> And throwing away due process in the interest of the Greater Good? If you're not reminded of the Salem Witch Trials, you should be reminded of Stalin's purges just the same.
Indeed. Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. I don't know how the rest of the right wing feel, but things like the Russia conspiracy theories are a lot more palatable in light of older, even more insane conspiracy theories like Obama instituting Sharia law or being born in Kenya.
The concerning parts of the dialog are the innocuous elements where due process starts to break down. Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" are more scary than most of the rest to me - the health of the system are more important than political ideology. Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying, but it'll be scary if that language breaks out of America and starts to spread across the rest of the Anglosphere.
Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it.
Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. The right of free speech. As per usual, the side holding power wishes to dispense with those principles, so they can proceed to get their way, "for the greater good." The other side, knocked onto its back foot, is the one talking about principles. In the 60's, it was the other way around, at least at first.
(Then, as now, there are opportunists on the far extremes, hoping to gain power by fanning the flames of outrage.)
Now, power is not only embodied in television and print media, it's also mediated by the viral potential of social media. There is one side which seeks to reserve the power of virality to itself, all the while holding onto the declining power of traditional media. It's precisely for situations like this, that the principles were created. It's precisely this kind of imbalance that the principles are supposed to help bring back towards the center.
the health of the system are more important than political ideology
> Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" ... Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying,
It's not that bad. The people who say these things are neither so dangerous that they really mean something terrible, nor so silly that they don't mean what they say.
They mean what they say, but they mean it according to a pretty benign interpretation. They wish "resist" the government using the tools of democratic action. Trump is "not my president" for all those who find his stances repugnant to their ideals -- i.e. those whom he does not represent.
That's all fine; in a free country it is good and proper for people to stoutly oppose the supreme executive. But you are right to be concerned there is a fashion for stating that opposition in language that has darker meanings too. And the danger is that when this language becomes standard, people will slide into really meaning those darker things.
> the health of the system are more important than political ideology
this is basically the rallying cry of the radical left. it's ok if not all of their reaction is good as long as it's possible: good ideas should rise to the top.
Indeed. Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. I don't know how the rest of the right wing feel, but things like the Russia conspiracy theories are a lot more palatable in light of older, even more insane conspiracy theories like Obama instituting Sharia law or being born in Kenya.
The concerning parts of the dialog are the innocuous elements where due process starts to break down. Slogans like "Resist" and "Not My President" are more scary than most of the rest to me - the health of the system are more important than political ideology. Hopefully they don't mean what they are literally saying, but it'll be scary if that language breaks out of America and starts to spread across the rest of the Anglosphere.