Some years ago I read (and forgive me, because I can’t remember where I read or heard it, but I think it was during one of my trips to South Africa) that the fastest way to shut up an agitator- read, angry Black agitator (in South Africa)- was to give him a nice house, car and cush job in a better neighborhood.

While I’m not going to castigate any particular group, because that doesn’t move anything forward, I will note that to your point, those without skin in the game of change have a lot more investment in the appearance of being on the right side of history than being willing to actually speak out about it, or lie down in a street for it, or get tear gassed for it.

Hate, however, I might posit, isn’t as effective as righteous anger. That’s just me, but a part of me thinks that when the acid that burns the face of my sister burns mine as well, it’s not hate that controls me. It’s the deep rage (to your Balwin quote) of the absolute wrongness of such an act. Hate, to my mind, allows others control over me, my actions, and emotions, and that makes me malleable.

That doesn’t make me right. It’s how I feel the words.

What I think the libs ( and I don’t identify as one, although I have many beliefs that are square in that corner) miss is that the need for civil discourse assumes a level of emotional competence on both sides. That is not the case. And to wish for it, to ache for it, is to not only waste precious time but it’s a fucking fantasy. Nobody in Trump’s army is civil, by definition. However, I fear that if I hate them, I have handed over my power to people who want very much to manipulate me. Better I focus my righteous anger where I can make a difference.