Keeping the Conversation Moving

I’m continuing our dialogue, even though we couldn’t go live tonight.

Technology wins again! I believe the current record, including my Deep Blue match, is Kasparov 0, computers 3. We’ve already reached out to the Substack team to get the live video glitches worked out in time for next week’s broadcast.

With that being said, we are very sorry for the inconvenience. And more than that, I’m grateful that so many of you have made tuning in to The Next Live a part of your respective weekly routines. One of the skills I value the most as both a political activist and a chess player is adaptability. So while we couldn’t engage with you this evening on Substack Live, I do want to continue the incredible conversation we’ve been having over the past few weeks. In that spirit, I’d like to respond to five reader comments—some friendly, some biting critiques—from my most recent column: “Are You Read to Lose Again? A Response to the Charge of Both-Sidesism”.

On the limits of our conversation, “Specky” says:

“I feel these discussions should prohibit any pro-MAGA person from adding to the discourse. Their criticisms of presidents like Joe Biden, and actions that he has taken like the pardoning of his son are completely unserious comparing it to the lawless Trump administration.”

Depends who counts as “pro-MAGA” in your book. Are there some extremists who won’t be reasoned out of the cult? Sure. Are there tens of millions who made a choice, one that you and I may disagree with but did so begrudgingly whom we can reach? Absolutely, and they should be a part of this discourse.

Ian Hume takes issue with my comparisons between America and Russia:

“Gary

I have always been a fan of yours with huge respect and admiration for your life story and your dogged combat against Vladimir Putin. Also, as a recently invited guest of Uriel and Caitlin to the Heroes in Democracy Gala in NYC I see that your RDI is doing excellent work against other tyrants in the world be they in Iran or Venezuela as well as in my native Zimbabwe. That said I am finding my respect and admiration being tested somewhat when seeing how you seem to be applying RDI principles also to the United States. I got a good giggle over your comment that under Trump we are witnessing “the Putinization of America” but when I read your warning in The Atlantic article (“How America can Avoid Becoming Russia”) I really had to ask myself how seriously to take this: America, democratic from its inception, against Russia (feudalism, communism, oligarchy). Maybe you’re comparing them as oligarchies but even that would be a huge stretch. I think I’ll take this injunction more seriously once Trump starts murdering his opponents and has uppity journalists shot dead in their apartments. When last did you see a televised cabinet meeting in the Kremlin? For that matter, during the Biden term, in the White House? So, sorry Gary, I’m not on board your blanket beating of the drum of Resistance to Trump. I don’t (and won’t ever) own a MAGA cap but given the binary choices of the last three election cycles—and the combined opacity, mendacity and criminality of the Democrats in each case—Trump seemed to be the rational choice in each. Noting, finally, that in referring to people like me you have outbid both Hillary (“Deplorables”) and Biden (“Garbage”) by referring to us as “Traitors”. That’s fine but I do have to ask how you rack that up against your otherwise very nice Substack invitation for commentators to disagree with you but to do so without being “disagreeable”?

I look forward to sticking with this platform to follow its lively interchanges. Cheers.”

The point is to protect our freedoms before the president starts having journalists and political activists assassinated. If we reach that point, it’s already too late. I won’t repeat here all the ways that this administration has abrogated core American principles, but suffice it to say, that I do believe them to be significant and although I will never shy away from criticizing democrats (or anyone else who deserves it), I also think we should be transparent about the risks posed by some of Trump’s actions and the ways in which they can lead to some of what I saw in Russia. It won’t happen overnight. But trust me, it can happen - the risk is greater than many people care to admit.

As for the “traitors” point—as I expressed to the first reader, I certainly don’t consider all people who supported Trump unreachable or bad, and certainly not traitors. I am interested in holding accountable the people in power who are selling out American interests in Ukraine and elsewhere while demolishing this country’s institutions at home. That means politicians, oligarchs, and demagogues—not the mass-demeaning of Trump voters that past Democratic presidential contenders engaged in.

Regarding my criticism of President Obama, my fellow Gary, Gary Fletcher, had this to say:

“I've really missed you, Garry, but that's my fault. You've been there all along, fighting the good fight. Somehow, I just failed to re-engage.

Completely agree with you about Obama. I mean...I like the guy, but he really blew it regarding Global politics.”

Yes—my main interest, and Obama’s main failure was on foreign policy, especially as concerns Russia. We saw it in Ukraine and we saw it in Syria. But let me add—and not least because people think I’ve been overly harsh with America’s 44th president—Obama is hardly alone in his failure. It is a multi-system collapse of America’s position in the world starting with the first President Bush. I’ll have a piece covering that later this week. Stay tuned!

Yuliya comes with a bold challenge: I am a part of the very problem I’m describing!

“There’s a serious issue with your “both sides are bad” argument,

Your stance of “I’m the smartest in the room” casts a shadow over your own role in the very problem you’re criticizing others for creating. Yes, it’s valuable—and empirically correct—to analyze and understand the faults on both sides. That’s how we get closer to reality and make informed decisions. But that’s only step one.

The most important step is taking responsibility—voting, participating, and choosing a future. Sitting on the sidelines, claiming moral superiority while abstaining or encouraging a protest vote, is a form of abdication.

Your ongoing “both sides” rhetoric, and your support for Nikki Haley throughout much of the last four years, played a significant role in Trump’s win. Haley served as a placeholder, keeping moderate voters—especially those disillusioned by January 6—from switching to the Democratic Party. You fell for that tactic and brought your supporters with you—especially Russian ones who looked up to you.

Even though I assume you personally voted for Harris in the end, many of your followers stayed away from the polls—thanks in no small part to your contribution to the confusion and moral ambiguity around voting. When Nikki dropped out, there simply wasn’t enough time or clarity left for many to switch gears. And to make matters worse, another wave of propaganda encouraged people to “send a message” by not voting at all. That silence spoke loudly—and helped Trump win.

Your excuse—“I’m just a chess player, I don’t matter”—doesn’t hold up when you continue to use your platform to influence people. That’s not just a contradiction. It feels like a way to avoid responsibility and protect your ego by projecting what you don’t like about yourself onto others.”

Another misread of my position. My view when it comes to America’s ongoing democratic breakdown is not that both sides are bad: One is bad, the other is woefully unprepared to fight back. The first is a normative judgment, the latter is an objective technical readout of the situation. Do you disagree?

As for Nikki Haley—a healthy democracy requires people to be able to choose between leaders whose election will not trigger a moral and constitutional crisis. It’s a low bar, but one that Governor Haley met (as did Vice President Harris). Haley surrendered to Trump with a speed that would make Marshal Petain blush, and that makes me reconsider her personal fitness to lead. But I believe Americans need (at least) two healthy, viable parties, and I don’t regret supporting that notion.

And a most important clarification—I am not American and don’t vote in US elections (contrary to Musk-fueled propaganda about foreigners voting!). But as someone who has found freedom and safety in this country, I have literal skin in the game.

And finally, Helen’s comment left me feeling cautiously optimistic:

“I having been thinking along these lines since the US election. America has so much talent in everything except choosing its leaders. Both parties show no respect to the citizens by promoting weak, untalented and unprincipled leaders. The fall out reverberates for generations.”

Excellent point, Helen. And let’s focus on your first point—America has so much talent. America is the most dynamic country on the planet. Americans have suffered leaders who are mediocre to downright bad, but they don’t have to. And I believe in the American mission in the world, and it’s because of the incredible people I have met here—including all of you engaging with The Next Move!

What do you think? I’ll be digging into your responses and questions tomorrow and throughout the week, so don’t be shy about joining the conversation. And remember, at The Next Move, you should read the comments!