Yes. This is the problem.

Irrational anger & outrage which is easily manipulated, as we see being done, into tribal affiliation. Predicated not on some devotion to core ideals & principles of the country, but something else.

Notice what ea side appeals how they express it.

One side largely is moved by wanting a system, a society, a government that is responsive to the situation and needs of the public. This has a number of aspects, from infrastructure, taking care of the environment, BLM, taking care of the 'least among us' &etc.

These folks...
These folks on "the other side"... Not sure what to call this other side. It is a collection of right wing people, some who are simply "members" by affiliation, by tradition, by location in the country...others by reasoned choice.
However they get there, a large % are like this.
Lets call this the Trumpian side, Trumper Cohort, since that is the current center around which these "73M" are organized.
Within this cohort, there are many who are simply "Republicans" by inertia. Their family has been so forever, and so they are too. In actual fact they
do not like what is being done in their name, wonder what happened to the party, but cannot imagine voting for a "Democrat", no more than the feud over Ford vs Chevy would resolve in welcoming in the other 'team'.
These don't really know or und what a "Democrat" is these days,
but they are damn sure they don't want to be one, or affiliated with one. Some of these people, actually reflecting on what the GOP has become under Trump find themselves in a spot where they do not associate w Trump/GOP so find themselves estranged.
Others not thinking about it
nor caring to try and work it all out, simply retain their old alligences and set thoughts/opinions.

These are not people who will get worked up like this fellow.
They are the ones who will line up for a Trump rally and go with the flow.
They are also the ones who are
interviewed, to comic effect, and really don't have any reason or thinking through what they are chanting about, just w some vague sense of "we/our team is right and those guys need to be locked up"

These are easily manipulated, but are not the ones who will carry guns into a
fight.

Assuming this is about 50% of the Trump cohort (who knows what the actual number is?) that leaves 35+M people who carry some level of this rage & outrage.
Back to my essential point:
Look at the behavior and how these people manifest their feelings and affiliations. They carry guns,and are sometimes ready to use them. As we have seen. Always ready to intimidate.
And when you try to assay what they are angry at, what it is that
they want to "save", it tends to be around fuzzy notions of the "2nd Amendment". Rarely do you hear 1stA. Rarer still any sort of appeal to unity, trying to find a common set of values/principles from which the sides both exist.

It is more about complete domination of the
conversation. The emotional tone is like this video clip, one of extreme frustration and anger. It is a state easily turned into a mob. It is not generated by reflection, consideration, a vision. It is fueled by grievance, a sense of us v. them, a sense of isolation.
Ultimately it is a sense of power consolidated by the authorities. It is the sense that "We" need to be protected from "Them".

This is the deep agitation that is used to justify the guns and the violence. And is the hook by which forces like Trump are able to provoke them into
a base. This is not new. This is the pattern of the rise and ascendency of authoritarian states. Esp as they erode any democratic footings that would counter these impulses.
This argument deserves a better treatment. It needs to be an essay, not a twitter thread. It is far more complex than this simple distinction, even though I think the distinction essential and fundamental.
Look at the rage & outrage as manifested by each side.

More from Michael Beaton

When (if) the full story of Jan6 ever comes out I predict it will have multiple levels of intention and complicity.
Broadly
1/The "base" level of the mob reacting out of what they believe & has been taught & insinuated into them for years.
I think this chaos is the cover for


other levels that seem to have a much more clear, "calm" mission.
These are the people who are now utterly confused that what they were told turns out to not be true.
These people being disbarred from flying, or taken into custody, thinking they were just returning home, are

bearing the brunt of the response by the law enforcement system. They are the easiest to see, find, and catch.
They are the pawns. They are the Orcs in the Trumpian system...expendable. Useful. Necessary. But Expendable as the strategy & tactics require.

Who knows if these

people, so adamant in their emotional pumped up outrage will figure this out. For now, the fact that they are the ones being hauled in, the first ones facing the consequences of their actions, seems to be solidifying their martyr frame of mind. I suspect they feel a kinship

with Trump, who does nothing but proclaim himself a victim and a martyr. In this they get to feel even moreso that they are part of the righteous army, gods army, doing gods work.
And they will be used again and again as necessary for the other levels.
The assertion & question of unity, unifying the country, wondering what the hell the problem is, and why is all this happening is taking center stage. Dramatically.
As is the corollary question being tossed about, "How to heal the Nation?".

There is a #systems principle


that is a powerful insight into these, & related, questions.

"You cannot solve a problem at the same level it was created."

If the problem we were solving for were some detail, 'where to place a road; what $ to allocate to this or that project' sort of thing, then the way to

think about the problem, the impasse, is to appeal first to the functions of prior planning, history - meaning what did we do the last time, maybe pragmatics...Eventually, if the organization (whether business, community, or governance) may make a decision and that becomes the

decision. Often, typically, the decision is some sort of amalgam of the various ideas and 'camps' in the room. Rarely, but sometimes, the decision is made out of pure hierarchy..."What the boss says goes, I don't care what you think..." sort of thing. Largely that is old school

and is not the normal way of conflict resolution. Especially in the context of solving a problem.
But a decision is made, and typically people, and the various factions, come together and get to work in the context of the decision. Sometimes called 'teamwork'.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like