We Interrupt This Pogrom
We Could Use A Little Mercy Now
“WE ALREADY FORGIVE HIM FOR WHAT HE’S DONE…AND THERE’S NOTHING BUT LOVE FROM OUR SIDE OF THE FAMILY.”
—Chris Singleton on the day after his mother was shot to death at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, by the white supremacist Dylann Roof.
To ease my frazzled sense of Sanity, I’ve started reading Mother Emanuel: Two Centuries of Race, Resistance and Forgiveness in one Charleston Church by the excellent journalist and campaign-bus compatriot Kevin Sack. You should read it, too. It’s a story essential for this moment, an antidote to the bile in the American air. Grace is a balm and we could use it now, because there’s a distinct sense, if you watch TV—I can hardly imagine what’s happening on social media—that things are spinning out of control. The spectacular forgiveness of the Mother Emanuel families in 2015, after nine of their fellow church members were assassinated, an act that was certainly not an example of left-wing violence, is something we all need to recall, even if the President of the United States chooses not to.
There is a terrible, almost Biblical sense of foreboding: the slaughter of a religious martyr will do that. Nothing good ever comes of it. I have no idea if it is going to explode into further violence, but I do believe it will result in further extremism on the far right. Charlie Kirk’s funeral this weekend promises catharsis and one hopes it will be peaceful. But if it proves to be a moment of healing, that will be no thanks to the words and deeds of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Their behavior has been disgraceful. The ever loathsome Iago, Stephen Miller, put it this way:
“We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.”
Miller then continued by saying, “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
It certainly feels as if the Cossacks are itching to run riot, a pogrom is in the wind—at the very least, an extra push toward the limitation of free speech by those who proclaim they’re protecting the American Way. There are precedents for this; indeed, we have a rich history of provoked bloodshed. There was the slow-burning but vicious pogrom—lynchings and rapes and torture—directed against former slaves in the century after the Civil War. There was a “red scare” in the wake of World War I that rounded up everyone from Eugene Debs to the International Workers of the World (Wobblies); the executions of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti in 1927 finally gave the public the blood it needed. There was another red scare in the 1950s, led by Senator Joe McCarthy; again, the executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave the public a scapegoat sacrifice. There was J. Edgar Hoover’s campaign against the violent left in the 1960s. To be honest, there were seeds of perfidy to be dealt with in each case. American communists worked to the advantage of the Soviet Union, including spies like Alger Hiss in the 1930s and the various operatives who helped steal atomic secrets in the 1940s. Left radicals planted no fewer than 1900 bombs in 1972 alone.
It is important to note: the current left has none of the threat or power that the anarchists and communists and Weathermen brought to the table. It is an empty husk, peopled by academic intellectuals and social media weirdos. The moderate left was able to bring thousands of people into the streets after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, somewhat peacefully—but also dappled with idiot violence and vandalism and Antifa occupation of a few crunchy cities like Portland and Seattle. Still, the primary impact of the radical left in the 21st century has been to enable MAGA bloviators to tar Democrats as a bunch of socialists. They have been very useful idiots. They enabled the election of Donald Trump.
Not much of a spark is needed to light this sort of fire. Zohran Mamdani can call for “dismantling” the police—and every Democrat suffers as a result. LGBTQ extremists can celebrate sex change operations—and every homosexual is tarred as a result. Ibram X. Kendi and his disciples can “understand” black crime and rail against racial integration—and every black person is assumed a would-be criminal. A handful of provocateurs can blight all the good that welfare state liberalism has done—social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and so on. A handful of welfare grifters can tarnish the support for those who really need help.
And so, under assault, this is a moment for moderates—America’s non-MAGA majority—to figure out, and act against, the roots of this right-wing populist surge. We need to be honest, particularly now, about the impact of 60-years of disdain for the traditional family and traditional values, emanating from the left. The Permissive Era has been a mixed bag. It has empowered blacks and Latinos, women and gay people—perhaps the greatest human rights advance in history. But it has also caused a destructive spirit of self-indulgence that has weakened our country…60-years of liberals saying, Anything Goes, Do Your Own Thing; divorce and abortion and sex change are not only rights, but rights without consequences. This has been a moral disaster. It has become unacceptable for Democrats to acknowledge certain self-evident truths. Like: families with two parents have a far better track record of producing solid citizens than those who don’t. This is not to condemn every single-parent family, and certainly not to criticize gay couples hoping to give love and stability to their children. It is to acknowledge the facts, though. The sociology accumulated over the past 70 years is indisputable. And we must acknowledge that gender confusion is a condition that afflicts only a microscopic percentage of our population—and that it has consequences, especially when its impact has been overblown by the media, as it has been, ceaselessly. irresponsibly. We must acknowledge that the notion of sexual mutability threatens more than a few people who lead worthy and productive lives, who are solid American citizens. It is an issue that merits careful discussion. Not celebration or condemnation.
So let’s try that for a paragraph. A conversation about the dangers of sexual fluidity must happen now, after the Kirk assassination, and it must be led by liberals. Any such conversation must begin with this acknowledgement: adults have the right to transition from one sex to the other. And that the vast majority of such transitions are acts of mercy without public consequence. But we must also acknowledge that happy people usually don’t tend to do something so drastic. There is, consequently, a disproportionate number of sad and disturbed people who are part of this cohort. That is particularly true among teenagers and young adults. The recent Milwaukee school shooter was flirting with transsexuality. Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin may have had a romantic relationship with a transsexual. Democrats, in particular, must make the case that should be limits to the public treatment of this condition: pre-pubescent children should not be taught gender fluidity…and teenagers should be taught that it is often a tragic and immutably wrong step to take. Liberals should take the position that the state should not encourage or pay for such procedures—and especially not for prisoners. They should not be afraid to call out the excesses of the trans-activists, as Andrew Sullivan continually does. That is courage.
And speaking of courage, Senator Chris Van Hollen got it exactly wrong when he chastised Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer and others for not endorsing Zohran Mamdani for Mayor of New York. Cowardice is the opposite: toeing the party line as Governor Kathy Hochul just did. Courage is standing up and saying: This guy has a history of mouthing dangerous and stupid things. He has called for dismantling the police. He has called for global intifada. He has no idea what creates prosperity; his proposals have led to the very opposite in the past. He can not be what the Democratic Party is about, if the party is to survive—an open question in my mind.
You know who else had a history of saying dangerous and stupid things? Charlie Kirk. Obviously, that wouldn’t justify any sort of violence against him. And yes, he did make an effort to debate the issues—but his form of campus debate was all too often the bullying of the inarticulate, knee-jerk permissive left. He had a right to do that, of course. And so did Matthew Dowd and Karen Attiah, who’ve been cancelled—by left institutions, MSNBC and The Washington Post, not so ironically—for saying some ill-advised stuff. They had a right to express their opinions, even if Attiah often used her platform to spread hate. Now is certainly not the time for cancellation; but then, I don’t think it’s ever appropriate for the misdemeanor of controversial, or even just obnoxious, speech.
Now is the time to remember the families of Mother Emanuel who—immediately—forgave the white racist murderer Dylann Roof. Most of us will never be able to approach the fervent grace they bestowed on our country in a time of need. But we can try.
This is a time of need. Now is the time to sing hymns, touch grass—as the Governor of Utah said—and have empathy for those with whom we disagree. Here’s one of my favorite modern hymns, by my friend Mary Gauthier:
My father could use a little mercy now
The fruits of his labor
Fall and rot slowly on the ground
His work is almost over
It won’t be long and he won’t be around
I love my father, and he could use some mercy now
My brother could use a little mercy now
He’s a stranger to freedom
He’s shackled to his fears and doubts
The pain that he lives in is
Almost more than living will allow
I love my brother, and he could use some mercy now
My Church and my Country could use a little mercy now
As they sink into a poisoned pit
That’s going to take forever to climb out
They carry the weight of the faithful
Who follow ‘em down
I love my Church and Country and they could use some mercy now
Every living thing could use a little mercy now
Only the hand of grace can end the race
Towards another mushroom cloud
People in power, well
They’ll do anything to keep their crown
I love life, and life itself could use some mercy now
Yea, we all could use a little mercy now
I know we don’t deserve it
But we need it anyhow
We hang in the balance
Dangle ‘tween hell and hallowed ground
Every single one of us could use some mercy now
Every single one of us could use some mercy now
Every single one of us could use some mercy now


I enjoy your writing and appreciate your perspective. That’s why I’m a paid subscriber. Sometimes, however, I feel that you start to stray into a form of “ both sideism” when you’re staking out the middle or moderate ground of an issue. Political scientists and historians who have been studying our political parties for the past few decades appear to have reached the consensus that the right wing as constituted in the present day Republican Party has grown extreme. The Left wing as constituted in the Democratic Party has for the most part remained the same. Bernie Sanders and AOC, two people most view as “ far Left” hold views of government that aren’t very different from FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson or Walter Mondale. In the social and cultural realms Democrats have indeed broadened their views from the 1960’s on to embrace the civil rights of African Americans, women, and LGBTQ+ . While fringe left wing groups in the 1960’s and 70’s were indeed radical like the Weathermen and Black Panthers, they were never embraced by the establishment of the Democratic Party. And while Communists and Socialists have been part of the Left wing for more than 100 years, they have always been small and for the most part out of the mainstream. When we look at the modern Republican Party it’s a very different story. Over time, they appear to have embraced a good portion of Christian /Evangelical Nationalist thinking. This has been coupled with a semi Libertarian view of government that has come to hold the most extreme views. Government is viewed as so evil that on taxes, for example, where each Republican member of Congress has taken a pledge to NEVER vote to raise taxes regardless of the needs of the country. On the cultural and social fronts they have gone against almost any movement to expand the rights of every group and have attempted to make the country adhere to a religiously conservative framework. So applying a “ both sides” are wrong but in just different ways philosophy to our political parties, as I feel sometimes you tend to do, I believe fails to fully recognize how radical one of our parties has indeed become. Had we followed the desires of most Republicans, as a woman, I would still have to get my husband or father’s permission to get a credit card, we would still have White and Colored separate drinking fountains, and my gay and lesbian friends would still be hiding their basic identities, just to cite some few examples. So please, in your journey for moderation and rationality, please do not paint “ both sides” with the same brush. The Left has any number of faults. After all it has to include a wide variety of viewpoints, but I believe it in no way matches the radicalization of the modern day Republican Party that has grown more and more strident in its views and narrow minded in its beliefs. Equating both sides makes it harder to recognize the seriousness of the threats to an open and democratic society.
thanks Joe