I always come back to Derrida, who said that forgiveness only has value if/when it's applied to the unforgivable. If we reserve it only for what we already deem forgivable, then what are we even doing?
I find so many contradictions -- impossibilities, even -- productive. There's this lovely poem by Avah Pevlor Johnson, "Individuation," which begins with the image of a self being "wrung through the paradox -- broken into wholeness." That's another thing I always come back to. Or, rather, that always come back to me. Like some damned boomerang.
Since I'm immersed in multiple writing projects at the moment, I don't have much time to comment at length as others have. But for now, I'm in awe of your focus and steadiness in presenting all these ideas. So clear, so valuable, so humane. Thank you.
I admit I'm balking at the idea that we're being too mean to a man who has "Deus Vult" (admission for a desire to slaughter on the basis of religion or race) tattooed on his body by pointing out he's an alcoholic. Admittedly, this equivocation bothers me more as someone sober for 6 years—prior to that time I was hardly qualified to handle food prep let alone a cabinet position. His disease, in any sane world—yes, even a just and kind one—would be a disqualification for this particular role. Not a role in society, mind you—the world needs garbage men.
I'm interested in what you think about MLK's debate with Robert Williams. Do you know something else MLK said? "The white liberal must rid himself of the notion that there can be a tensionless transition from the old order of injustice to the new order of justice." Unfortunately, I feel in some ways we are far beyond the pale in terms of what we are willing to accept—political violence is already normalized, and now deportations are for citizens too™!—I'm wondering exactly how you think your strategy compensates for a world in which Maherian dinners with despots don't yield proportional results.
As I'm sure both of us have said negative things about ICE and supportive things about Palestine, it's only our class, race, and sex protecting us—while anyone with differing qualities may not have the leisure of trying to make symbolic friends with vain, narrow-minded sadists on a train. A public space which, the irony should not be lost on us, will likely lose all of its federal funding in the intervening years. How many of our fellow friends and neighbors should we be willing to sacrifice to the machine before we choose other methods? Since the beginning of this administration 165 of my neighbors have been arrested by ICE without any indication of a crime committed, by the agency's own admission. Should I decide to forgive them, I may need a head start.
Hi Miles, and thank you for writing! So, a few things, responding in order to your comments:
1) I think the basic idea is that once we meet hate with hate, we've sunk to their level. Maintaining grace is, I think, not only morally necessary, but strategically useful. When we allow ourselves to be consumed by hatred/vindictiveness/pettiness, it weakens us.
2) I think that it's absolutely fair game to discuss, in good faith, the extent to which someone's unaddressed addiction might impede their ability to do a job. But that's largely not what's happening with Hegseth — people are taking potshots (e.g. the blurry screen posted by The Dems) that are mocking the *fact* of his alcoholism, and alcoholism writ large, which seems totally juvenile and useless. He should absolutely be held to account if his addiction is compromising his ability to do the job, but again, this isn't the tone of the resistance lib discourse. (And to be clear, aside from the fact that his ideology is grotesque, he's totally unqualified for the job.)
3) Loving our enemy doesn't mean that the transition to a new order of justice will be without tension. I think King makes that clear in the sermon. (I tried to quote as sparingly as possible for the sake of concision.) Civil resistance isn't intended to make the opponent comfortable. He makes an interesting distinction between liking and loving. He remarks that very often, it's nearly impossible to like our opponents, but we can still love them as God would.
4) In re: Bill Maher — maybe this is the moment where I distinguish between lay Americans and people in power. The main reason that I wrote this piece is that I think it's incredibly destructive, strategically and morally, for left-liberals to trash Trump voters monolithically. I'm a bit of a broken record on this account, but I don't believe there's a way out of this mess through brute force. I know that there is a shockingly large number of people in this country who are actively animated by the most abhorrent elements of Trumpism. And there are also tens of millions of people who vote Republican for reasons other than an enthusiastic commitment to bigotry. But the bottom line for me is that the tendency to reduce millions of people to a monolith is a nonstarter for coalition-building. I've had too many conversations with Americans that completely shattered all of my assumptions to ever think I know what animates people.
5) With respect to your point about class, race, and sex protecting us: you are absolutely right that we are not going to be the first people sent to Louisiana or El Salvador. But two crucial points: a) if you read King's sermon, it's clear that he's not advocating for symbolic friendship. He's talking about the spiritual need to resist being consumed by hate. b) Mohsen Mahdawi, whose case I suspect you are following, actually quoted the very same sermon in his NYT Op-Ed published a few days ago. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/opinion/mohsen-mahdawi-ice-detention.html)
What feels significant about this is that it's evidence that those fighting for justice, who are being actively harmed by the regime, steel themselves from spiritual harm by continuing to insist on moving toward love and light.
6) Re: ICE agents: again, I would advocate for reading the whole of King's sermon. He delivered these words while the KKK was terrorizing the shit out of his friends, colleagues, and neighbors. Loving your enemies does not mean forgoing disruptive and even dangerous means of protest. In fact, the two things almost necessarily go hand in hand. To be super clear, I am not advocating that we sit around in a drum circle with ICE agents. It is, again, about how we transform our anger into something positive, rather than being consumed by it, as we resist the regime.
7) Finally, speaking of rage: I feel how angry you are, and I am angry too. Part of the reason I wrote this piece is to figure out how to transform my anger into something useful. The history of civil resistance is littered with instances in which, against all odds, courageous activists who refused to succumb to hate were able to achieve major concessions from the regime. The people of whom we can least afford to be contemptuous are those in the soft ideological middle, the ones most likely to defect to our side. In order to do that, I think it's crucial that our hearts remain open even as we work tirelessly to defeat authoritarianism. (I thought this recent Hamilton Nolan piece was useful on the mechanics of deep canvassing, and the idea of starting a conversation with an adversary about values, rather than policy positions. https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/talking-our-way-forward)
Okay, I have to go get dinner on the table for the kids...
“there’s one particularly pernicious achievement I want to underline, one that goes too often overlooked: Trump has taught all of us to hate.” No, he has not. I refuse to believe that because if it’s true then all truly is lost.
(Cf. the last line of “1984”)
I understand why you would write that, but I think it undercuts your argument which is otherwise unimpeachable. There is all the difference in the world, methinks, between the words “all of us” and “too many of us.” To say that (I can’t even say his name so will resort to the passive voice) we have “all” been taught to hate is not correct.
I always come back to Derrida, who said that forgiveness only has value if/when it's applied to the unforgivable. If we reserve it only for what we already deem forgivable, then what are we even doing?
Yes! I didn’t know that was Derrida who said that. Totally agree with that sentiment. Truly difficult to live it, but so worth the effort.
I find so many contradictions -- impossibilities, even -- productive. There's this lovely poem by Avah Pevlor Johnson, "Individuation," which begins with the image of a self being "wrung through the paradox -- broken into wholeness." That's another thing I always come back to. Or, rather, that always come back to me. Like some damned boomerang.
100%. The anger is valid but it cannot be allowed to swallow whole every ounce of goodness left in us.
Oh sure, it’s your *children* who are taco-dependent.
*chuckling loudly*
Since I'm immersed in multiple writing projects at the moment, I don't have much time to comment at length as others have. But for now, I'm in awe of your focus and steadiness in presenting all these ideas. So clear, so valuable, so humane. Thank you.
That’s incredibly kind of you to say, Bruce. Thank you for reading, and for your words of encouragement.
Excellent essay! You are of course right, remaining sane and sober is nevertheless a difficult task.
Tara Springett's "The Stairway to Heaven..." and in particular step 7 - Love - is a wonderful instruction manual. Thanks for writing this.
💀🌮
I admit I'm balking at the idea that we're being too mean to a man who has "Deus Vult" (admission for a desire to slaughter on the basis of religion or race) tattooed on his body by pointing out he's an alcoholic. Admittedly, this equivocation bothers me more as someone sober for 6 years—prior to that time I was hardly qualified to handle food prep let alone a cabinet position. His disease, in any sane world—yes, even a just and kind one—would be a disqualification for this particular role. Not a role in society, mind you—the world needs garbage men.
I'm interested in what you think about MLK's debate with Robert Williams. Do you know something else MLK said? "The white liberal must rid himself of the notion that there can be a tensionless transition from the old order of injustice to the new order of justice." Unfortunately, I feel in some ways we are far beyond the pale in terms of what we are willing to accept—political violence is already normalized, and now deportations are for citizens too™!—I'm wondering exactly how you think your strategy compensates for a world in which Maherian dinners with despots don't yield proportional results.
As I'm sure both of us have said negative things about ICE and supportive things about Palestine, it's only our class, race, and sex protecting us—while anyone with differing qualities may not have the leisure of trying to make symbolic friends with vain, narrow-minded sadists on a train. A public space which, the irony should not be lost on us, will likely lose all of its federal funding in the intervening years. How many of our fellow friends and neighbors should we be willing to sacrifice to the machine before we choose other methods? Since the beginning of this administration 165 of my neighbors have been arrested by ICE without any indication of a crime committed, by the agency's own admission. Should I decide to forgive them, I may need a head start.
Hi Miles, and thank you for writing! So, a few things, responding in order to your comments:
1) I think the basic idea is that once we meet hate with hate, we've sunk to their level. Maintaining grace is, I think, not only morally necessary, but strategically useful. When we allow ourselves to be consumed by hatred/vindictiveness/pettiness, it weakens us.
2) I think that it's absolutely fair game to discuss, in good faith, the extent to which someone's unaddressed addiction might impede their ability to do a job. But that's largely not what's happening with Hegseth — people are taking potshots (e.g. the blurry screen posted by The Dems) that are mocking the *fact* of his alcoholism, and alcoholism writ large, which seems totally juvenile and useless. He should absolutely be held to account if his addiction is compromising his ability to do the job, but again, this isn't the tone of the resistance lib discourse. (And to be clear, aside from the fact that his ideology is grotesque, he's totally unqualified for the job.)
3) Loving our enemy doesn't mean that the transition to a new order of justice will be without tension. I think King makes that clear in the sermon. (I tried to quote as sparingly as possible for the sake of concision.) Civil resistance isn't intended to make the opponent comfortable. He makes an interesting distinction between liking and loving. He remarks that very often, it's nearly impossible to like our opponents, but we can still love them as God would.
4) In re: Bill Maher — maybe this is the moment where I distinguish between lay Americans and people in power. The main reason that I wrote this piece is that I think it's incredibly destructive, strategically and morally, for left-liberals to trash Trump voters monolithically. I'm a bit of a broken record on this account, but I don't believe there's a way out of this mess through brute force. I know that there is a shockingly large number of people in this country who are actively animated by the most abhorrent elements of Trumpism. And there are also tens of millions of people who vote Republican for reasons other than an enthusiastic commitment to bigotry. But the bottom line for me is that the tendency to reduce millions of people to a monolith is a nonstarter for coalition-building. I've had too many conversations with Americans that completely shattered all of my assumptions to ever think I know what animates people.
5) With respect to your point about class, race, and sex protecting us: you are absolutely right that we are not going to be the first people sent to Louisiana or El Salvador. But two crucial points: a) if you read King's sermon, it's clear that he's not advocating for symbolic friendship. He's talking about the spiritual need to resist being consumed by hate. b) Mohsen Mahdawi, whose case I suspect you are following, actually quoted the very same sermon in his NYT Op-Ed published a few days ago. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/opinion/mohsen-mahdawi-ice-detention.html)
What feels significant about this is that it's evidence that those fighting for justice, who are being actively harmed by the regime, steel themselves from spiritual harm by continuing to insist on moving toward love and light.
6) Re: ICE agents: again, I would advocate for reading the whole of King's sermon. He delivered these words while the KKK was terrorizing the shit out of his friends, colleagues, and neighbors. Loving your enemies does not mean forgoing disruptive and even dangerous means of protest. In fact, the two things almost necessarily go hand in hand. To be super clear, I am not advocating that we sit around in a drum circle with ICE agents. It is, again, about how we transform our anger into something positive, rather than being consumed by it, as we resist the regime.
7) Finally, speaking of rage: I feel how angry you are, and I am angry too. Part of the reason I wrote this piece is to figure out how to transform my anger into something useful. The history of civil resistance is littered with instances in which, against all odds, courageous activists who refused to succumb to hate were able to achieve major concessions from the regime. The people of whom we can least afford to be contemptuous are those in the soft ideological middle, the ones most likely to defect to our side. In order to do that, I think it's crucial that our hearts remain open even as we work tirelessly to defeat authoritarianism. (I thought this recent Hamilton Nolan piece was useful on the mechanics of deep canvassing, and the idea of starting a conversation with an adversary about values, rather than policy positions. https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/talking-our-way-forward)
Okay, I have to go get dinner on the table for the kids...
Hope this fodder is useful and/or clarifying!?
🤗
“there’s one particularly pernicious achievement I want to underline, one that goes too often overlooked: Trump has taught all of us to hate.” No, he has not. I refuse to believe that because if it’s true then all truly is lost.
(Cf. the last line of “1984”)
I understand why you would write that, but I think it undercuts your argument which is otherwise unimpeachable. There is all the difference in the world, methinks, between the words “all of us” and “too many of us.” To say that (I can’t even say his name so will resort to the passive voice) we have “all” been taught to hate is not correct.
Now someone just needs to tell Dave Portnoy that Auschwitz is in Poland!
Totally lol! I’m sure he’s now found this out too as a result of his action!
A win win