As these things go, it isn't horrible, but in places, it is easily bad enough. It starts off relating the — clearly dodgy — atmosphere at a white nationalist meeting several weeks ago.
Not even those most depressed about Donald J. Trump’s election and what it might portend could have envisioned the scene that took place just before Thanksgiving in a meeting room a few blocks from the White House. The white nationalist Richard B. Spencer was rallying about 200 kindred spirits.
“We are not meant to live in shame and weakness and disgrace,” he said. “We were not meant to beg for moral validation from some of the most despicable creatures to ever populate the planet.” When Mr. Spencer shouted, “Hail, Trump! Hail, our people! Hail, victory!” a scattered half-dozen men stood and raised their arms in Nazi salutes.
Mr. Spencer is a self-described member of the "alt-right", which has become an umbrella term to cover every group and opinion that might cause the Gray Lady to retire to her fainting couch, pearls clutched every step of the way.
Having thus poisoned the well, the author finally gets around to the "but" para:
Last summer “alt-right,” though it carried overtones of extremism, was not an outright synonym for ideologies like Mr. Spencer’s. But in late August, Hillary Clinton devoted a speech to the alt-right, calling it simply a new label for an old kind of white supremacy that Mr. Trump was shamelessly exploiting.
The question implicitly raised, but never answered, is whether distorting the existing meaning of a term, in the quest to tar those who don't bow to leftist shibboleths, serves only to throw oxygen and gasoline on some barely smoldering embers. This is the, by now, to her, regrettable "deplorables" moment by another name. While the piece fails to question NYT reporting and editorials that routinely, and without evidence, label Trump and some of his appointments in ways that place them firmly amongst the truly , it does bow in the direction of reality:
There is no good evidence that Mr. Trump or Mr. Bannon think in terms like these. Not even the former Breitbart editor at large Ben Shapiro, who has become an energetic critic of Mr. Bannon and his agenda, says that Mr. Bannon is himself a racist or an anti-Semite. Mr. Shapiro considers fears that Mr. Bannon will bring white nationalism to the White House “overstated, at the very least.”
Ultimately, though, this article seems to make rather more of something than its numbers warrant. Hence the comment I submitted which, surprisingly, was an NYT Pick:
Recently there was a white nationalist convention in DC that drew 200 people.
The last Bronycon -- for My Little Pony enthusiasts -- drew more than 30 times as many.
Maybe it isn't time for the NYT to freak out just yet.
It got a lot of recommends, and a more than the average number of replies. Most of whom seemed single-mindedly dedicated to missing the point, and the rest determined to set the the all world, indoor/outdoor record for Godwin's Law affirmations per column inch.
And many of whom might, just might, have a much more mild case of Trump Derangement syndrome if they (or reporters) did things like, oh, I don't, know, go to Trump's campaign website so they can find out just how much of a virulent racist he is.
It is my highest and greatest hope that the Republican Party can be the home in the future and forevermore for African-Americans and the African-American vote because I will produce, and I will get others to produce, and we know for a fact it doesn’t work with the Democrats and it certainly doesn’t work with Hillary.
When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally. Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?
Just awful, innit?
38 comments:
Perhaps your comment was included because although humorouly critical, they thought you were German and gave you a pass.
Just thought of something. Do you think NYT editors and readers think your comment was written by this guy?
Do you think NYT editors and readers think your comment was written by this guy?
I sure hope not. I read his book on the OK Corral. Tedious, with about a dozen stock phrases plaguing nearly every page.
Skipper, if it's any consolation, he probably feels the same way. :-)
What do you think of the feds taking over and probably paying for the Michigan vote recount?
When Obama came on the scene, I had a terrible premonition that he would never leave office and be the face of our complete destruction.
His smirk is getting more and more hideous and I'm getting more and more nervous.
What do you think of the feds taking over and probably paying for the Michigan vote recount?
I don't know anything about that; regardless, I am skeptical of the claim. Elections are state responsibilities, so I have a hard time believing any story that says the Feds are getting involved.
When Obama came on the scene, I had a terrible premonition that he would never leave office and be the face of our complete destruction.
That was what far too many progs said about Bush -- it was nonsense. Eight years was plenty, but Obama has been a reasonably class act following the election (as has Hillary, for that matter). Unlike that vile Jill Stain.
Federal judge orders recount of presidential vote in Michigan.
It's fascinating to see how Skipper's very witty comment was met by many insisting the ones at the demonstration were just the tip of the iceberg and that there are countless more of their ilk, something they couldn't know unless they work for the FBI. Dems and progs are still in denial and reeling. Some are showing the courage to look in the mirror with a self-critical eye, but most are taking comfort in a Manichean narrative where the dark forces of racism and sexism are sweeping the land and how they, the righteous, must do battle against them. The radical leftist Southern Law Poverty Center estimates there are about 6,000 KKK members across the country, but according to the new narrative, thanks to Trump they now have 62 million fellow travelers.
The funny thing is that, outside of immigration, I don't recall any racial or gender issue in play during the election. Not even the hot button question of affirmative action. There isn't a shred of evidence Trump wants to "turn back the clock" or do anything at all touching legal or policy questions dear to the hearts of those constituencies. So how come?
My theory is that their real concern is civility in public dialogue but they don't know how to make that case having spent so many decades scorning and violating traditional standards with their "righteous anger" and contempt for their opponents. It's really about language and what is assumed to be going on in peoples' heads. What they are upset about is that the unwashed little people won't agree to talk about race and gender with the delicate solemn piety they want. Viragos like Lena Dunham can talk like drunken sailors but anyone who gives it back on her terms is beyond the pale of civilized discourse and guilty of the latest ism-du-jour.
Now, Trump is an appallingly vulgar man in word and deed and there is plenty of reason to worry about the coarsening of political dialogue (Twitter is a public menace)and consequent hardening of divisions. But the progs don't know how to make that case and are afraid of coming off like a bunch of Mrs. Grundys, so they take refuge in a self-constructed Battle of Good and Evil, which lets them preen as they look in the mirror and excuses them from giving any respect to the other side. Hey man, who dialogues with fascists?
The other point is that it is screamingly obvious from the results that the country divided along regional and urban/non-urban lines, but few progs are facing that. How do you condemn someone for living in a rural Wyoming without coming across as an elitist urban snob? Much easier and more fun to pretend they are part of a dark ideological wave that will suck out America's precious bodily fluids. And much more satisfying to Godwin the situation and claim to hear echoes of 1930's Berlin than to consider that perhaps Aesop explained it all in the tale of the country mouse and the city mouse.
'I don't recall any racial or gender issue in play during the election.'
You don't? Well nevertheless there was one, with We the People mobbing blacks who attended Trump rallies, while the candidate egged them on.
If you didn't notice, the neo-nazis did.
Harry, this one's so off-the-wall, I have idea what you're talking about. Blacks attending the Trump rallies were mobbed while Trump egged them on????? Wouldn't that have been counter-productive as Trump has actively engaged and encouraged support from every constituency.
Mind you, I did not support Trump and only voted for him because Hillary as president is unthinkable, but facts are facts and you don't seem to have a handle on them.
The only mobbing was by anti-Trump thugs who defaced and attacked Trump supporters across the board, defaced buildings and cars with Trump signs ... you know, the usual lefty "reasoned discourse."
Neo-nazis??? Do you mean the BLM thugs or the snowflakes protesting the election results?
Peter wrote: "Aesop explained it all in the tale of the country mouse and the city mouse."
Not sure how that particular fable explains it all. Isn't the moral that it's better to live the peaceful country life than the stressful city life? But in the current west, the two mice basically hate each other and would never invite the other to their communities.
I think it's just the elites versus the deplorables, there is no (peaceful) resolution, and there's also little worry about the lack of "civility in public dialogue" (what a civil way to put it, Peter!!!) getting any worse (it simply can't - if you think it could, check out the vitriol directed at Trump's female campaign manager).
erp,
Harry is sorta right in this case. There were incidents of blacks being physically harrassed at Trump rallies. And I think it is correct that Trump didn't help the situation in at least one case. However, I think in that case, the black guy was perceived as being disruptive so Trump was dealing with him as a heckler.
On the other hand, only people on the Left believe that a handful of incidents qualifies as a "racial issue."
Harry wrote: "If you didn't notice, the neo-nazis did"
Yes, I'm sure all 8 of them noticed. Your point is?
Bret, I believe those incidents were what is being called fake news and also thugs posing as Trump supporters.
erp,
Maybe. I'm not convinced.
What possible reason would Trump have to encourage thuggery?
The guy seemed to be a heckler and Trump wanted him escorted out. It wasn't exactly thuggery, in my opinion.
I don't have time to find a link at the moment, perhaps Harry can provide a few.
Don't bother, I'm familiar with incident. I'm using my iPad and don't know how to copy the link, but Ace of Spades has an article about the thousands of incidents of incidents against Trump supporters not reported in the media.
Thanks Harry, if that's your best shot you've proven my point that it's mainly about how people speak and behave in public rather than differences over law and policy. In many ways the left has become unmoored from any concrete issues. There was a time when racial equality was grounded in a quest for voting rights, judicial fairness, equal access to jobs, housing and public services and even stuff like affirmative action. Feminism focused on opening career paths, family law reform, legal equality and even the perennially divisive abortion. Today race seems more and more about how to talk, how to joke and what one can and cannot say in public. Gender politics seems to be in large part about how upwardly mobile career women should be able to make CEO without ever being hit upon or hearing an insulting joke. Even traditional economic issues used to focus on things like the eight hour day, pensions, unemployment insurance, sick leave, healthcare, etc., but today it's largely general blather about "income inequality" or climate change. If you progs didn't have healthcare to sink your teeth into, you'd suffocate up in that rarified air.
Those old battles were largely won, but the left like to see themselves as heroic St. Georges and this, I suggest, is why it's become so important to them to believe there are millions and millions of citizens out there secretly hoping to reinstitute Jim Crow or ban women from higher education, and that Trump has brought these yearnings to the fore. It's nonsense and completely unsubstantiated, but it makes for high drama, gets the blood flowing in the morning and justifies their contempt for the bad people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled by Trump and worry about the collective descent into mass public vitriol as just another typical day in the Republic. Words do have consequences and sometimes do lead to actions born of insult, anger and a thirst for retaliation. Each side thinks they are simply responding to the other and they're both right. I worry very much about where my American friends are going and wonder when a leadership giant is going to emerge to restore standards of public discourse and start bringing folks together with a sense of common purpose that transcends day-to-day politics(surely you don't need a terrorist atrocity to do that?). Even though your politics have always been more strident in tone than ours, these days I wonder whether you all wouldn't benefit from your grandmothers armed with cakes of lye soap cleaning up your language with tough love and thus saving the nation. Maybe I'm too much the proverbial polite Canadian, but I'm kind of glad to be so these days, even if we seem almost childlike in our innocence. My wife, who is conservative in both politics and character, was so upset and disgusted by Trump's vulgar antics that I had to be careful even saying I understood why so many had just contempt for Clinton and voted for him in response. (I had to hide most of my schadenfreude at all those exploding prog heads. I felt like I was back sneaking peeks at dirty mags hidden from my mother.) She gave me my quite a laugh a few weeks ago when she remarked in passing, more than semi-seriously, how grateful she felt to live in a country where, when M.P.s argue about the acceptability of using the f-word in Parliament, they're talking about this word. :-)
Peter, would your wife have voted for Hillary?
Sure she would have, but you have to understand how remote most of us are from the details of your politics and domestic issues. My wife doesn't just think character and civility are everything, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, she thinks they are the only thing, which is why she admires Obama too (full confession: so do I for the same reason although I doubt I would have voted for him). But she isn't naïve, wants no part of the glass ceiling argument and knows Hillary was badly flawed. She didn't argue with me when I said how put off I was when Hillary claimed she did it all for the "little girls of America", but it did cost me a tirade about Trump's latest.
It's a good thing then that the you weren't informed about Hillary's epic incivilities or she wouldn't have won the argument. Trump is a Trappist monk compared to Hillary's well-documented filthy-mouthed hysterics and drunken rages.
Well, I don't know about that, but it's not a competition I'd have much interest in pursuing. The last word for me on the election was made several months ago by the inestimable Kevin Williams from the National Review who said it was a competition between two candidates so flawed and unsuitable that the only positive thing that could be said about either of them was that they were not the other.
'it's mainly about how people speak and behave in public rather than differences over law and policy'
Very close. As RtO has said, America has settled most of the big issues that we faced; we no longer fight over slavery, free coinage of silver, woman suffrage, a national bank, control of Oregon Territory etc. (not that some on the right would like to undo some of the choices our grandparents made. Our politics is now about issues that are not easy to put in a 4-word slogan, not that 4-word slogans do not remain effective electoral tools.
One issue -- made acute by the working out of reaganomics -- is who gets to participate in the polity. The Republicans have been exploiting white rancor at the increasing participation of people not like them since Nixon's Southern strategy. The success of that was based on racism but it was dog-whistled for the most part.
The election of a half-black president made he unease of the white racists more intense. At the next elections victories of the racist tea party signaled that; everybody got it in private (the coon joke emails) but in public still denied it. (Your point but you did not quite get the overtones.)
Trump has begun to make it respectable again to let the racism out; he had the public clout that an open racist like Steve King does not. This is why the attack on Judge Curial was such a big deal. It is not yet Ben Tillman time but it did not take a pitchfork to get e message over.
Reagan's appeal to the racists was more subtle and so less satisfactory to them. Trump's is like taking a weight off the chest; and that is why we see the great exhalation of fetid air, made manifest in the expansion of the public presence of the neo-nazis.
Not for nothing did Trump's first appointments include Bannon.
Here is a more measured view than mine. I still think mine is more correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/opinion/sunday/what-the-alt-right-really-means.html?hpw&rref=sunday-review&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
It is by a rightwinger published by the Times. Dunno how that will derange erp and Skipper.
Nut graf:
The alt-right is not a large movement, but the prominence that it is enjoying in the early days of the Trump era may tell us something about the way the country is changing. At least since the end of the Cold War, and certainly since the election of a black president in 2008, America’s shifting identity — political, cultural and racial — has given rise to many questions about who we are as a nation. But one kind of answer was off the table: the suggestion that America’s multicultural present might, in any way, be a comedown from its past had become a taboo. This year a candidate broke it. He promised to “make America great again.” And he won the presidency.
[Harry:]Here is a more measured view than mine. I still think mine is more correct.
It is by a rightwinger published by the Times.
Dunno how that will derange erp and Skipper.
I have to admit, that deranged me almost beyond measure.
But, as deeply affecting as my derangement was, this is more on point.
[Peter:] There isn't a shred of evidence Trump wants to "turn back the clock" or do anything at all touching legal or policy questions dear to the hearts of those constituencies. So how come?
My theory is that their real concern is civility in public dialogue but they don't know how to make that case having spent so many decades scorning and violating traditional standards with their "righteous anger" and contempt for their opponents.
Which really means that their concern about civility in public dialogue applies only to monologues where they explain and we accept.
I remember, oh it must be a half dozen years ago, when Froma Harrop started a project called "Restoring Civility". and almost as quickly revealed her hypocrisy. A year later, about liberal civility, had in 'Civility': The Denouement this to say:
"Terrorist," "racist," "uncivil," "insane," the list goes on--in this context, these words have no real meaning. They are mere epithets. The Obama presidency has reduced the liberal left to an apoplectic rage. His Ivy League credentials, superior attitude, pseudointellectual mien and facile adherence to lefty ideology make him the perfect personification of the liberal elite. Thus far at least, he has been an utter failure both at winning public support and at managing the affairs of the nation.
Obama's failure is the failure of the liberal elite, and that is why their ressentiment has reached such intensity. Their ideas, such as they are, are being put to a real-world test and found severely wanting. As a result, their authority is collapsing. And if there is one thing they know deep in their bones, it is that they are entitled to that authority. They lash out, desperately and pathetically, because they have nothing to offer but fear and anger.
(continued ...)
Making matters worse, this is largely a monster of their own creation. IF the liberal media (birm) had reported all the relevant facts at a given level of detail — which is, after all, an excellent criteria for objective journalism — what he has actually said and done with respect to race, sex, religion, etc, over a very long public life would have painted a far different picture than their virtually relentless purveying of fake news.
So instead of something like a measured view of Trump, instead the left has is resorting to a hysteria revealing the totalitarian streak underlying progressivism:
In a piece on the NYT Op-Ed pageWhy Blue States are the Real Tea Party, we get a lesson in constitutional ignorance, grotesque innumeracy, all in the service of placing most of the country under the dominance of a few coastal enclaves.
But wait, there's more! For those of you, for the purpose of refreshing the concept, who wish to have a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy, you could not do better than States' Rights for the Left.
And what better way to respond to the monster under the bed — and damn the consequences — than encourage faithless electors.
Over at TIME, that paragon of hard-hitting, fact based reportage that would cost more to set on fire than it is worth, Mark Weston is encouraging people to not pay their taxes because Hillary! lost a game no one was playing.
And finally, from the Kos himself, a spew of hatred so vile that it leaves no doubt why the progressives, given sufficient power, inevitably turn murderous.
Harry, not to worry about my mental health since I don't click on links to the Times.
Skipper, the most brilliant,compassionate and deserving people who have ever trod the earth lost the recount ploy and have moved on to coercion of electors with who knows what blandishments. If that fails as well, it will instructive to see what they will do next. Even if they manage to assassinate both Trump and Pence, the next in line is also a Republican-kinda.
No way open for Hillary other than an all out coup. Most governors are Republicans and will call out the national guard and I doubt the military will cooperate, so even if they hold their breath until they turn blue, Hillary will not be president of the United States of America in this lifetime and that's a very good a reason to want to wake up again tomorrow morning.
Great Guys is proud to announce its new, automatic, and friendly! comment formatting service.
[Bret:] 'I don't recall any racial or gender issue in play during the election.'
[Harry:] You don't? WELL NEVERTHELESS THERE WAS ONE, WITH WE THE PEOPLE MOBBING BLACKS WHO ATTENDED TRUMP RALLIES, WHILE THE CANDIDATE EGGED THEM ON.
If you didn't notice, the neo-nazis did.
Brilliant and requires no technical (or any other kind of) know-how.
Now if you could fix so I can use the preview again, I'd love it because I make enough typos even with preview, I'd like to keep them to a minimum.
I get this message:
Bad Request:
Error 400
erp,
That may be a blogger malfunction - I got messages like that as well and had to resubmit.
=======
All,
Save your work as you write comments!
Hey Skipper,
I'm always flattered when someone misattributes one of Peter's bits of excellent writing to me, but that which you attributed to me in your paperclip comment above was actually written by Peter (and quoted by Harry).
Bret, thanks. I can deal with now that I know it’s not something I should be fixing here.
'what he has actually said and done with respect to race, sex, religion, etc, over a very long public life would have painted a far different picture than their virtually relentless purveying of fake news.'
So the bus tapes were fake? Who knew?
His tweets were not his? Let's get to the bottom of that.
Not so long ago I think you called him a Trumperosity. Possibly I misinterpreted that to mean you disapproved of him.
(I guess we're not at war with Eastasia any more.)
Harry,
It looks to me like you're purposely misconstruing Skipper's comment.
If you took essentially any 100 random sentences out of the countless millions uttered over my lifetime, I'd look like a decent human being.
If you took my 100 least flattering sentences (out of those countless millions), especially if context wasn't provided, especially, especially if you wanted to put those in the worst light possible, you could make me look like a monster. I am not a monster, merely a flawed human like everybody else.
Because I'm a flawed human, I can accept Trump's flaws, especially his crudity. The ol' let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and that wouldn't be me.
Furthermore, just like me, if you repeatedly selected sets of 100 random statements and actions by Trump, I think he would look a heck of a lot better than the picture the MSM painted. And that is Skipper's point.
I thought his point was that the press deliberately misrepresented Trump. Even if it wanted to, that's hard to do with him tweeting and giving audio and video interviews.
I had assumed that, since he was soliciting my vote, he was presenting himself in the best possible way; or, at least, in the way that would be most likely to win my vote.
Flawed doesn't begin to describe that. The press is not involved; I got my Trump direct.
Vile, lying, ignorant, bullying. I also know people who have done business with him. They describe him as a cheat.
Even setting aside his racism, disrespect for democratic values and deep ignorance, his own words portray him as an untrustworthy jerk. I thought Skipper got that. I apologize for misinterpreting his position.
[Bret:] Furthermore, just like me, if you repeatedly selected sets of 100 random statements and actions by Trump, I think he would look a heck of a lot better than the picture the MSM painted. And that is Skipper's point.
Exactly — what the MSM has engaged in is, essentially, a fake news campaign.
Unfortunately, it will exact some real costs, like the inflammatory articles to which I linked above. Let's say that this fake news produces enough faithless electors to overturn the election — not at all likely, but not impossible, either — what might the consequences be?
And all because the MSM decided which 100 statements they where going to report, and which million they were going to ignore.
Yes, Harry, the media has deliberately misrepresented Trump.
Let's take that notorious, surreptitiously recorded, bus tape. Harry, please provide us the direct quote, and explain exactly how it makes him a misogynist. Please include context — after all, some women do act very differently around rich and famous men than they do with the rest of us chumps. (And that is before wondering where, in the great panoply of moral crimes, Trump saying p*ssy compares with Hillary!'s character assassinations of women her husband sexually assaulted.)
And, while you are at it, provide something Trump has said that makes him a racist. Or a homophobe. Or an Islamophobe.
These are all labels that the left has long used to first demonize, then ostracize those who choose to tweak progressive shibboleths. Unfortunately, all too often, which is to say almost always, when challenged to substantiate those odious labels, progressives just shout louder.
Assume, for a moment, that my assertion is correct: the MSM used a small set of instances, willfully misunderstood them, and endeavored to paint a caricature of Trump. When the next election comes around, and Trump administration turn out to be racist/misogynist/homophobic etc.
Why would anyone give the MSM any credence at all? Why should I pay the NYT for fake news? Why would anyone believe anything they print about a non-progressive politician?
Oh, Harry, speaking of squandering your credibility, that was a real moment to treasure, linking to an article that was the subject of the post. Brilliant!
Post a Comment