Too Important to Miss . . .

Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse does readers a civic duty of offering up the New York Times article about Donald Trump being dangerous to the nation. Included in this article are Law Prof. Joyce Vance’s views on Trump and his actions. In which case, Angry Bear agrees with Civil Discourse. A good read.

What is rich about this turn to look at Donald Trump is the NYT is finally recognizing the danger of a Trump candidacy is and what it “would” be like as the president. There is no “could” to this. Trump is serious about being a dictator and many are supporting him.

As a subscriber to Civil Discourse I am able to offer Joyce Vance’s commentary at Angry Bear.

“Too Important to Miss” . . . Joyce Vance at Civil Discourse

This morning, the New York Times ran a crucial editorial piece. In the middle of the controversy over whether Joe Biden should be the Democratic nominee for the presidency, they returned the conversation to the most important issue we face: whether Donald Trump is fit to be president.

The Times Editorial Board resoundingly concluded that the answer is no.

That doesn’t come as a surprise to any of us here at Civil Discourse. But sometimes, what’s obvious, what’s plain, can get lost in an onrush of bright and shiny things. I fear we are in one of those moments. Although I’ve had some concerns about what I’ve read, and about what I haven’t, in the Times recently, this piece is something we should all be reading.

The piece is headlined: “Donald Trump is unfit to lead.” It starts with these toplines:

• HE IS DANGEROUS IN WORD, DEED AND ACTION
• HE PUTS SELF OVER COUNTRY
• HE LOATHES THE LAWS WE LIVE BY

Here is the gift link for those who want to read the whole piece, and I hope you will.

“A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the Republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.”

“Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.”

The Editorial concludes,

“Voters frustrated by inflation and immigration or attracted by the force of Mr. Trump’s personality should pause and take note of his words and promises. They have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are . . . When someone fails so many foundational tests, you don’t give him the most important job in the world.”

I want everyone to see these words. They are written for the independents, the so-called unicorns whose votes may decide the outcome of the election in key battleground states, but also for those who have become weary of the endless political fray we live in. They are written for those of us who are committed to fighting to keep the Republic. The Editorial Board at the New York Times has said what must be said, and the language of the piece is powerful. And simple. These are the arguments to carry forward in your daily life with people who are not already convinced they must use their power as voters to make sure Trump does not return to the Oval Office.

Voting is the solution.

Increasingly, we know with certainty that the future of the country will come down to the tenacity of voters who care about democracy. It will not be the courts. As the Times Editorial Board notes, “The Supreme Court, with its ruling on July 1 granting presidents ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts, has removed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s worst impulses: the threat of legal consequences. What remains is his own sense of right and wrong. Our country’s future is too precious to rely on such a broken moral compass.” It will be our willingness to vote and to believe and understand that if we commit, our votes will count despite the corruption Trump has tried and will undoubtedly try again to bring again to our electoral process.

But, we cannot win if we do not vote, if we just give up. We must not do that. We must continue sharing these thoughts with our friends, our neighbors, and our families so that Americans are compelled to rise up and vote for democracy in such great numbers that we outrun the people who are willing to bend the knee to a would-be dictator.

Tonight, I’ll be back with a “Five Questions With” from an insider who will help us understand just how dangerous the benign-sounding Christian Nationalist movement is. We live in difficult times. Be kind to yourself, but remember to keep sharing what you know and understand with the people around you.

After a week where I have been uplifted, forced to think and re-think, and inspired to dig deeper and do more research by your thoughts and comments, I want to tell you again how grateful I am for readers of Civil Discourse. This week we’ve seen Project 2025 finally explode on the national consciousness. Hillary Clinton is helping people understand how dangerous it is.

I know many of you have been on the forefront of this issue. That’s critical to getting an issue like this in circulation and helping it rise above all the other noise. We’ve been discussing Project 2025 and Trump’s connection to it since last November here, and that wouldn’t have been possible without your support and those of you whose paid subscriptions help me devote the time and resources necessary to doing this work. So, thank you.

Yes, We Can.

We’re in this together, Joyce