Bill Banning Whites-Only Housing Passes by Just One Vote

[pat_k]

26. You needn't use the label, but a distinction must be made between...

Last edited Thu May 7, 2026, 03:40 PM - Edit history (5)

...that which is intolerable in a legitimate American government, and that which is a matter of legitimate public policy on which we have VERY strong views.

The characteristics/agendas/conduct I name cross a red line. I name and label those "red line" attributes and explicitly define the label to exclude people who support policies that members of the Democratic Party strenuously oppose, providing that 1) the person is defined by none of the red line characteristics, and 2) the policy is consistent with the fundamental moral principles reflected in our constitution.

I don't care how it is done -- whether by defining and labeling as a shorthand as I suggest, or by focusing on the redline attributes themselves (which I think complicates messaging, YMMV).

What is SERIOUSLY problematic is overgeneralizing.

Frankly, just being a racist does not cross a red line in America. Each of us has a right to hold hatreds, personal animosities, or other awful beliefs in our hearts. (Just as we have a right to hold more benevolent, compassionate beliefs). Where the red line is crossed is when people break the law to harm or discriminate, or they empoy the levers of governmental power, whether judicial, legislative, or executive, to implement those personal beliefs as a matter of enforceable public policy. Doing that is an intolerable violation of constitutional moral principles.

Certain courts, executive agencies, and executive offices have been co-opted and rendered illegitimate by people who have successfully advanced red line agendas. However, that does not make all federal and state courts, all state executive agencies and all state offices illegitimate. The intolerable people, conduct, and agendas must be purged to restore legitimacy. We need to build consensus that a commitment to that project transcends EVERYTHING else, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to get back on the road to a legitimate "more perfect union" with segments of our government operating outside constitutional moral principles. Working toward that consensus and commitment is a targeted, doable project that is consistent with American constitutional moral principles.

And while the infiltration of trumplicans (as I define them) and submission to trumpublican forces has rendered the Republican Party illegitimate, they have a choice. Purge those elements and define the party based on legitimate policy differences or remain pariahs. What we will never accomplish is eliminating the party entirely, and I think it is counter-productive to even try.

What is NOT consistent with American constitutional moral principles is declaring that PERSONAL beliefs viewed as unsavory by this or that faction must be purged from the American psyche. People who live within the borders of this nation are free to believe whatever they believe, love who they love, or hate who they hate, providing that WE ARE ALL crystal clear that NO FACTION can be permitted to seek to implement prejudices or religious doctrine not shared by other factions as enforceable public policy in ANY WAY.

I think that if we do not stop with generalizations that are frankly false -- if we keep trying to demonize as intolerable everything encompassed by labels like "MAGA" and "Republican" -- labels that encompass a mix of agendas that are intolerable, legitimate public policy differences, and legitimate matters of personal belief (strictly "personal" for those who understand that in America it is intolerable to impose those beliefs on others), we are in deep shit.

It is like the difference between trying to demonize delegitimize, and purge "Christians," instead of focusing on demonizing, delegitimizing, and purging Christian Nationalists. The former is patently Un-American and intolerable, the latter is an absolute necessity to preserve a legitimate American government. (Discussed in this post).