What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

Well, g, you are free to your opinion. For now, you still live in a free country.

Btw, option 3 is that I wasn't actually pushing for an illiberal society without rule of law so Brain's snarky aside about Tamas wanting that (as differing from my opinion) was off the mark.

That's his MO. Snide remarks explicitly misrepresenting what he's responding to.

... of course, it's languish, so it fits pretty well.

[garbon]

I'm not advocating for violence but rather suggesting that its been a common tool throughout American history on the side of the right, so it isn't like violence at a protest can encourage that side to suddenly view that option as on the table. They never took it off.

The issue isn't if the extremists think violence is ok, they'll always consider it acceptable for their cause.  In the recent past the white nationalists knew that the feds wouldn't give them any room for shenanigans, so there weren't many incidents.  Now they have a president and inner circle that they think (rightly or wrongly) is on their side.  The answer to that isn't for the left to start bashing heads, but for state and local governments to do what they can to stop them.  This recent event wasn't handled well by the police, but it could have been much worse.  As Tamas said, counter protests, great.  Nazis getting stomped by the police, good.  Violent clashes between civilians, bad.

Maybe but with regards to African Americans, you're asking them to trust state and local governments who 1) have a shaky record on actually protecting them and 2) shaky record on not choosing to target them instead.

I agree the ideal situation is no violence whatsoever but I'm not sure I'd be on the side screaming for nonviolence if the state and local actors fail to take appropriate measures.

I guess in some part superficially the Malcolm X vs MLK Jr divide.

[Solmyr]

But surely you see that wishing for a society where minority opinions are beaten up for speaking out is not exactly democratic, or liberal?

Nazism/racism is not an opinion.

[The Minsky Moment]

Problem is, it's Trump.  He has no policy agenda.  The craziness isn't a distraction from the main event.  It is the main event. These GOP guys have either (1) gotten so disoriented trying to defend Trump's mishegas they can no longer see the man for what it is, or (2) can't stop intoning the talking points intended to nudge Trump back onto track even though they realize it will never happen.

I believe Pruitt is secretly dismantling the EPA, from what I've read last week-end.  Transgenders are banned from the army, at least in a public statement.  Lawsuits from the government in civil rigths cases have been dropped, or the government has stopped defending some practices to promote equalization.  Affirmative action will be a thing of the past by the end of the year.

So, yeah, Trump is a crazy loud mouth. But behind the scenes, there are people dismantling the Federal government, and that pleases the Republicans.

That's Bannon's policy agenda, not Trump.  Trump campaigned for LBGT rights.  His platform stated that clean water was one of the most important issues facing America in this generation.

Trump's schtick was the Wall and trade.  Nothing is happening on either those, nada.  It's all a charade. 

[Malthus]

Ideally, what we would have would be the cops protecting the Nazis from crowds of angry citizens.

No violence - because the pitiful Nazis are protected from physical harm and allowed to express themselves, if they dare being openly mocked and held to ridicule, by cops (preferably including lots of Black, Gay, Muslim and Jewish cops).

The Nazis don't need protection from citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CaRLSbEQjU

We need protection from Nazis.

I agree. I'm saying what I think should be the ideal  situation.

[Malthus]

Ideally, what we would have would be the cops protecting the Nazis from crowds of angry citizens.

Ideally yes, though this requires enough angry citizens who think punching a Nazi is a good idea. Otherwise there's no need for police protection.

No violence - because the pitiful Nazis are protected from physical harm and allowed to express themselves, if they dare being openly mocked and held to ridicule, by cops (preferably including lots of Black, Gay, Muslim and Jewish cops).

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your reasoning there, Malthus. Why would the Nazis require police protection from the citizenry if there was no threat of violence? If there is not threat of violence from the angry citizenry, the Nazis will - if past form is any indication whatsoever and I think it is - gleefully inflict violence on the angry citizenry.

I mean, I do agree with you that the ideal response is one where Nazis are subject to such universal non-violent mockery that they hide in shame. However, at this moment in time I think we've moved a bit past that point in some cases, at least in the US. It's a good starting point though.

I'm not sure there is a contradiction. I'm not saying that citizens angrily threating violence against Nazis is a bad thing. In any event, it is perfectly understandable.

In my opinion, Nazis ought to be the ones under threat, from all decent people. Who are, hopefully, the vast majority.

In the ideal world, the Nazis ought to be made to understand that only the rule of the law that they despise protects them when they spread their abhorrent views.

[Tamas]

But surely you see that wishing for a society where minority opinions are beaten up for speaking out is not exactly democratic, or liberal?

I am not wishing for a society where minority opinions are beaten up for speaking out. However, I'm willing to compromise purity of principle to resist Nazis specifically because they have a track record (not to mention a stated policy) of subverting Democratic processes and assaulting the vulnerable.

My preference, of course, is for the state to adequately protect the vulnerable that are targeted by Nazis and white supremacists but where the state falls short, I am perfectly fine with organized community self-defense.

Good thing you brought up the term organised community self-defence because it kind of proves my point:that was the official reason for the forming of the Hungarian Guard, the neo-nazi quasi-militia a few years ago. That the state fails to protect honest law-abiding white people from the thieving gypsies. So they donned their uniforms and started marching in formation in poor villages with rampant crime.

And the thing is, public safety especially of property has indeed been in abysmal state in the poor areas of the country (due to poverty), and the state failed to respond adequately. But the response is not vigilant justice.

Also I am having trouble believing I actually have to explain this: sure you only want exception on liberal democratic standards when it comes to Nazis. But if your wish is granted, what will stop such a "necessary" exception to be granted for other people with -while less radical- but still undesirable views? If people protest for the abolition of Obamacare and thus for the suffering and death of who knows how many poor people, should they also be slapped around? If not, then why not if Nazis can be? If some fringe Muslim group starts demanding sharia law in 10 years, should they be slapped around by other civilians? If not, why not if Nazis could be? And what about communists? etc. 

[grumbler]

I'm not sure there is a contradiction. I'm not saying that citizens angrily threating violence against Nazis is a bad thing. In any event, it is perfectly understandable.

In my opinion, Nazis ought to be the ones under threat, from all decent people. Who are, hopefully, the vast majority.

In the ideal world, the Nazis ought to be made to understand that only the rule of the law that they despise protects them when the spread their abhorrent views.

I think I agree with you.  The cops and Nazis don't know that there s no threat of violence, even if the organizers of the counter-protest urge their followers to eschew violence.  If the counter-demonstration is large enough, the Nazis will cower behind the police even if nothing more than verbal insults are hurled their way.  The larger the crowd, the greater the chance that somebody is there who isn't willing to listen to the organizers.

I think that there is a significant portion of the alt-right demonstrator clique just in this for the approval of their friends.  Those people are no true believers and will back out if remaining looks like a dangerous or futile or extremely unpopular undertaking.

[Jacob]

I'm not sure there is a contradiction. I'm not saying that citizens angrily threating violence against Nazis is a bad thing. In any event, it is perfectly understandable.

In my opinion, Nazis ought to be the ones under threat, from all decent people. Who are, hopefully, the vast majority.

In the ideal world, the Nazis ought to be made to understand that only the rule of the law that they despise protects them when they spread their abhorrent views.

On this we are in accord

The conversation then is what we do when faced with less than ideal circumstances. Personally I default to "if you're putting effort into opposing Nazis you're probably alright, I'll focus on what I can do rather than criticize your actions."

[Jacob]

Good thing you brought up the term organised community self-defence because it kind of proves my point:that was the official reason for the forming of the Hungarian Guard, the neo-nazi quasi-militia a few years ago. That the state fails to protect honest law-abiding white people from the thieving gypsies. So they donned their uniforms and started marching in formation in poor villages with rampant crime.

And the thing is, public safety especially of property has indeed been in abysmal state in the poor areas of the country (due to poverty), and the state failed to respond adequately. But the response is not vigilant justice.

As I was driving to work this morning I was thinking about this and planning to ask you about how things played out in Hungary.

So you have the Hungarian Guard. What sort of activities have they engaged in? Has there been any sort of equivalent response or counter reaction?

Also I am having trouble believing I actually have to explain this: sure you only want exception on liberal democratic standards when it comes to Nazis. But if your wish is granted, what will stop such a "necessary" exception to be granted for other people with -while less radical- but still undesirable views?

Well I for one won't support such a "necessary" exception. It's not that hard to draw that line. On one side, Nazis. On the other side, everyone else.

If people protest for the abolition of Obamacare and thus for the suffering and death of who knows how many poor people, should they also be slapped around?

No. That's what the democratic process is for. How much street violence have we seen so far over Obamacare? I'm aware of none. This is a strawman.

If not, then why not if Nazis can be? If some fringe Muslim group starts demanding sharia law in 10 years, should they be slapped around by other civilians? If not, why not if Nazis could be? And what about communists? etc.

Nazis because:

1) They have a history of violence and oppression. They have exterminated millions of people based on their ideology.
2) They actively use violence and intimidation against marginal groups as part of their current political program.
3) Their clearly stated ideological goals include the subjugation and murder of groups they consider inferior.
4) Their methods and goals include the infiltration and subversion of our institutions and the destruction of democracy.

As for Communists, should we find ourselves in a situation where Communist gangs routinely intimidate and attack "class enemies" or some such and the state fails to intervene, I would be sympathetic to anyone who punched them. We're pretty far from such a situation though, so I don't think it's particularly relevant. Should we somehow get to a place (outside of the fevered imagination of bigots) where Islamist gangs roved the street to enact compliance with their version of Sharia through intimidation and violence, I'd be perfectly fine with people punching them too. But again, that is not the reality we live in.

We do live in a reality where Nazis and white supremacists with some frequency murder and intimidate those they class as their enemies. And not only is that a deliberate tactic for them, it is a core part of their ideology.

[Jacob]

I think I agree with you.  The cops and Nazis don't know that there s no threat of violence, even if the organizers of the counter-protest urge their followers to eschew violence.  If the counter-demonstration is large enough, the Nazis will cower behind the police even if nothing more than verbal insults are hurled their way.  The larger the crowd, the greater the chance that somebody is there who isn't willing to listen to the organizers.

I think that there is a significant portion of the alt-right demonstrator clique just in this for the approval of their friends.  Those people are no true believers and will back out if remaining looks like a dangerous or futile or extremely unpopular undertaking.

I think this is solid reasoning and a solid plan for action. I hope that those of us who agree with this, oppose Nazis, and abhor violence will lend it weight.

[Tamas]

If whichever group threatens people with violence, it should be a police matter. Not a vigilante matter.

And you simply cannot draw a line and stop this at Nazis. If you allow people to do vigilante justice on Nazis, they WILL have other groups and individual in mind to serve the same justice to with the same moral certainty, that you can be sure of. I mean, come on. Moral certainty is the cheapest thing to come by: the Nazis have the same level of moral certainty in their asshatery like you do in your values, just as one example.

Plus, how would you define the "Nazis" group that are free game to be beaten up and terrorised into silence by the majority?

[The Brain]

Tampax, you sound suspiciously like someone who likes liberal democracy and rule of law. Just sayin'.

Okay, you need to stop being an idiot. You've been getting a free pass for too long.

Gratuitous and frankly out of place.

I don't think so. He's been skirting around with some racist and sexist notions as of late. And yes, he's lovable and funny so doesn't matter as much as we rarely need to take his points seriously but enough is enough.

Racist and sexist notions? Are you on drugs? Good thing I'm an extremely laid back person or I would take offense.

[Jacob]

If whichever group threatens people with violence, it should be a police matter. Not a vigilante matter.

Sure thing. And if the police and the laws are up for taking care of the problem, then I'm all for that. I've said as much, but I can repeat it a few more times if you'd like.

And you simply cannot draw a line and stop this at Nazis.

I totally can.

If you allow people to do vigilante justice on Nazis, they WILL have other groups and individual in mind to serve the same justice to with the same moral certainty, that you can be sure of. I mean, come on. Moral certainty is the cheapest thing to come by: the Nazis have the same level of moral certainty in their asshatery like you do in your values, just as one example.

Seriously? This is the time for the moral equivalency game "you're just as bad as the Nazis"? I mean, even Mitt Romney gets there's a difference.

No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/897612532386607104

... by the way, I'm not "allowing people to do vigilante justice on Nazis." I'm not advocating changing the law. If someone commits assault on a Nazi then I think it's perfectly fine they suffer the legal consequences for that assault (assuming of course the laws in the jurisdiction are relatively just). I am, however, likely to be sympathetic to the person doing the assault nonetheless.

Plus, how would you define the "Nazis" group that are free game to be beaten up and terrorised into silence by the majority?

How do I identify Nazis?

I reckon the people marching under swastika banners, giving the sieg heil salute, and calling themselves Nazis and white nationalists are identifying themselves as such. This is no call for rooting out crypto-Nazis with fire and sword. It's a belief that if someone calls themselves a Nazi and employs physical intimidation and violence, then it's not so bad to punch them.

[Jacob]

BTW Tamas, I'm still very interested in your take on the Hungarian Guard and how they operate(d) in Hungary. What actions, if any, did (do) they engage in? Is there anyone opposing them? How much tacit approval do they have from the police et. al.?