But can the media ever get back to normal? I mean the "normal" of everything's abnormal with Trump in the White House.
Maybe the people don't want the President relentlessly kicked around when he might have something to do with helping all the people struggling in the wake of Hurricane Harvey? Maybe people won't tune in to hear descriptions of problems that don't show up in vivid pictures with crying mothers and soaking-wet puppy dogs. Maybe we won't sit still to hear about scary, burdensome problems that need to be described in complicated words and that can instantly evaporate if we just stop believing they exist.
I'm seeing signs that the answer to my question — will the news media ever find its way back to the hate-Trump story? — is no.
Sign #1. This is a story on the front page of nytimes.com: "Pumpkin Spice Glut Arrives Earlier Than Ever," by Tiffany Hsu:
Think Christmas creep, but orange: A slew of pumpkin-flavored products inspired by fall are turning up earlier each year, arriving in July and August as a harbinger of a season that this year doesn’t officially begin until Sept. 22.From bikinis to beanies... Is that the shift you make in the fall? Off with the bikini, on with the... beanie! We're not just into fashion. We're into tiny, cutesy fashion. Bikinis-n-beanies. Beanies! And the tiny, cutesy problem is: the return of pumpkin spice getting into everything.
And there are stirrings of a pumpkin spice pushback among many consumers who say they aren’t ready for a shift from bikinis to beanies.
Sign #2. The NYT has a story on how young people coming to New York City do not go to the traditional tourist attractions but to things they've seen as backdrops in other people's Instagram pictures. They want to Instagram from the same place, like these pink doors to the restaurant Sel Rrose and the candy display at Metrograph. The tiny, cutesy problem is that the kids only drop by to get a photograph and don't experience what the business is trying to sell, such as candy and other food.
Sign #3. Melania's shoes. "Melania Trump, Off to Texas, Finds Herself on Thin Heels" — that's the "most-viewed" story at the NYT right now. M's stiletto's symbolize where everyone wants to go if we ever wade out of that floodwater. It's on to fashion, fashion, fashion. What does it mean?! Well, isn't there some chance that the shoes are a bridge back from the flood to Trump-hating? She was so out of touch! What a symbol! She doesn't care! No empathy! Trump lacks empathy! He's rich and narcissistic and crazy as exemplified by the shoes on that wife he took to Texas. But I don't think that will get us back to good, old-fashioned Trump hating. I think it showed we were maxing out on trouble and ready to contemplate the familiar, miniature, lightweight-feminism problem of women's shoes:
Now, let's put on our sneakers 'n' beanies and sip on a Pumpkin Spice Java Chip Frappuccino and position ourselves in front of a pink door so the people of Instagram can know we are happy.
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৫টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 235 এর 201 – থেকে 235"What about, for example, the opposition to Obamacare (which started as a conservative plan)?"
Conservatism is resistance to change. That is fundamental, it is not a question of dogma but of personality. It was not a "conservative" plan in even the Russell Kirkean view.
A proper conservative should be ruthlessly skeptical. There was not enough ruthless skepticism applied to this thing.
@buwaya "The world is brutal and nasty under the hood. All people are brutal and nasty, or are capable of it if sufficiently tempted."
And that is why Jesus's message was so revolutionary: turn the other cheek, love your neighbour.
It is precisely because brutality, selfishness and tribalism are such powerful forces in all of us that a leader who encourages these traits can be so popular. See Putin. See Erdogan.
But then that is precisely why these leaders are so dangerous: because they appeal to the worst in us, not the best. Professor Althouse has written that she is fascinated by Trump because he became so popular with so many in such an unusual way. And loos of commenters have made that point: Trump says what he wants, how refreshing. But I think it's no great achievement to appeal to the lowest instincts in people: that we are divided, that others hate us, that we must fight to survive.
The achievement would be to bring us together in peace and respect.
@buwaya "Conservatism is resistance to change."
Maybe. But since so much in the world is imperfect, an ideology defined as "resistance to change" must by definition be in constant danger of opposing improvement.
For most of history, women had no power and could not vote. To achieve suffrage, that had to change. Conservatives were against that, as it meant change.
For an idea of the RANGE of what has been held to be "conservative" I can only recommend, well, Russell Kirk - "The Conservative Mind" -available on Amazon, Kindle too, and an essential part of an American political education.
He tried to make sense of it.
I don't think you can, because ideology itself is an illusion.
Or no more so than Unamuno (another conservative) made sense of metaphysics. But he was satisfied not to find a resolution.
Trump appeals to the worst in us? I don't know any Trump supporter who thinks it's OK to punch someone on the other side just for being an extremist with totalitarian ideals, but I personally know dozens of otherwise decent lefties who gleefully support punching 'fascists' and aren't too picky about who they consider a fascist.
Nor to I know any Trump voters who think there's anything the least bit Republican about Obamacare, which passed without a single Republican vote and still only won because Al Franken stole a senate seat in Minnesota with the help of hundreds of ballots that conveniently turned up after election day.
As for Brexit, Googling 'Brexit revote petition' brings up stories that 3,000,000+ Britons have signed a petition asking for a revote with a retroactive requirement of 60% support and 75% turnout before Britain can exit the EU. Changing the rules after you've lost a game fair and square is undemocratic and contemptible. Brexit is still scheduled to happen (duh!) but the Remainers are obviously still trying to derail it, despite their promise to uphold the result of the referendum.
"See Putin. See Erdogan. "
See Adams, Franklin, Madison, Washington, etc.
They did not turn the other cheek in 1775, therefore your polity is illegitimate?
Its easy to see Putin and Erdogan as, somehow, outside of Christian bounds. But the truth is that we are in a terrible bind, in that we do not know what Gods will actually is. All the gentlemen above, including the US founding fathers, probably had excellent ethical reasons, in their own minds, for what they have done and intend to do. They may be deluded, but so may we.
As for Trump, one must ask whether he actually does appeal to the "worst".
Is it not the case that his opponents freely do likewise? Or that the system he opposes is dedicated, disingenuously, towards the promotion of "the worst"?
Which worse is worst? That which annoys us more? Could not the fault be ours?
buwaya: It was not a "conservative" plan in even the Russell Kirkean view.
There are too many lacunae in most younger American's historical knowledge for what you're saying here to make any sense to them. "Conservatism" to them is "Conservatism(tm) - i.e., the "right liberal" side of the post-war neo-liberal project. Genuinely conservative strains in American political life were pretty effectively purged and memory-holed - or, at least, slapped with phony "radioactive" labels that up 'til now have kept curious youth from coming near. That will probably change as things fall apart.
I know you know that. Jus' sayin'. You'll have to slow it down and put in a lot of "remedial" material to get your point across here.
"For most of history, women had no power and could not vote. To achieve suffrage, that had to change. Conservatives were against that, as it meant change."
For most of history no-one voted. Or very few.
In some very successful modern countries voting was a mere ritual, the results were predetermined - Japan until recently, Italy into the 1970's, Singapore and HongKong even today.
And furthermore, its not clear to me that female suffrage in itself was a positive thing.
KittyM:
I want to learn more about how other people think.
Me:
Try expressing what you believe they currently think in a way that is honest. I will honestly take your point of view and represent it fairly.
KittyM:
I was just kidding about that first thing. Actually thinking about how the other side feels and expressing sympathy for their positions is beyond my ken.
Me:
Feh!
American political philosophy is also a rather narrow thing.
A great deal of what was normal in the larger world through all of history never really got, or gets, a hearing in the US. It is a narrow view.
Critiques of democracy for instance, or defenses of monarchy and the Church as temporal authorities.
@Dr Weevil I must go in a minute but cannot let this stand. Angel-Dyne tells me I need to bring the facts. OK, So I painstakingly brought the facts. And then you just don't acknowledge them at all. It's crazy making!
You write: "Googling 'Brexit revote petition' brings up stories that 3,000,000+ Britons have signed a petition asking for a revote with a retroactive requirement of 60% support and 75% turnout before Britain can exit the EU"
-- I don't know anything about that petition. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything and plays no role in British politics or in the negotiations. Just some random petition that some people have signed.
"Changing the rules after you've lost a game fair and square is undemocratic and contemptible.""
---Yes, it would be. But no one has changed the rules, as you can see from my timeline in my last post.
"Brexit is still scheduled to happen (duh!) but the Remainers are obviously still trying to derail it"
Oh, Ok so now you agree that "Brexit is still scheduled to happen"? But "Remainers are obviously still trying to derail it" How are they "obviously still trying to derail it"? By signing a petition? By expressing their dislike of the decision.
Isn't that free speech? I mean, you don't have to like what they want to say. But some people saying, "I wish Brexit wouldn't happen" isn't "derailing the process".
Look: May is pro-Brexit, as is the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Brexit. Brexit is on schedule and there is no stopping it.
So - do you agree that all signs point to the fact that we are "going through it"?
"Trump appeals to the worst in us? I don't know any Trump supporter who thinks it's OK to punch someone on the other side just for being an extremist with totalitarian ideals, but I personally know dozens of otherwise decent lefties who gleefully support punching 'fascists' and aren't too picky about who they consider a fascist."
I don't like sarcasm, but seriously??? Are you going to argue that "lefties" are more violent than Trump supporters? Isn't it true that antifa attracts violent people and that extreme right-wing groups attract violent people. But the extreme right-wing support Trump on the whole. So sorry - but they count as Trump supporters.
buwaya: And furthermore, its not clear to me that female suffrage in itself was a positive thing.
It would be great fun if our hostess would make a post on this topic.
me: I'd like to hear your views so as to better expand my understanding of politics
Bickel: let's play mind games! You tell me my view, I'll tell you yours
me: no thanks
Bickel: feh!
"Are you going to argue that "lefties" are more violent than Trump supporters? "
On all evidence, yes indeed. The numbers alone, considering the conditions of all the many street battles since last year, of "violent" persons, are heavily on the "left". Bigger "violent" crowds by far. Much more beating than beaten.
That is looking at it all merely mathematically.
I know precisely what Leftist Collectivists think because they never miss an opportunity to tell anybody. I can express the views they hold without effort.
You think it's a game to think in the alternative. It's a practiced skill. It's a documented way to learn how to think since at least the time of Aristotle.
But you can't be pressed to think. It's beyond your ken.
It's nice to see KittyM call herself "we" when referring to Brits.
KittyM is a Brit who cares about American politics.
And wants to understand American conservatives without ever trying to think.
de Maistre for instance is extremely interesting but not popular.
Darwinian overt expressions of alpha-male hatred subsides over time into the deeper covert hatred of formally unexpressed, but fixed and rigid social apathy, because apathy is more cost effective, stabilizing in a rigid-over-time equilibrium, that is, stable apathy punctuated by occasional dramatic interruptions of overt hate for entertainment value to break the monotone apathy - this drama series of overt hate hits a wall of diminishing returns, when media consumers addicted to thrills begin to feel that they already know the closing line of each new installment in the daily news cycle, namely, to borrow a line, “you’re fired,” because primate populations in general, and over time quit over-reacting to multiple daily false alarms of predators in their camps de swamp, a boredom equilibrium of apathy broken likely only by real war.
KittyM said...If you think, "I saw Hillary and she used demagoguery and divisive language, of which I disapproved" (which I assume from your tone you do) - surely you and I can find common ground when Trump uses similar tactics?
I'm a bad example--I didn't vote for Trump and I don't have much patience for worship of any politicians (I guess I don't blame people who revere Reagan but even made some big mistakes). If your point was that you yourself haven't experienced the kind of love people profess for Trump and Obama then I agree--it does seem strange to have those kinds of feelings for politicians. I'd argue it's unhealthy and possibly even dangerous...but I'd have to acknowledge that many millions of Americans, possibly a majority, disagree with me on that. I've met nice politicians and really nice government workers, but I try to keep my feelings for people in those positions on a transactional-professional level--viewing even the best of them warily, as someone occupying a necessary position temporarily. If they do a great job I don't mind applauding them and I don't think they should have rotten fruit thrown at them in the streets....but when ambitious young people say they want to be politicians (a la Tracey Flick) I think that's at best a shame.
But that sentiment isn't unique to Trump--not even close. It might seem strange w/Trump partly because the Media treats it as strange--it was apparently normal to view Obama as a Lightworker, etc (not to mention as a super-cool pop culture figure), normal to view old out-of-touch grasping Hillary as some pillar of goodness and light, but weird and abnormal to view Trump as a populist truth-talking little-guy-caring-about hero.
I think it's fine if you say "all of those venerations are weird and un-American." They all exist, though, and my assertion is that it's silly to pretend like this is something new w/Trump.
Trump is definitely not a "uniter." I believe GWBush genuinely wanted to be, and tried to be...but no one since him really has. Obama gave nice speeches about bringing the nation together but used his policy and actions to drive identity-politics measures in a large number of fronts. Hillary explicitly ran in a divisive way--by which I mean in a way designed to appeal to a more-narrow group--and that probably cost her the election. Her vaunted popular vote win came precisely because she got a lot of "extra" votes in deep-blue urban areas...votes she really didn't need but campaigned for anyway.
Anyway the major difference for me is (drumroll) the Media. The Media treated worship of Obama as normal. The Media treated any criticism of Obama (even the use of words like "cool" to describe him!) as unacceptable--as racist, in fact. The Media treats Trump as an outright enemy and has given up all pretense of detachment or objectivity in their quest to take his Presidency down.
When Trump supporters act defensively--when they act as though they are under attack from all sides--I excuse much of their reactions. They ARE, in many cases! The Media and Left have declared Trump an enemy and the large NeverTrump portion of the Right--not to mention GOP establishment types--have given tacit approval of the Left's attacks. I mean attack here in a literal sense: a number of Trump supporting common people have had their heads cracked for the sin of trying to attend a Trump rally or wearing a red MAGA hat. Not only do the Media cheer those attacks, but also such Repub. luminaries as Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio join them in endorsing Antifa and their violence.
I cannot think of a time in my life when the Media and/or nation at large accepted political violence against Democrat supporters. I am witnessing the inverse now, almost daily!
So yeah: I probably cut Trump-supporting little people more slack than I otherwise would, not because I like Trump or think his methods are optimal (although I do like his attacking the Media and naming names), but because I sympathize with people who are denounced as racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/fascist bigots just because they support the current Republican President and/or hold political opinions that were probably held by 85% of the nation just a few years ago. If your assertion is I'm too easy on Trump people it's probably a fair point.
We've been through this all before right on this site. Thousands of conservatives who were planning to go to Charlottesville to demonstrate for keeping the Lee statue canceled their plans when they heard a few hundred Nazis and Klansmen were coming, because they didn't want to be associated with them. In Berkeley a hundred or two masked Antifas did all the violence, while hiding behind a couple thousand ostensibly non-violent lefties who were perfectly willing to help them get away with their unprovoked (and usually 5-1) assaults on innocent bystanders by letting them duck behind them as needed, all the while pretending they had nothing to do with the violence they were facilitating. It's perfectly obvious that Antifas are more violent than Nazis and Klansmen, are far more numerous, and are accepted as part of the left coalition by millions of lefties, while 99% of those on the right wish the Nazis and Klansmen would all go bugger off and die somewhere and stop embarrassing them by showing up at demonstrations pretending to have anything in common with them.
Dr Weevil
I don't wish that they'd "bugger off and die" but I certainly wish those groups received no press coverage. I'd prefer they all recognized how wrong they are because they see things through a distorted lense. But I'd be content if they just disappeared from public light.
Birkel (4:07pm):
Trump could actually do something to cut off press coverage of extremists. Perhaps declare that any organization that publishes an interview with (e.g.) a pathetic has-been loser like David Duke is obviously more an organ of propaganda than of the press and will be treated as such in the future. They can print anything they want, but their employees will not be admitted to press conferences at the White House or any other part of the executive branch as long as Trump is president, nor will any member of the Trump administration appear on any round-table discussion to which any of those employees are invited.
I wish he'd do the same to Journolist. It's undoubtedly still around under some other name, and all members should be shunned, as above. Even better, shun all employees of any organization that employs any of them. Make them all get honest jobs with Democratic politicians or think tanks, instead of pretending to be 'neutral' 'journalists'. Maybe offer a reward for an up-to-date membership list: either $1,000,000 or an ironclad we-won't-shun-you-now-that-you've-turned-away-from-the-dark-side promise.
@Birkel I'm not British. But whatever. I've given up trying to explain / defend who I am.
@HoodlumDoodlum I went and then I came back and now I'm going again. But I'm glad you came back. That was a really interesting exchange - at least it was for me. Thank you!
I'd have loved to say more - there's about five or six things I want to respond to - but real life calls! Have a lovely day.
>Are you going to argue that "lefties" are more violent than Trump supporters?
Yes, in the United States, political violence is almost exclusively from the Left.
Insert gratuitous mockery of MI6 KittyM here.
KittyM said, "I don't like the *ideology* espoused by Trump because it is brutal and nasty and is always dividing the world into enemies and supporters."
As opposed to the Democrats, particularly during the eight years of the Obama administration? When the concept of a well-meaning difference of opinion was erased? When the only possible explanation for any criticism of or opposition to Obama or anything his administration did was racism? When anyone who dissented from the leftism agenda was doing so because they were sexists, racists, homophobes and bigots? When the idea that someone could have a legitimate but differing opinion on the role of government or how best to help people was scoffed at, and we were told the Republicans wanted people to suffer and die? That they were in favor of dirty water, impure food, and gleefully rubbed their hands together at the thought of people suffering and dying? THAT kind of division into supporters and enemies? If so, I guess I can only say, "sauce for the gander."
KittyM said, "You see a rebel, courageously speaking the truth. I see a corrupt lying billionaire, with no interest in anyone but himself and no sense of loyalty to anyone but himself either."
Well, given that you seem prepared to give Hilary Clinton a pass on decades of corruption, lies, concealment and destruction of evidence, abuse of power and all the rest of it (you *would* prefer that she was in the White House, yes?)...I'll give your opinion of Trump's behavior all the respect I think it merits.
"What about, for example, the opposition to Obamacare (which started as a conservative plan)?"
This is such an old leftist myth, I:m surprised to see it still used.
The concept of "Free Rider" was debated at AEI in the 80s and 90s as a cause of health care inflation. It was abandoned and never became advocated policy. There were a number of articles in leftist publications in the 2000s that discussed the role of the free rider.
It was never the basis for any conservative policy but it did make a useful club for the left to defend itself when Obamacare imploded and the left had to defend it.
It was related to the Romney plan in Massachusetts which supported the individual, not employer, mandate for catastrophic care insurance. The Mass legislature added the employer mandate and lots of baggage which was vetoed by Romney when governor.
The legislature passed the employer mandate and the rest of the pork laden bill over his veto.
Subsequently, Deval Patrick, the would be Obama, added even more baggage and the whole concept has been discredited.
One good indicator of the odium of Obamacare is the left's attempt to sell the idea that it was a Republican/Conservative idea.
"I know precisely what Leftist Collectivists think because they never miss an opportunity to tell anybody. I can express the views they hold without effort."
Hahaha, what utter bullshit.
I can express the views they hold without effort."
Hahaha, what utter bullshit.
See what he did there, Inga ?
""Bruce Hayden introduces a magnificent "humble brag" into the conversation.
:-)"
if you like child abuse.
What kind of dance instructor puts a 3 or 4 year old in toe shoes? My research says it's not allowed until the child is 12!"
Normally, I would agree. The problem was that the braces weren't apparenty working. Extreme out toeing. It appears that braces on kids that young have been depreciated since then, but that was most of 60 years ago, when that was the accepted treatment. They have home movies of her trying to run with her siblings, and crashing. Walking was problematic enough. Her mother (the dance instructor here) was a bit odd, and did her own thing. She (the mother) was into an organic diet for her kids in the latter 1950s, could shoot firearms better than most anyone around, took her 5 kids alone camping all summer to get out of the heat, etc. So, despairing of her daughter ever walking right, put her in toe shoes that young. And it worked. Maybe it would be considered child abuse today - but a lot of what our parents did back then would be in the same category.
Looking at the more modern research, it appears that most kids get over their in-toeing or out-toeing naturally, at about that age anyway (part of why the use of braces was depreciated). We will probably never know whether that would have happened with my partner. She swears though that it was the toe shoes that was behind her legs straightening out. And, yes, made working a runway in the obligatory high heels a breeze. (She modeled for the easy money - dance, and esp ballet, was her passion). She still shows off a bit with me - using her ability to walk on her toes to (hopefully) shame me from thumping around the house. Doesn't, work, of course.
Trump says what he wants, how refreshing. But I think it's no great achievement to appeal to the lowest instincts in people: that we are divided, that others hate us, that we must fight to survive.
Amen.
Ann Althouse said... [albeit in another post]
I looked up to see what Michelle Obama wore to walk on the South Lawn. She wore flats.
Although both Michelle and Melania are tall at 5/11" - Michelle is a much larger women, outweighing Mrs. Trump by 30 pounds and Michelle has big feet - size 11. My point is that there are a million reasons for anything in the Naked City, so comparisons and clothes preferences are meaningless.
But FLOTUS shoes are attention-grabbers in the eyes of the media. Who can forget Mrs. Obama's ugly gray sneakers with shiny pink toes that she wore to a publicity gig at a local Food Bank. We Conservatives, of course, had our noses out-of-joint at the $540 price tag.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Trump is definitely not a "uniter."
Baloney. He ran explicitly to be president of all Americans. Many times he's talked about what he is doing on behalf of all Americans. He asks that all Americans come together for the good of the country. Inflammatory political and racial remarks, and insulting Americans? That was Obama's specialty. Some Americans are deplorable? Republicans are my enemy? Hillary said that.
I have nothing but admiration and respect for the way Donald Trump has stood up to the unrelenting attacks against him from all sides. Trump has more guts and character than all his opposition put together. God love him.
." But I think it's no great achievement to appeal to the lowest instincts in people: that we are divided, that others hate us, that we must fight to survive."
The achievement would be to bring us together in peace and respect.
After eight divisive years of the previous administration I find this statement about Trump fascinating. In light of the "resist" movement, Which started even before Trump took office. In light of "antfa" which started violent confrontations with peaceful Trump advocates even before Trump took office. In light of the fact that one side , for years, have missed no chance to demean and dehumanize the opposition.
If you want to bring us together in peace and respect Kitty, it has to begin with you.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন