Masha Gessen is a Russian dissident who publishes frequently in the New York Times, the York Review of Books and elsewhere.
This article appeared in the “New York Review of Books” right after Trump’s election.
We should pay attention to Masha Gessen.
“Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, The New York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. More recently, the same newspaper made a telling choice between two statements made by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov following a police crackdown on protesters in Moscow: “The police acted mildly—I would have liked them to act more harshly” rather than those protesters’ “liver should have been spread all over the pavement.”
“Perhaps the journalists could not believe their ears. But they should—both in the Russian case, and in the American one. For all the admiration Trump has expressed for Putin, the two men are very different; if anything, there is even more reason to listen to everything Trump has said. He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.
“He has received the support he needed to win, and the adulation he craves, precisely because of his outrageous threats. Trump rally crowds have chanted “Lock her up!” They, and he, meant every word. If Trump does not go after Hillary Clinton on his first day in office, if he instead focuses, as his acceptance speech indicated he might, on the unifying project of investing in infrastructure (which, not coincidentally, would provide an instant opportunity to reward his cronies and himself), it will be foolish to breathe a sigh of relief. Trump has made his plans clear, and he has made a compact with his voters to carry them out. These plans include not only dismantling legislation such as Obamacare but also doing away with judicial restraint—and, yes, punishing opponents.
“To begin jailing his political opponents, or just one opponent, Trump will begin by trying to capture members of the judicial system. Observers and even activists functioning in the normal-election mode are fixated on the Supreme Court as the site of the highest-risk impending Trump appointment. There is little doubt that Trump will appoint someone who will cause the Court to veer to the right; there is also the risk that it might be someone who will wreak havoc with the very culture of the high court. And since Trump plans to use the judicial system to carry out his political vendettas, his pick for attorney general will be no less important. Imagine former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie going after Hillary Clinton on orders from President Trump; quite aside from their approach to issues such as the Geneva Conventions, the use of police powers, criminal justice reforms, and other urgent concerns.”
“To begin jailing his political opponents, or just one opponent, Trump will begin by trying to capture members of the judicial system.”
Well then, it’s a good thing that the Congressional #Resistance didn’t just green light Trump’s judicial appointees so they could go home.
Oh, wait, they did….
Does Trump scare you or not, dienne77?
I certainly know from your posts how you feel about nearly all of the Democrats.
The only thing you ever post about Trump are comments about his personality not being nice enough. You will post that Trump is “oafish” or uses obscenities. But whenever Diane Ravitch starts a post about Trump being much WORSE than just “oafish”, you jump in to change the subject to the evil Democrats.
Do you agree with most of us — and with Masha Gessen — that Trump is a very dangerous man not because he is “oafish” — LBJ was “oafish” and used obscenities — but because Trump demonstrates every sign of embracing the Presidency as an autocracy?
Do you agree with most of us that if the Republicans continue to control both House and Senate and Kavanaugh becomes the second Trump Supreme Court Justice, that the threat faced by our country is dire?
Do you agree with most of us that if Trump is President, the Republicans control all of Congress, and Kavanaugh is confirmed, that is a much worse situation than the Democrats – some of whom are certainly co-opted — winning at least one part of government in order to put a limit on Trump’s power?
I honestly don’t think from your posts that you do agree with that. You don’t seem to think Trump is much of a threat at all and certainly not enough of a threat to want to enable the evil Democrats any power to limit what he does.
If I’m wrong, correct me, but I don’t think I’m wrong. I keep waiting for you to talk about Trump with the same ugly attacks you very often direct at Democrats, but I never see them.
Calling Mussolini or Hitler “oafish” may have been true, but it hardly described what was dangerous about them. Trump is dangerous, and limiting yourself to words like “oafish” or “orange-haired” to describe him while using words like “advocates world-wide slaughter” to describe other politicians generally signals something about your view of Trump.
Does it matter to you at all whether the Democrats control at least one part of Congress to put a limit on Trump? Is that important to you?
Dienne is very concerned by those who unfairly criticize Trump. It’s very confusing.
No, it’s not very confusing. It’s called cleaning one’s own house before complaining/criticizing someone else’s. And the Dims, at least at the national level with the DNC haven’t shown that they are willing to do so.
So. . . they are rightly criticized by Dienne (myself and many other progressive thinking individuals).
For another’s astute writing on those who of us who criticize the left (and the right, and the center and the. . . .): https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/29/no-remorse-reflections-on-radical-purism/
The not-so-great thing about “radical purists” is they elected George W. Bush, not Al Gore, and Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton.
No, they didn’t. That’s as false a political meme as is out there. Sad and sorry excuses by the Dims for exactly what Street is talking about. Those Dim talking points have been rebutted many, many times. Would you like some links to those rebuttals? I’ve posted them here many times before. (and one of the reasons I should hold true to my personal pledge to not comment on posts that aren’t education oriented as it’s nothing more than to prevent myself from keeping hitting my head against the brick wall of Dimocrapic falsehoods that are repeated here.) And no, the condemnation of the Dims does not mean that I am a Rethug supporter or a tRumptrainer as I (and others who don’t kowtow to the DNC, the Clintons and the corporate Dim party line have so often been accused of around here.)
Basta con esto. I’ll return to my personal policy of not commenting on non-educational issues here, that’s all. No biggie. I’ll stick with what I believe is the best part of the blog, the discussions about the teaching and learning process.
Ralph Nader brought us George W. Bush.
Jill Stein’s one million votes brought us Trump. Don’t forget that she was invited to be a guest of honor at Putin’s table in Moscow at the same dinner that Michael Flynn attended, same dinner, same table.
That’s utter nonsense about Nader. Here are five of many articles from a quick search. Please read and understand any one of them and quit spreading the Dim’s false talking points.
With this being the most damning pieces of evidence (from the LA Times): “Gore lost because 200,000 Democrats voted against him in Florida, electoral chaos reigned, and he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.”
http://prorev.com/green2000.htm
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-al-gore-ralph-nader-2000-20160527-snap-story.html#
https://samsmitharchives.wordpress.com/2002/12/14/why-nader-wasnt-responsible-for-gores-loss/
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
https://socialistworker.org/2016/06/02/who-stole-election-2000-hint-not-nader
Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida.
Bush won Florida by 537 votes.
Do the math.
Were life to be so simple! Did you read any of the analysis? That response is a perfect example of why I self embargo on political posts.
The fantasy world of Dim Clinton apologists is amazing. She ran the worst pres campaign ever and lost to the worst pres candidate ever. That is the historical fact of the matter.
I can’t wait for the Clintons to get out of US politics almost as bad as waiting for the Bushes to get out of US politics. Both cancers inflicted upon the American body politic.
“It’s called cleaning one’s own house before complaining/criticizing someone else’s.”
So until every Democrat is Jesus Christ, one is not allowed to mention the fascist tendencies or anything negative about Trump?
Duane, surely you jest. Are you really saying that you and dienne77 would never criticize Benjamin Netanyahu until progressives rule America?
Are you really saying that it was correct for Germans to refrain from criticizing anything Hitler did because the opposing party did not offer perfection?
Your excuse for dienne77 turning every criticism of Trump into a criticism of democrats is no different than people who insist that no parent must speak up if they see a child brutally bullying another child because our own children are not perfect. And until our own children are perfect, any bullies who we see hurting children must not be spoken of. Because “our own house is not in order”.
Duane, many good people recognize that you can work to put your own house in order AND criticize the even worse evil that is being done elsewhere and even try to stop it. You don’t have to remain silent until your own house has not one speck of dust.
I will ask you the same question I asked dienne77. Are both of you perfectly content to have Trump in power with the Republicans controlling both the Senate and House and the Supreme Court because the Democrats are not suitably “clean enough” for you?
It really is a simple question. Yes or no. I think the answer is yes, you don’t mind it because the Democrats are not yet perfectly clean. One must not speak out against a bully hurting children if their own child has ever improperly teased a friend.
The fundamental error the ideologues of purity make is that they see elections and parties as endpoints, not ongoing, never-ending processes. The framers of the Constitution (I know, ancient history with no relevance for today) understood this. That’s why their constitutional system, in a de facto sense, makes parties the primary arbiters of political debate and activity. Their experience with parliamentary systems was not good. They built one to avoid what they perceived as the antidote to them. That’s the system we have, like it or not.
With Democrats in power, however “corrupt” and “compromised” they may be, the terms of political debate change. Instead of debating if outside interference of our political and electoral systems occurred at all, we would be exposing what happened and responding accordingly. Instead of restoring definitions of pre-existing conditions and deductibles into our lexicon, they would not be issues and we would be fighting over refining access and cost of health care. Instead of being undercut at every turn by a DeVos-led Education Department, we would be debating how to dismantle the remnants of NCLB/RTTT and restoring teacher autonomy. Would it be paradise? No. Would it be the end of a process? No.
So either work to build a viable third party, work to change the Democrats, or give up and snipe. Those are the three options you have under our system. Are you ready to support your party in an election, even when your candidate has lost to him/her? And are you ready to work with or against their policy ideas, when you have fundamental disagreements, once the term begins? We must focus on now and the future and be informed by the past, not continue to be dragged down by it.
To answer the question above, no by opposing one side, one does not become a supporter of the other. But in our system, by doing so, one enables the political agenda of everything one purports to oppose. More importantly, it skews the public debate and changes its political parameters.
I read the link on counterpunch that Duane just posted and here is a quote:
“Here’s what [Bernie] Sanders, the nation’s Democratic Socialist-in-Chief (a man who eagerly joined McCain and sickened antiwar activists in his own state by zealously backing Bill Clinton’s air assault on Serbia) had to Tweet about killer McCain: “John McCain was an American hero, a man of decency and honor, and a friend of mine. He will be missed not just in the U.S. Senate but by all Americans who respect integrity and independence” (emphasis added).”
According to the rationale presented by those who say it is not allowed to criticize anyone of a different political background — no matter how evil they are — until their own house is in order:
I politely suggest that dienne77 is not allowed to criticize the Democrats anymore — not one word — until Bernie Sanders is perfect.
Lots of other progressives are criticized in that link, and until every one of those progressives like Sanders abjectly apologize, there can be no criticism from dienne77 directed toward democrats, at least according to the rules set out above by Duane.
Do I have that right? And if dienne77 doesn’t like those rules, she should take it up with Duane. Those are his.
The “cancers” that the Clintons “afflicted” included Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Again, the words used against the Clinton are 1000x worse than the words used against Trump.
I can understand harshly criticizing Clinton IF you also harshly criticize Trump and the entire Republican Party.
When you give them a pass, or ALWAYS try to change any discussion of the wrongs of the Republicans into a discussion about how the Democrats are just as evil, you are taking a very specific stand — that whatever the Republicans do to this country is not nearly as important as making sure that there are no “co-opted” Democrats with any power to stop them.
GregB, good post. I think many – not just ideologues of purity, but those who sit on the sidelines, shunning politics & sitting out elections – fail to see the overall process.
A cogent & prescient piece by Gessen.
I have often skipped comments relating Trumpism to Nazis. The idea seemed historically simplistic & over-the-top. Until I read Timothy Snyder’s review of “The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic” by Benjamin Carter Hett.
It’s a scholarly history of the period, without comparisons to today’s US. But the similarities are chilling:
“He presents Hitler’s rise as an element of the collapse of a republic confronting the dilemmas of globalization with imperfect instruments and flawed leaders…
Even before the Great Depression brought huge unemployment to Germany, the caprice of the global economy offered an opportunity to politicians who had simple answers…
[re: the Nazi 1920 platform:] ‘members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from Germany’…
As Goebbels put it, ‘We want to build a wall, a protective wall’…
[re: victimhood fiction:] Hitler believed in telling lies so big that their very scale left some residue of credibility…
In Hett’s account, the electoral rise of the Nazis [late ’20’s/early ’30’s] had less to do with [Hitler’s] particular ideas and more to do with an opening on the political spectrum [center vs socialist]: their core constituents were Protestants from the countryside or small towns who felt themselves to be the victims of globalization…
the system [the mechanics of democratic elections] was rigged in their favor by men in power [industry & military] who had no use for democracy…
BTW, if we should listen to Masha Gessen (and I agree, we should), does that also mean that we should listen to her when she says that Russians didn’t elect Trump, Americans did? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42741385/viewsnight-russians-didn-t-elect-donald-trump-americans-did
When she wrote that comment, there was no evidence. That was before Don Jr met with Russian agents to “get dirt” on Hillary Clinton. That was before Mueller indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers for hacking election computers. She has not repeated that since.
Dienne, why are you so protective of Putin, a fascist?
Odd, but I’m not aware of Gessen publishing a retraction or modification of her opinion in light of any new “evidence”. I don’t believe she’s ever said “oh, gee, I guess Russians did elect Trump after all”. I wonder why she is so protective of Putin?
Anyway, I know you (sadly) loathe Glenn Greenwald (although in reality you agree with him on everything except Russiagate), but I think this is a very worthwhile (if long) interview with him. I agree with basically everything he says in this interview: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/now-we-re-talking/en/glenn-greenwald/
Gessen has never repeated her long-ago claim that Russia did not attack our democracy. If she believes it, she would say so. You quoted an article she wrote right after the election. We have learned a lot since then.
Correction: I don’t “loathe” Glenn Greenwood. I disagreed with his naive claim that the Russian government did not attack our election. As the facts emerge, skeptics fall silent.
Your problem, Dienne, is that you see only extremes. If you disagree with someone, you think he or she is horrible, a criminal, contemptible. I don’t see the world in such stark terms.
Sen. Bill Nelson said Russians are inside certain Florida counties’ voting systems. They may have rigged the recent primaries. Gillum was behind in every poll and suddenly he won. It could have been legitimate, but it may not have been. We don’t know. They may elect racist De Santis.
The Electoral College elected Trump while the popular vote went with Hillary. We are in huge trouble with this demagogue, con man and would be authoritarian. Don’t blame me, I voted for Hillary.
This is a sad moment in history.
Every day, I wonder how we will survive four years of this narcissistic sociopath.
They are just kicking the can down the road, waiting for the election to be over. Then they can all decide how they want to handle this mess. Elections (winning) are more important than the people doing the electing.
If you think the Kremlin influence campaign had no effect on Americans you’re far more naive than you realize.
I collect links to articles that I can use in my essay WORDS MATTER.
I LOVE THIS ONE: The Wise Men of American Collapse – Eudaimonia and Co https://eand.co/the-wise-men-of-american-collapse-8abed8c1591c
” Some words matter a very great deal, because they are not words at all — they are sirens, bullets, knives. The connotation is missing, entirely, in formal American discourse today, that “these are very bad men, who will lead you into disaster, atrocity, and ruin” — and in fact, they already are. Isn’t that what kids in camps are? If you don’t think so, my friend, then you are on the wrong side of history. The leaders of Weimar Republic, failing to sound the alarm, laughed gently, tolerating the Nazis’ worst abuses, perhaps condemning a few here and there — but never really to the degree or with the intensity that was needed, deserved, or justified. Loudly, piercingly, like an air raid siren, like a knife into the hearts of people. The wise men of the Weimar Republic had chosen their lesser evil — but by doing so, they’d licensed the Nazis, and left themselves Now. Doesn’t all that sound eerily like America today? Who’s the real enemy of the American future? Using words like “enemy” is childish, to be sure — but here we are. Is it the socialists — who basically want healthcare for everyone, not to communalize your house and car? Or is it the guys who are snatching people by now in broad daylight? Wait — are those guys fascists, or not? What other kinds of men snatch people in broad daylight, over the color of their skin?
“But this formal handover of power was just that: a formality. In truth, power had been taken by the Nazis, every day, for a decade by this point. But that was also because power had been given to them, by the wise men of the Weimar Republic, who never really said things like: “These are very bad and dangerous men! If you follow them, they will lead you into atrocity, disaster, catastrophe, and ruin. Of historic and generational sorts. The kind that is unthinkable.” How could they? They’d already decided the fascists were the lesser evil.
“Fascist” then didn’t mean what it does today — today, all the above is exactly the connotation it carries, isn’t it? And yet, by not calling American fascists “fascists”, the wise men of American collapse are failing to sound precisely the alarm of history, in just that way.
“But if the fascists are the real enemy — then why aren’t such acts condemned with the fury and outrage and scorn that they rightly deserve? After all — they’re not. They’re shouted at, a little bit — but as I’ve said, nobody in the American elite is sounding history’s alarm. The wise men of America won’t even call them fascists today — because that word has connotations they cannot bring themselves to use. What connotations? Precisely the ones you and I know. “These are very bad men, who will lead you into atrocity, ruin, and catastrophe” — precisely what the leaders of the Weimar Republic should have said.
In fact, the wise men of American collapse are doing everything they can do not to sound the alarm. Even absurd things like saying “king” — but not “fascist.” But if I say “king”, what comes to mind? Maybe Lear, Hamlet, or George. Yet if I say “fascist”, you immediately understand the path of ruin America is on — demonization, scapegoating, laws, ghettos, camps, cleansing, etcetera. Do you see the difference — and how much it matters? The alarm is only sounded by the right word, my friends. And uttering those words is the primary duty of those who wish to lead nations.
“(And yet, because America was an apartheid state for so long, I think, American elites evolved norms of politesse, which fail them now. Even then, slavers and abolitionists would smile friendly smiles at one another, mingling not just at parties — but in Congress. So today, American elites tolerate abuses by their own, to a degree that no other nation really does, normalizing them and licensing them.)
“Hence, today, the wise men of America are, just like the wise men of the Weimar Republic before them, more worried about the communists than the fascists. Who, today, are the socialists. Hence, America’s engaged in bizarre, abstruse debates about whether it can afford healthcare — while people are snatched off the streets in broad daylight. Can anything else explain that bizarre, gruesome set of facts?
And so just as in the Weimar Republic, the fascists have received a kind of implicit social license to go on doing their worst. That is why transgressions and injustices and abuses now mount by the day. That is how people end up being snatch in broad daylight — because the fascists know full well they can get away with it. A little more so, every day. They can get away with it. What does that mean? It means that they will never be held accountable — because already, America’s wise men have decided that all this is bad, but perfectly tolerable. But when a nation makes the mistake of choosing a lesser evil which is obviously going to be one of the greatest ones of all, my friends, it does not often recover easily.
“So here America is. I didn’t believe in reincarnation until 2018. When the wise men of American collapse, eerily, made precisely and exactly all the very same mistakes as the wise men of the Weimar Republic. And brought, just like them, a once proud and noble nation so low, that the abyss itself looks down in shame.”
Most of us are fiddling while Rome burns. We need to drop everything and get out the vote for Dems in November. I’m spending every day of this holiday weekend doing this. Nothing else matters now.
Agreed!
Based on what he said at Aretha’s memorial service today, Rev. William Barber agrees with you:
Thank you for this, Greg. Though I lack even one religious molecule, hearing the Dr. Reverend William Barber speak never fails to lift my spirits.
We are soul mates (put intended) on the molecule. I’m a bit of a Barber groupie, for your reason as well.
I am so discouraged to hear the ideological purists regurgitating the same talking points they used in the 2016 election cycle, why they would and could never vote for Hillary under any circumstances because she’s a neoliberal war monger, etc. So we will go through this same song and dance again in November and in 2020. We do not have a viable third PROGRESSIVE party, key words being viable and progressive. We do have the Libertarian Party (diluted Ayn Rand garbage party) which is to laugh but it got more votes than the Green Party by a substantial margin. We have had 3rd parties throughout our history but they have not been viable. I am glad that the right wing 3rd parties are not viable, so far. For example, in the election of 1892 James B. Weaver ran as a populist and got 8% of the vote. He was very progressive on many issues but he had a dark side; he wanted to open the Indian territories to white settlement. Ouch!
The ideological radical purists can do as they please but I will vote for a Democrat in November and in 2020 because the GOP has morphed into a dangerous cult hell bent on destroying the commons and the public good. However, by all means support and boost for progressives wherever possible, vote for them in the primaries, roast and criticize the Democratic establishment flunkies and the corporate Dems.
Even Bernie has had to make compromises, he did support Hillary once he lost in the primaries. Does that make Bernie a war criminal?
If the radical purists continue to support Naders and Steins in 2020, we can expect a second term for Trump. He desperately wants that, not only because he can roll back every progressive policy of the 20th century, but because the statute of limitations will allow him to escape prosecution for any crimes he committed before and during the election of 2016.
The radical purists are hypocrites.
If they weren’t hypocrites they would be doing what they insist must be done and directing all of their criticisms toward Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein for not being perfect.
The radical purists insist that no criticism of Trump is allowed and only criticism of Democrats are allowed until the Democrats prove themselves worthy.
The radical purists say they are allowed to criticize Democrats even if their own progressive leaders aren’t perfect but they are NOT allowed to criticize Trump because the Democrats aren’t perfect.
They are hypocrites. Not even Jesus Christ claimed that you had to refrain from fighting against evil unless your own house is pefect.
And yet that is the guiding principle of the radical purists. They attack those for criticizing Trump because the Democrats are not yet perfect.
But they don’t see the hypocrisy in their rabid attacks on Democrats when their own progressive leaders are not perfect.
NYCpsp
Good thing I’m not a “radical purist”, eh!
And I don’t know any either. . .
well, perhaps other than Dim or Rethug diehards.
Duane,
I hope you didn’t mean it when you said that Democrats should not be criticizing Trump until their own house was in order.
Do you really not think it matters whether the Democrats have the ability to put a check on Trump?
I respect your right to criticize any Democrat you want and I often agree with your points. But to not ALSO recognize the greater danger from Trump and the Republicans having total power because you believe that there is no difference between Trump and the Republicans having uncheckable power and having those supposedly corrupt Democrats in power just makes me depressed.
Okay, I just slapped myself up side the head. Back to the original programming!
Sorry, meant to post the NYT book review snippets above re: Hett’s history of the rise of Hitler as a general comment here, not as a response mid-thread.
Democrats need to be directly addressing the issues that give rise to nationalism and authoritarianism. The former is a reaction to the social and job disruptions created by globalism, & the latter to a sense that democracy has not been working for middle/ working classes, & they’re part of the same phenomenon.
A simple anti-Trump approach is fruitless if he is the product of un-addressed economic disruption; there will be more like him coming. Socialism/ progressivism are a needed corrective to extreme inequality of wealth distribution, but must be accompanied by plans to put people to work at family-supporting jobs. Trump won because he spoke directly to these concerns, but his ‘fixes’ [tariffs/ more dereg/ cutting safety net/ reducing immigration] exacerbate instead of ameliorate – Democrats need to clearly articulate & directly tie in how we can pay for and accomplish needed changes.
We need to be, in some way, “radical purists”, or else we have no true integrity.
On the other hand, being a “radical purist” involves staking and ultimately losing your life and/or identity on ideas that don’t mesh with a corrupt society. And sheer self-preservation is one of the main, ubiquitous “corruptions” around. So is much of being human and getting along with others; obliging others’ delusions and ignoring ultimate consequences and implications.
Ibsen spent much of his life writing about this.
Sorry, not losing life and/or identity,
losing life and/or maybe some form of comfort or security.
Identity is preserved, but at great cost, potentially the ultimate cost.
Ultimately, you are fully yourself, yet you no longer exist in this world, AND you take down those around you.
You can have glimmers of this kind of heroism, but it’s not a medically sound lifestyle choice, in any way whatsoever.
Radical purists will give Trump a second term.
I will vote for the Democratic Candidate.
I am not a Radical Purist.
One can certainly maintain integrity by voting blue, against the Treasonous abomination and for humanity.
Perhaps “radical purists” is the wrong term.
I happen to think that radical purists quite often embrace politicians who are not “pure” on all issues. As long as it is only public education or the African-American teens killed by police bullets that gets thrown under the bus by their anointed “progressive”, they can overlook it.
Sorry, again. It IS more like losing part of your identity or potential self in order to more fully be yourself.
Long time since contemplating this, the dilemma of Brand and Peer Gynt.
This belongs up higher.