I want to share my thoughts on the history of assassinations and political violence more broadly. I should stress that this situation is unfolding fairly rapidly and there is a great deal we don’t know - including why this happened. Accordingly, I’m actually going to say very little about Saturday’s events. Instead, I want to look at everything around it.
The Committee for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies is a new one for me. I appreciate how you pull current events into context by showing where we've been. I think you were autocorrected, as it was Medgar Evers. Thanks for the bonus thoughts!
Lindsay M. Chervinsky: What a traumatic life for Robert Lincoln!
And the picture showing Muses lead President McKinley into the Hall of Martyrs!
I read a lot of history, and I must say, you have a gift for making the events present and for bringing to the reader the sights, the smells, the sounds of the era, like the living moment.
Kind of like Simon Schama in his "Citizens" (the French Revolution).
They should change the name of the Detpartment of Homeland Security to the Committee for the Detection and Defeating Conspiracies. It sounds a lot cooler.
Seems like the problem with the idea of people in power lowering the emotional temperature is that it overstates the receptivity of the public to elite appeals. As your insightful column notes, both political parties have been severely weakened, which makes me wonder if the appeals of more traditional forms of political power in the US (ie. Senators) are as meaningful in shaping opinion as they used to be. Seems like the fragmentation of the political ecosystem and the creation of alternative media outlets has led to a proliferation of extremist spaces (ie. Discord chats, message boards) and alternative political subcultures that just aren't receptive to the opinions of people we would traditionally regard as powerful, and a lot of the people who hold power in those extremist subcultures are either ideologically committed to keeping the emotional temperature high or have a profit motive to do so.
Well, of course no one is expecting you to speculate. But there was clearly the failed attempt, whatever the motive or actor. It prompted your article. You didn’t delve into the details of the other attempts. Just disappointed there was no effort to at least incorporate this current event into the greater narrative of your article.
I am curious why you chose to ignore the assassination attempt on Trump, except in passing, yet go on and on about other assassination attempts. The aforementioned attempt was what prompted your discussion herein.
When I wrote this piece, it was 24 hours after the attempt. Very little was known about the shooter, his motivations, the failures that led to the shooting, or who responded. Speculating about any of those things would have been irresponsible and could have fueled a cycle of misinformation. There was also no way to know the impact - on the American people, on polls, on the election, etc - and we won’t know for quite some time. Instead, I tried to offer historical context to inform our reactions as more information emerged. My platform isn’t the biggest, but I try to use it responsibly, especially in times like these.
I often wonder about the United States had we not lost Garfield.
It's an excellent counterfactual.
The Committee for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies is a new one for me. I appreciate how you pull current events into context by showing where we've been. I think you were autocorrected, as it was Medgar Evers. Thanks for the bonus thoughts!
It was a new one for me too. Thank you so much for catching that error. No matter how many times I read, there is always something!
Lindsay M. Chervinsky: What a traumatic life for Robert Lincoln!
And the picture showing Muses lead President McKinley into the Hall of Martyrs!
I read a lot of history, and I must say, you have a gift for making the events present and for bringing to the reader the sights, the smells, the sounds of the era, like the living moment.
Kind of like Simon Schama in his "Citizens" (the French Revolution).
Thank you so very much!
Thank you so much, that's so kind! I like history that reads like that myself, so I'm really glad it comes through as well.
They should change the name of the Detpartment of Homeland Security to the Committee for the Detection and Defeating Conspiracies. It sounds a lot cooler.
It really does.
Seems like the problem with the idea of people in power lowering the emotional temperature is that it overstates the receptivity of the public to elite appeals. As your insightful column notes, both political parties have been severely weakened, which makes me wonder if the appeals of more traditional forms of political power in the US (ie. Senators) are as meaningful in shaping opinion as they used to be. Seems like the fragmentation of the political ecosystem and the creation of alternative media outlets has led to a proliferation of extremist spaces (ie. Discord chats, message boards) and alternative political subcultures that just aren't receptive to the opinions of people we would traditionally regard as powerful, and a lot of the people who hold power in those extremist subcultures are either ideologically committed to keeping the emotional temperature high or have a profit motive to do so.
Otherwise thoroughly enjoyed the piece….
Well, of course no one is expecting you to speculate. But there was clearly the failed attempt, whatever the motive or actor. It prompted your article. You didn’t delve into the details of the other attempts. Just disappointed there was no effort to at least incorporate this current event into the greater narrative of your article.
I am curious why you chose to ignore the assassination attempt on Trump, except in passing, yet go on and on about other assassination attempts. The aforementioned attempt was what prompted your discussion herein.
When I wrote this piece, it was 24 hours after the attempt. Very little was known about the shooter, his motivations, the failures that led to the shooting, or who responded. Speculating about any of those things would have been irresponsible and could have fueled a cycle of misinformation. There was also no way to know the impact - on the American people, on polls, on the election, etc - and we won’t know for quite some time. Instead, I tried to offer historical context to inform our reactions as more information emerged. My platform isn’t the biggest, but I try to use it responsibly, especially in times like these.