156 Comments

I know. Almost everything on the internet is a "must read"... at least according to the author or the publisher. For me, that's a BIG 'TURN-OFF".

I've NEVER said this about ANYTHING... but THIS article actually IS a "MUST READ" for anyone a bit confused about the historical, political process in our country.

Like me, if you REALLY want a comprehensive understanding of political history in America, from around 1920 until NOW... this is your 'go to' reference for understanding the rampant, destructive division of the 'political parties' of today.

I thought I had a pretty good idea of that history... but this historical narrative puts it all in one place for easy reading... and a collective, comprehensive understanding.

THANK YOU, Heather Cox Richardson!

Read on.

Expand full comment

Me, last night on facebook:

"I don't say this often, but this is a MUST READ. I won't even attempt one of my clumsy summaries. It's important, it's a bit longer than usual, and there are many link-sources provided. Please take time to read it."

Expand full comment

Ever since I 'discovered' Heather Cox Richardson (which wasn't really that long ago) I have been entranced at her detailed, ability to capture the 'here and now' in American politics in a way that 'flows' with ease of reading and comprehension. I loved (love) her writing so much that every day I "share" her reporting with tens-of-thousands of people; I belong to six political groups on Facebook... and 'share' to all six daily.

THIS particular article 'knocked my socks off'! Her comprehensive capture of historical happenings "captured" MY learning needs. And from the highly positive responses I get from those I share her daily briefings with, I KNOW she has the attention, respect, and maybe AWE of a most appreciative and attentive audience.

I'm "hooked".... and THANK YOU AGAIN Ms. Richardson!

Expand full comment

"They were also clear they would not agree to extending the $600 federal addition to state unemployment benefits, arguing that it simply 'paid people to stay home.'”

This is at the core of the GOP's misunderstanding of the American character: that 'we the people' actually want to lay up waiting for our gob'ment check of a big $600 before taxes than work. As if that is enough money to do more than just get by on, if that. I believe that is largely because this is a crew of mostly white men who get six figures to show up less than half the time in most cases, so they assume we are all the slackers they are. Most of them have never seriously worked -- a real job -- a day in their lives.

And it's our fucking money.

Expand full comment

It's interesting to dig around and look at the net worth of those in congress and other leadership roles. It absolutely reinforces the fact that they have no clue what everyday people need just to get by.

Expand full comment

Often, their net worth is created by being in office; always it is increased. The brazenness of Trump, et al to reward cronies and self and the overt approval by the GOP has certainly revealed the greed and corruption of the political syndicates.

Expand full comment

It’s sadly important to remember that Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi (my senator and representative respectively) are 2 of the richest members of Congress. Neither have been known for championing progressive causes (why vote against stopping the intrusive collection of private information by the govt). Both have taken as much corporate donations as possible, and their voting record reflects this. Until all campaign money is federally funded (like the UK and much of the EU), and special interests are excluded, we’ll never have fair elections. Or fair taxation.

Expand full comment

I agree. Please note I did not designate a party guilty of glomming onto mega donors. Both parties are guilty as are individuals, including Pelosi and Feinstein. As Dems, we must move past old guard politics. It’s an albatross philosophy.

Expand full comment

And I agree with you there! But I won’t accept that the Democratic Party is serious until they actually propose (and hopefully pass) legislation to tax the wealthy at a rate that has them paying at least as much as ordinary employees pay, but without the loopholes, and sets the minimum wage to around $20/hr while they’re at it. All while strengthening Social Security and enacting socialized medicine. If we take back the senate, this could easily be done in a new president’s first quarter in office. If the rest of the party has the guts. FDR did it, and he got a Republican governor (who went on to be the ambassador to the UK during WW2) to write the Social Security Act to do it. No more namby pamby half assed programs. After all, the blue collar Midwestern trump voters were looking for substantial change and thought he’d deliver. If we win, we can’t screw it up this time. Democracy itself hangs in the balance.

Expand full comment

Yes. My daughter, who had a part-time job, was making twice as much on unemployment as working. When the job opened up, she went back. Most people prefer working for their money. If the GOP actually cared about jobs, they would do something to create them - there is no lack of options.

Expand full comment

My guy gets deep in the weeds on this stuff and he says -- and I am inclined to agree -- that when there's a new admin invested in real structural change, this will lead to higher wages and stronger unions. Now that it's clear that the problem isn't that we are all sitting at home because our UI is more money, or even decent money, but that we were underpaid to start with. Which is really at the core, especially for those now referred to as 'essential.' As in working the hardest for the least money.

Expand full comment

Most people have been underpaid for a long time, compared to the value that they were really adding. Making most jobs low status and then using that to deprive people of the value they create, in order to channel that value to the few with high status, has been the real redistribution of wealth. If you will forgive religious language, it is outright idolatry - idolizing the rich, idolizing the accumulation of money. There is no technical reason this country can't turn around and prioritize the general good rather than going the rest of the way into a tinpot dictatorship with most people in misery.

Expand full comment

i do believe this is going to be a quantum consciousness shift for those who live long enough to see it play out over the next decade. we are living thru something tantamount to WWII in its impact on the world and the culture. because seriously, how much money do you need with there is nothing to buy with it and no one to share it with? no one who can stand the sight of you anyway.

Expand full comment

Now there's a reason to stay alive! I look forward to sitting around the coffeepot or whatever with you, reminiscing about the days when we just didn't know if this country would continue its downward slide or turnaround, and how great it is to see our children thriving in a country based on mutual respect and responsibility for everyone, no exceptions.

Expand full comment

i will meet you there and i take my coffee black.

Expand full comment

In a way, it is the old slaveholder mentality reasserting itself .The labor of the many is placed into the hands of the few, in return for shiny trinkets and distain. . It has reached its breaking point, where the people might band together and rise up against their oppressors, realizing they have power. However COVID has made their efforts even harder and introduced more death and disability into the mix. No one is talking about the healthcare costs of all of this "utilization of services". Will the insurance companies get a bailout? It is a corruption of decent values to place money over life itself. And yet money is needed for live in this country; evictions are no joke. Prioritizing the General Good would be a resonant campaign slogan I could get enthusiastically behind.

Expand full comment

it is exactly that. if you look at the explosion of the prison system so that all the people who'd committed non-violent crimes, perhaps because there were no other options, are now shanghaied into working for free for major companies while they do their time, one might say it is a reinvention of the plantation system of forced labor. problem is, this time they've dragged white folks, women, lgbtq into the indentured servitude thing and we are not going quietly.

Expand full comment

Taxpayers' money is used to fund this garbage plus profits for private prison operators. That's another place we could cut the federal and state budgets, to free up money for health care and other social goods. Reserve prisons for those who commit violent and/or truly despicable crimes. For everyone else, make amends through community service, while we make sure everyone can get a decent job at a living wage.

Expand full comment

And, Republicans would raise the minimum wage if they really wanted people to work for a living and not need "government handouts."

Expand full comment

yes. yes they would.

Expand full comment

And here's another thought(obviously not original with me!)

https://politizoom.com/2020/07/24/the-hidden-genius-of-the-democrats-unemployment-bridge-payments/

Expand full comment

read it. it really on point.

Expand full comment

Wow. Echos of your past letters and videos are crystallized into this grand meta-overview of the state of the union. You've noted that it takes longer to write a short piece, and this consolidation of your life work must be satisfying, both intellectually and as a call to the people, however much the content is depressing. But we've got to keep it real.

While the Republican narrative and politics are depressing for the fact that we are currently under the thumb of their disruptive and deadly power, you do optimistically point out that "Reality is disrupting the ideology of today's Republican Party." The optimism is that Republican policy is falling apart on many fronts. But falling apart means common people are paying a terrible price, with much more yet to be paid in times ahead.

What to do. I hosted my young adult children for a town hall dinner--FaceTiming the son with his college friends in Boston--for a total of six young minds. I asked what they thought of the upcoming presidential election, and to my dismay, two out of my three children said they don't read about politics because "it's too much." I brought all my HCR learning to bear to sound the alarm that democracy is being threatened, so wake up! Look at all the forces of voter suppression! Counter the absurd Republican messaging! "Take up oxygen" on social media, even with just a ReTweet! I sent them links posted by Letter Readers here for how to help get out the vote. (Thank you, HCR link posters!) Now I will also forward tonight's sobering Letter to help dislodge them from their position of being too comfortable. And get back to writing my "get out the vote" postcards.

Expand full comment

Ellie, You know how kids hate to be lectured and cajoled by their parents! Your best bet is to forward HCR's Letters on a daily basis; point out to them that the citations included in the notes section support each and every statement/argument. They will come around, trust me, you've taught them well.

Expand full comment

Yes, I did get on a soapbox to shake them out of their complacency. The two won’t read HCR’s Letters, but they are nearby so that my next move will be to model civic activism. When they come for dinner, conversation will be Socratic questioning with our entree, and voter postcard writing for dessert!

Expand full comment

Very good plan!

Expand full comment

his doesn’t surprise me. The older generation usually get their information from one or two sources that typically support their views. The younger group gets information from social media. It is a bombardment of every point of view there is. It can be too much to take in and sort through. In the spring I deleted all of my social media and it’s made me much more focused. I doubt that is something your children will do, most wouldn’t. Maybe go through their feed with them, if they’ll share it with you, and explain why so many of the posts they see are wrong/misleading.

Expand full comment

I text for Indivisible. Today begins their week of action. I plan to be busy this week. (Btw, there are things other than texting you can do—Indivisible.com).

Expand full comment

Marcy and Ellie and Anyone: Thanks for the "get out the vote" and Indivisible information. Can we all share and discuss this more? This IS what we can do to help and take up oxygen. Further posts and discussion may prompt those of us who need help getting started. Any input is appreciated.

Expand full comment

Look for a local group and volunteer!

Expand full comment

yes, I've contacted my local YMCA. thank you.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Here is the link for others:

https://indivisible.org/indivisible-home

Expand full comment

Great summation! Hoping you have a column in the NYT or Washington Post soon for more exposure and creating a constructive conversation by an ever larger group of readers.

Expand full comment

I just sent a note to Rachel Maddow asking why Professor Richardson has never been on her show (to my knowledge anyway). I think emails to many in the media is a start for all of us - her devoted fans. (rachel@msnbc.com)

Expand full comment

I also sent a “good news” blurb to The Daily Beans telling them she should be interviewed. One of the hosts subscribed to the Letter right then.

Expand full comment

Thank you. Rachel's big-picture, context-driven format is a perfect match for the professor's commentary. I'll email her too.

Expand full comment

Paul Benson, Me too!

Expand full comment

Heather,

A brilliant and succinct description of the Republican ideology and practice.

Thank you for continuing to support us with your insight and historical perspective.

My temptation to post this on the intranet (though considered "unprofessional"), of the company for which I work, reminds me of something that I have been turning over in my head for a while now.

What I can't understand (without resorting to a cynical answer), is how those in the corner office across the country fail to realize, or don't have the courage to admit, is that sooner or later, supporting the Republican agenda or keeping quiet about it, will destroy the ability of their customers to support them.

The cliff that the Republicans are rushing us toward will surely destroy our economy (among so many other things), but corporate America seems to think that the edge of the cliff will not give way under them as well?

The Republicans may well be on the cusp of destroying our democracy, bringing me to despair for at least for some part of each day, but at the same time another part of each day brings me hope as more and more of my fellow citizens continue the fight.

Hope that you and your friends and family are all healthy.

John Hinckley

Expand full comment

John, you bring up a very good point about how business leaders can continue to support the GOP agenda without seeing how it's ultimately going to crash the economy. I've pondered this also. Even parasites have the intelligence not to kill their host. Apparently, the GOP lacks this level of intelligence.

Aside from denying people a living wage that will support the economy in general, people say, "Don't the 1% have children they want to protect from the effects of climate change?" as one example. Or clean water, etc. I've finally decided they are all in denial. They either believe their money will protect them - buy them that safe, secluded island, the staff to protect them, stockpiles of food, etc., or they just believe some version of "the Lord will provide", total magical thinking. "If I don't look, it's not there", a five year old's means of coping with scary things.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are on spaceship Earth, too. We literally are all in this together.

Expand full comment

It's a quotation attributed to several Native American chief's "once you've destroyed all else, you can't eat money"

Expand full comment

One of my favorite quotes - I have the bumper sticker on my car.

Expand full comment

Yup!

Expand full comment

Thanks Sandra, yes, denial and/or magical thinking.

I've also been thinking about the disconnect from reality that increases with the amount of power and/or money one has. The more one has, the easier it is to ignore or not see the problems and how serious they are.

Expand full comment

This gets to the crux of the problem. This, and the blame the victim mentality, first addressed in the Book of Job in the Old Testament Recorded thousands of years ago.

Expand full comment

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/blowing-the-lid-off-the-billionaires-big-con-and-its-deadly-link-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

The German businessman paused for a long moment and then leaned forward, putting his elbows on his knees, his clasped hands in front of him pointing at the reporter as if in prayer. He stared at the man for another long moment and then, in the tone of voice an adult uses to correct a spoiled child, said simply, “I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country.”

Expand full comment

Richard Hofstadter described these people 66 years ago in "The Pseudo Conservative Revolt":

"Unlike most of the liberal dissent of the past, the new dissent not only has no respect for non-conformism, but is based upon a relentless demand for conformity. It can most accurately be called pseudo-conservative — I borrow the term from the study of The Authoritarian Personality published five years ago by Theodore W. Adorno and his associates — because its exponents, although they believe themselves to be conservatives and usually employ the rhetoric of conservatism, show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions... Their political reactions express rather a profound if largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways — a hatred which one would hesitate to impute to them if one did not have suggestive clinical evidence.

"From clinical interviews and thematic apperception tests, Adorno and his co-workers found that their pseudo-conservative subjects, although given to a form of political expression that combines a curious mixture of largely conservative with occasional radical notions, succeed in concealing from themselves impulsive tendencies that, if released in action, would be very far from conservative. The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows 'conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness' in his conscious thinking and 'violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere. . . . The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.'”

And Adlai Stevenson saw what was what back in the 1952 campaign: “The strange alchemy of time,” he said in a speech at Columbus, “has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country — the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations.”

The next six months are going to be the darkest six months of our history since the Civil War. But if the idiots keep being idiots (they wouldn't be Republicans unless they could flunk the IQ test low enough), then 100 days from now they're going to get a whacking they won't recover from for a generation - if then. (With any luck, the people in the Lincoln Project will study how the Christian Democrats de-nazified German conservatism after World War II and managed to re-establish German democracy. That will lead to the extinction of the GOP as currently constituted.)

Expand full comment

Extremely illuminating. I study this dynamic but missed this idea. Thanks.

Expand full comment

And the world is watching...and waiting...

Expand full comment

I watched and ‘listened’ to Timothy Snyder author of One Tyranny’ on a Friday night interview. Here is what I heard ‘if you haven’t been participating in protests, now is the time’. That was a piercing arrow. What is left to do these next 100 days to save our democratic Republic? This just cannot be the end and doing nothing must not be the answer.

Expand full comment

I couldn’t sleep after watching that interview. To anyone who missed it on Friday, just search “Timothy Snyder Rachel Maddow”.

Expand full comment

I keep thinking of a John Lewis quote I saw recently. "...your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful non violent tool we have to create a more perfect union."

Do all we can do to get out the vote. It has got to be a crushing landslide against this "aberration". That's how we fight back!

Expand full comment

I have always felt the use of the term redistribution colors any discussion of this topic unfavorably, and believe the term distribution is more accurate. The real issue is the degree of income and wealth inequality. When the inequality is so large that it disadvantages or disfavors unfairly a significant portion of the population it reduces the quality of life for all. Severe income and wealth inequality increases poverty, food insecurity, crime rates rise, civil unrest increases, community and public health worsen, consumer sentiment declines, and economic growth stagnates. What we should seek is a more equitable distribution of income and wealth. There will always be some level of inequality as even with most socialist programs such as those advanced under the New Deal, rewards are proportionate to contributions. A healthy set of social safety net programs providing a reasonable floor to support all while also providing all opportunities encourages everyone to contribute to enjoy a better quality of life for all.

So let’s try to commit to the use of the idea of talking about income and wealth inequality by better managing the distribution and accumulation of wealth and income rather than speaking of redistribution of something already acquired by some.

Expand full comment

Bruce, you make an excellent point on a subtle but critical distinction. Do you have any thoughts on how to distinguish the kind of socialism to which I think you refer from the one that triggers fear in the minds of those to whom it invokes full-bore communism? With respect for time limitations, I wonder if Heather can provide any historical enlightenment on this....

Expand full comment

Here is a recent post of mine on our Nextdoor neighborhood social media:

A Bit of Civics 101 for All.

The constant cries from the right that Democrats wish to take our country down the path to Socialism and Marxism is so uninformed.

Let's do some quick Civics 101 level setting for our ignorant friends who either somehow missed or slept through Civics classes, or appear to have forgotten what was taught.

First, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are not forms of government, they are economic systems. Each may tend to be favored to one degree or another by a particular form of government, but they are not forms of governance they are models for structuring an economy.

Second, with somewhere in the range of 200 nations in the world today, the exact number depends on how we define a nation but that is another discussion, all of them, every single one, is a mix of capitalism and socialism, though each may draw the line between them in a slightly different place.

But wait some will cry, what about the communist nations. Well, in fact, there are only five countries in which the ruling party is a Communist Party - China, Cuba, Laos, Korea, and Vietnam. Some will immediately say, what about Russia. Sorry, but Russia is actually a Constitutional Republic or Federal Republic, which is technically a form of a Parliamentary system. Putin's Party is United Russia, not the Communist Party.

Several countries are ruled by an authoritarian, strongman form of rule, but that is a style of rule not a form of government. But it should be noted that in each of the world's countries, including those five ruled by a Communist Central party, the economic system is still a combination of capitalism and socialism. There is presently no purely Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, or any other form of Communist economic system in any country in the world. In fact, there is also no country in the world that has a purely socialist economic system either. Private enterprise and ownership still exists in every country in the world to one degree or another.

So for my Republican friends who scream that if Democrats come to power we will be on the path to socialism, my reply is, like every other country in the world we already are a combined form of a capitalist and socialist economy. Now then, let's all sit nicely like adults and discuss where each of us feels is the best place to draw the line between capitalism and socialism.

What do you mean we are already socialist? Well, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Agricultural Supports, Tricare and the VA, and the entire social safety net including unemployment payments, welfare, food stamps, etc. are all socialist programs designed to reduce economic inequality. And that does not even include what may be the largest socialist program in America - public education. To the best of my knowledge no one, with the possible exception of Betsy DeVos, wants to privatize all of public education. We may argue about or disagree on whether each of these is properly constructed or administered, but most would prefer not to see all of them abolished.

We decided as a country, as have all others, that there are certain portions of the economy that should operate as a collective to help to best support the population as a whole. It allows us to render support and take care of the less fortunate among us and that makes our overall communities a better place to live in for all of us. Generally, the extreme form of capitalism, better known as anarchy or survival of the fittest, is regarded as likely unworkable in the real world, even by most Republicans.

So let's stop with all the "Democrats will take us down the path to socialist and Marxist hell" talk. If Republicans want to have a constructive discussion about the best places to draw the line between capitalism and socialism, then let's sit down and have a rational discussion.

Some of us feel that economic inequality seems to have grown significantly in the last several decades to the detriment of society at large and has particularly disadvantaged certain portions of the population. There are others who, at least occasionally, sound like the seagulls in Finding Nemo and crying, "Mine, mine, mine."

Ok, let's make some decisions democratically (with a small "d") about how to best distribute wealth. I know they hate the phrase wealth redistribution, but I said distribute not redistribute. It is a real thing that means how wealth is distributed or accumulated throughout a population. I did not say I would cry "Mine, mine, mine" and take theirs away. We just need to decide how to manage our economy so those who are less well off or less fortunate at the lower end of the economic scale are not unfairly or unjustly disadvantaged to an extreme. Let's decide what level of economic equality is appropriate and how to best achieve it. Yes, there will always be some level of inequality as even in socialism people are rewarded based on their level of contribution to the collective. Some will contribute more and be rewarded to a greater extent for that, and some less. After all not everyone receives the same monthly social security check or unemployment insurance payment. Generally the amount of the payment reflects to some extent the amount paid into the system by the individual and their employer over time. Even in countries with more generous state pension systems, the amount of the monthly payment reflects the amount of contributions. But perhaps we can improve to some degree what many believe is presently an unreasonable disparity in the manner in which wealth is distributed here in the US resulting in less income and wealth inequality. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, would be better off and our communities would be better places to live in.

I hope this is helpful to some.

Expand full comment

As a thought, wouldn't bailing out 'Too Big To Fail' businesses like banks, and oil companies, and even subsidizing selected start-ups be a Very large bit of socialism?

Expand full comment

If we ended corporate welfare, it would go a long way to funding the general good.

Expand full comment

Thoughtfully written. Thank you!

Expand full comment

Every day is an atrocity buffet with the GOP and this letter is a peek into their kitchen.

How many rancid hamberders can we endure?

I don’t even want to know.

Expand full comment

What will end the pandemic is “not masks. It’s not shutting down the economy," Meadows said. “Hopefully it is American ingenuity that will allow for therapies and vaccines to ultimately conquer this.”

Hopefully SAFE therapies and vaccines will be developed to conquer Covid 19 but in the meantime, what? Taking appropriate measures; masks, social distancing and closures, doesn't appeal to the Republican leadership and their followers because it infringes on their rights. It's difficult to reconcile the Republican narrative around the Right to Life with the current narrative and response around the pandemic and whose life is worth more, whose life is worth saving. It's hard to understand how schools, from Pre-K through university level, have opted for on-line or hybrid learning as the safest and best learning modalities given the current crisis but the federal government continues to push for school openings risking children, teachers, staff, bus drivers, families and more. Who, amongst that pool of people, will we deem worthy of living if push comes to shove?

The pandemic, along with the glaring racial injustices that we've allowed to fester since the day the Constitution was penned, have caused the pot to boil over. If this country is to survive we're going to have to stop debating about the meaning and righteousness of the words written and take them, (and the amendments), to heart; modify language to reflect the times, make amendments based on the 21st century not the 18th century, embrace and adopt practices that reflect these words: All PEOPLE are created equal.

Obviously, I'm not a scholar or academician but I am smart enough to know that the loose strings we've let lie for centuries are finally causing our tapestry to unravel. It's devastating. Vote wisely.

Expand full comment

Thank you for that and I completely agree.

Expand full comment

This is truly one of your best updates yet. Thank you. Distills your last book into a (big-) bite-sized piece, and lays it out on the table. But, wow, this is a scary time. Feels like we are balanced, precariously, at the top of a mountain, and it is not yet clear which side we will descend. History will judge all of us alive in this moment, and we have work to do.

Expand full comment

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 If we can prevail in this 2020 Election, there is hope for a New New Deal.

Expand full comment

Even though this is all bad news, than you for your important daily summaries of our multi-faceted crises.

Expand full comment

Do the Republicans not ever think of the 1920s and what propelled the crash? And caused the Great Depression?

“Hear this now, O foolish people,

Without [a]understanding,

Who have eyes and see not,“

And who have ears and hear not:

Thank you again, Professor Richardson.

Expand full comment

There are two main enemies of the GOP: reality and democracy. That's why they've made lying and voter suppression their two major strategies.

Expand full comment

You’ve written a powerful summary of the situation in which the United States and all of us connected to it finds itself. When I think about where we are and when I talk with people, there is utter despair. How ever will we and our country survive until January? What ever will we do if Trump and his Republicans goons are re-elected?

Expand full comment

I feel the same despair. As I was reading today's letter, I kept thinking "Where do we go now?" There seems so little more we can do besides VOTE, and wait for the hoped for results. I write postcards, (lots of them since 2018), and post on social media, but feel so helpless for the country.

Expand full comment

They have seen to it that we can’t ‘go’ anywhere from both their complete abdication of responsibility for dealing with covid, thereby ensuring that the rest of the world bans American travelers, and by removing our ability to get a passport.

I feel much the same way. I see nothing good coming down the pike and my gut instinct is to run - fast and far. However, I am not in a position to do so and I would not leave behind family members who do not currently hold passports. That being said, the only answer left is to fight. Every single one of us, in whatever way we can, must fight against the destruction of our country that these people seem so hell-bent on bringing about. There is no arguing with them. All we can do is fight.

Expand full comment