of the way MAGA looks at things now. Political arguments using "moral equivalent of war" type of logic are an attempt to short-circuit democratic debate by bullying people into compliance with a collective enterprise, whether they agree with it or not. There is an enemy, ICE is going up against them, it's a Battle Royale. Etc.

Very well said.

It's hard to find your rational self when everything but everything is so dialed up to 11 every single day.