But Mueller isn’t, though. Mueller is bound by an arbitrary set of laws that offered nothing in the way of substantial checks on the current president. His words — which eventually are all they are — have done little to stop the president; what they have done — which, for me is striking in its similarity to the squad — is open a conversation and garner energy. Nothing more. He didn’t indict the president — he claimed he couldn’t.

I’d also suggest that juxtaposing king with X isn’t appropriate for your line of argumentation, and it speaks to their mythical significance over and against their substantive ideas. Both were frustrated with the stagnancy on the part of whites regarding racial justice; they simply saw the path forward from two different perspectives. There’s actually a considerable amount of scholarship on this — Lewis Baldwin and James Cone come to mind. And there was also considerable evidence that both were heading toward one another ideologically before they were killed. King was moving toward an even more radical position regarding race, poverty, and militarism; and X was moving toward a place of collaboration across religious and ideological commitments.

King was, for all intents and purposes, a radical. His voice was his contribution to the movement. His platform was his vehicle for change. Sometimes, yelling — or preaching — is what one has to offer. And often, that can be more than enough.

Also, King was patient, but he wasn’t a paragon of longsuffering. He didn’t want to die; he was killed. And he wanted integration right away. He knew the exigency of the situation. He also knew it took time. But the nature of prophetic speech is to announce what cannot be fathomed by the public. Both he and X did this in spades.

I also would like to say that I don’t critique or criticize (they are, after all, two different things) Dowd on the basis of her political and ideological commitments. And I admire her prose; that was neither hyperbole nor tongue in cheek. What I was troubled by is the fact that her claims, as well as those who share her commitments, are steeped in a kind of condescension that cannot help but see compromise as a goal and not a means. Condescension, not compromise, is the operative word in the last sentence; disagree, but do so with some grace. AOC kept her claims and critiques at the level of decision-making; to my knowledge, the president is the only one she’s ever attacked personally.

But Rahm Emanuel called her chief if staff a “snot-nosed punk.” Why the invective? And why did dowd think this was appropriate to include? Moreover, why are clarion calls for radical change (impeachment, for example, or voting against border funding) targeted, singled out, and highlighted as problematic? Pelosi had no reason nor justification for mentioning the “four” as she called them in her interview. They voted differently; that happens. But it couldn’t be left there. And Dowd, for her part, contributed to this by writing a well-written piece steeped in similar frustration. She assumes that AOC and her squad members are chasing the spotlight — which is possible, but shouldn’t invite the kind of irritation from someone like Dowd. (I also mention this in the piece.)

my critique of Dowd’s writing comes from what appears to be a thoughtless irritation that comes from a lack of personal depth and historical awareness. My criticism of Dowd’s ideas comes from a personal space of knowing that certain traditional approaches can and will become obsolete (I organized with others for Sandra Bland, and we fought to remove people from office who were content with the status quo. Spoiler alert: we removed them.).

I’m sure Dowd is a personable human being. But I’m also convinced that she — and those who share her disposition — lack political imagination and, even worse, attention to the history of social change.

I do not fault Dowd or Pelosi (or others) for their perspective. I blame them for contributing to an already hostile context that makes the targets on these women’s backs even larger.

Thank you for you willingness to engage. I hope my responses name my willingness to do the same.