"I’m a professional liberal... and even I don’t think I could tell you what liberalism’s vision is, or who its leaders are, at this moment."

"In some way, liberalism never really recovered from the Obama era — when it had this grand victory in electing America’s first Black president; when it had this thoughtful, deliberate and, frankly, quite popular liberal leader. Then it ended in Donald Trump’s being elected — not once but twice. But here’s the thing: Donald Trump is not working out. He is not making people want more of what he is...."

Writes Ezra Klein, in "The Book That Changed How I Think About Liberalism" (NYT).

Klein is reading books looking for the answer. The book referred to in the title is "The Lost History of Liberalism," and here's the interview he does with the author, Helena Rosenblatt. There's a lot of talk about the historical meaning of the word "liberal," which hasn't got much to do with the predicament of the Democratic Party in recent years. What was "this grand victory" for liberalism in electing Obama? Klein only refers to Obama's race and demeanor! 

"Well, I can’t do meditation. I get bored. But people who do meditation embrace the boredom and utilize it as a way to at least calm their mind..."

"... and maybe center their mind on something that they don’t usually go to mentally. And often things for maintenance are done by Japanese with a great deal of ceremony. Just changing the lights of a street lamp. There’s guys in uniform. They have a special routine. They do with a ladder where they go up the pole and do a little formal thing at the beginning and another little formal thing at the end. And it turns a simple task into a somewhat more complex dance. Moving together in time is one of the profound things that humans have been doing for a very long time. So ritual is one way to make really, really repetitive maintenance less onerous...."

Says Stewart Brand, who has a new book, about maintenance. He's talking to Ezra Klein:

Brand is promoting his new book, "Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One" (commission earned)(only $10 in Kindle). If that sounds a lot like "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," that's not hidden. The next thing Ezra says is: "You quote quite a lot from 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' which is a classic book.”

"I’m trying to manifest more abundance, but I’m really feeling the income streams have dwindled."

"I have over 800,000 Instagram followers. Before, if I wanted to do a brand partnership on social media, $10,000 was an easy get. Now it’s, like, $500. I pretty much live from a bucket of savings."

So says the "Author With One New York ‘Times’ Best Seller," who made only $49,000 last year — "$30,000 from book advance/$14,000 from teaching two retreats/$5,000 from narrating own audiobook."

Quoted in "What Do You Do and What Do You Make? 60 New Yorkers about what they brought in last year" (New York Magazine).

I selected that one story out of the 60 — all of which are interesting — because I was charmed by the statement "I’m trying to manifest more abundance." It's a lighthearted — and culturally connected — way to express real pain. How can you live in NYC on $49,000 a year? And yet you hit the envied goal of publishing a best seller!

I don't need to extend this post by expounding on the words "manifest" and "abundance." What would you pay me to resist the impulse? I'll continue. Briefly.

"Manifest" is New Age self-help jargon, used ironically by our best-selling author.

"Abundance." I think of it as an Ezra Klein word that was supposed to take off more than it did. Democratic Party hacks substituted the drearier word "affordability."

ADDED, ironically: Here's Ezra's book "Abundance," commission earned.

"Thank you, Lord, thank you for making me who I was and not some little squirming powerless nincompoop."

"Thank you for making me unique, one of a kind, incomparable, victorious."

That's the "deathbed prayer," offered by a character in the novel "Vigil," by George Saunders, which Ezra Klein quotes to Saunders to begin the discussion "George Saunders on Anger, Ambition and Sin" (NYT).

That was a pretty strong way to begin the interview, and I'll bet Klein — as well as Saunders — thinks of himself unique, one of a kind, incomparable, and victorious. Surely, they're not little squirming powerless nincompoops.

"Nincompoop" seems like a word that would be examined in "Why Kids Are Starting to Sound Like Their Grandparents/The strange resurgence of words like 'yap' and 'skedaddle,'" (a NYT article blogged at that link). And it also reminded me of that George Will column blogged yesterday — "JD Vance vies for the gold medal in coarseness and flippancy" — the one that took umbrage at Vance's deployment of the insult "dipshit." If only Vance had been in on the kids' new trend and cared a little more about the problem of coarseness and flippancy, he could have said "nincompoop." Note how the excrement is discretely included.

The word "nincompoop" is, the OED says, first seen c1668 in the form of this title, which will give you lots of ideas for old words that could resurge: "The ship of fools fully fraught and richly laden with asses, fools, jack-daws, ninnihammers, coxcombs, slender-wits, shallowbrains, paper-skuls, simpletons, nickumpoops, wiseakers, dunces, and blockheads."

The first use of the word "nincompoop" in The New York Times came in August of 1861, recounting the statement of then-Congressman John Sherman: "[Congressman Samuel Sullivan 'Sunset'] Cox called [Sherman's] own constituents 'Nincompoops, intelligent baboons dressed up as Wide-Awakes, Gump-heads, mutton-heads, blabber, Dogbanes, toadies, and bloats, Suppose he [Sherman] should speak thus of [Cox's] Democratic constituents, would they not set him down as unfit to represent decent people?'"

"Muzzle velocity, in its literal sense, describes the ferocious speed of a bullet at the moment it exits the front end of a gun."

"The term came from an interview that Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, gave in 2019. 'All we have to do is flood the zone,' Bannon said. 'Every day we hit them with three things. They’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done. Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never — will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.'"

Writes Ezra Klein, in "Trump Has Overwhelmed Himself" (NYT).

But has Trump "overwhelmed himself"? Listen to last night's press gaggle — all the topics he crunched through in 15 minutes. Iran. Venezuela. Cuba. China and India. Crime in Minneapolis and Chicago. ICE protests. The 250-foot arch and the ballroom, the Epstein files, suing Michael Wolff, suing the FBI. Greenland. And that "sleazebag" Don Lemon. 

He didn't seem overwhelmed at all, and that was at night, on a gruelingly noisy plane, grilled by reporters after an evening event where, as WaPo puts it, "Trump tries humor, gets some silence, at black-tie dinner with 'people I hate.'"

He seemed to be up for all of it.

"My implicit equation of attention is: Curiosity plus conflict equals attention."

Says Ezra Klein, in his podcast, which is titled "Can James Talarico Reclaim Christianity for the Left?" (NYT).

Talarico is on the podcast because, as Klein puts it, he "was breaking through on TikTok, Instagram and viral videos" and "ended up on Joe Rogan’s podcast — the first significant Democrat that Rogan seemed interested in, in a very long time."

And now "Talarico is running for Senate in Texas. He’s running in a primary with Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett...." There's no other mention of Crockett in the article. Why not? Talarico was never invited to speak against her, but this podcast is clearly boosting him, which is inherently against her. I presume hardcore Democrats, focused on winning the Texas Senate seat, don't want Crockett to win the primary.

The question isn't really Can James Talarico Reclaim Christianity for the Left? It's Can James Talarico Seize the Nomination from Crockett?

Ezra Klein says: "The biggest concern I hear about you in Texas is that you’re sort of a liberal’s idea of what a Christian politician should be." 

And, really, we all know the way liberals use Christianity... whether they make viral video or not. But Talarico has advanced to where he is because he put the standard argument into the form of viral video.

But the Talarico's video that's out there includes things that can be cherry-picked and used against him. Klein confronts him with clips that were used in an attack ad against him (not by Crockett, but by another candidate, Terry Virts, who has dropped out). 

Talarico Clip 1: Modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes. In fact, there are six.

Talarico Clip 2: God is nonbinary. I find this to be a deeply offensive bill.

Voice-over: James Talarico is talking about the bill that would ban biological men from playing in women’s sports. Remember this ad?

Voice-over from archival clip: Biological men compete against our girls in their sports. Kamala is for they/them.

Voice-over: The same ads will be played by Ken Paxton. The result will be: U.S. Senator Ken Paxton. James Talarico owes it to us to tell us how he’s going to answer these attack ads.

Klein asks: "So how are you going to answer those attack ads?" And Talarico stalls for time: "Man, the music was real scary." Which isn't how you're going to answer successfully.

Klein has to push him even to try to answer. He says: "You can talk about love all you want. But the idea is to say you’re out of step with Texans, and they’re not going to feel loved by someone they feel doesn’t agree with them."

And then Talarico talks not about Christianity or love, but about local control of decisionmaking and "common sense." 

"He is not the Word made flesh but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."

It's obviously laughable to pay Ezra Klein $40-70k to hear his vapid, DNC-donor-pleasing, liberal clichés.

That said, I would pay him some substantial portion of that fee to come to a wedding or birthday party to perform a dramatic reading of this hilarious passage he wrote: https://t.co/q0fX4EL2S8 pic.twitter.com/isZtqbNkRs

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 28, 2025

I don't know what irritates me more — the capitalization of one "word" but not the other, or the italics for "over." So he's not the Messiah but his excellent speech conquers... well, everything... or something. 

ADDED: I think Klein deserves this fee. He's a well-known figure who embodies the idea of moderation and civility and he will have to set aside his regular work to travel to and from your event. That's going to cost you at least $40,000. There must be all these Democrats fretting about how to not look so awful and the calming stately presence of Ezra Klein might help them believe there will be an answer.

"If you’re 30 years old... there’s a sense of nihilism that’s growing.... And this nihilism, [Charlie] Kirk understood...."

"Of course, I only had an hour-and-a-half conversation with Charlie, but where it seems to me to have fallen short with Turning Point USA and the MAGA movement is they don’t have a prescription to actually address the real and substantive issues — but they sure as hell identify the problem."

Said Gavin Newsom, interviewed by Ezra Klein, in "The Contradictions of Gavin Newsom" (NYT)(audio and transcript at Podscribe, here). Kirk had been a guest on Newsom's podcast, and Klein wanted to know what Newsom had learned from Kirk.

Klein pushed back: "Well, isn’t that a prescription? If I were to try to boil it down: tariffs, a closed border and Christianity?"

Instead of taking on Klein's idea that the right does offer solutions, Newsom seized on that last word —Christianity — and tumbled into personal storytelling mode:

"I'm a stickler for staying in your lane. I think his lane is the Ezra-lane..."

"... and I don't see him crossing a line. I'm assuming the New York Times is cool with it."

Said Jill Abramson, former executive editor, of the NYT, quoted in "How Ezra Klein's power play is guiding Democrats" (Axios), which tells us that "Klein's columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios."

ADDED: If anyone ever tells me to stay in my lane, I'm going to say I am in my lane. My lane is The Althouse Lane. I encourage you all to do likewise. Abramson okayed this clever move and she's a stickler for staying in your lane.

"... you can wrap healthcare and tariffs and authoritarianism into a single argument...."

I'm listening to Ezra Klein, at 00:15:32, in the new episode of his podcast, "Jon Favreau on Where the Democrats Went Right":

"I've been talking to members of the House and Senate, and both politically and morally, I've been going back to my big shutdown piece a month ago on the side that says you can wrap healthcare and tariffs and authoritarianism into a single argument, and it is worth doing that if only to set up the argument you're actually making — if only to make American politics about what it is really about. Partly if you believe this is an attentional event. I was talking with my staff and we were looking at coverage on the front pages and it's interesting how few front pages every day are running the shutdown.... And the shutdown has, instead of becoming the focusing event that ties together what is happening in American politics, it is one hermetically sealed event in American politics. And then there are these other events happening simultaneously and coverage is splitting between them."

Listen to the whole dialogue if you can. It's interesting, if disturbing, because Klein and Favreau openly talk about using the shutdown to leverage the Democratic Party back into power. Why aren't they more circumspect? I have to assume they are cocksure that their listeners share their primary goal — the success of the Democratic Party. 

Ezra Klein and virtually everything.

I'm just trying to get through this New Yorker interview with Ezra Klein, "Ezra Klein Argues for Big-Tent Politics":

I agree with Ta-Nehisi [Coates] on virtually every view he has on things that Charlie Kirk had said. ... I have poured virtually every ounce of myself into preventing everything that Kirk poured himself into creating. For more people than I had understood, the sense that we are in any way in community together—the sense that we are still in a place where we are all practicing and doing politics—has already eroded. Something that’s very alive for me is a feeling that we are not that far from national rupture. So many things that we like to say “can’t happen here” have already been happening here.

[And who do you blame for that?]

I mean, I blame Donald Trump quite specifically for that. I think that the way he has acted in the aftermath of Kirk’s murder has been an exhibition of virtually everything that is wrong....

Klein had said something gracious about Kirk. Coates attacked him. And Klein adopted this strange way of talking about himself. It's so effusive yet vague. Instead of saying "I think we are close to a national rupture," he says "Something that’s very alive for me is a feeling that we are not that far from national rupture." He sounds like a comic character in a play.

Maybe you've seen the recent podcast with Klein and Coates going head to head. I don't know if you can bear to listen to that, but I highly recommend this commentary on it from AntifascistDad, who focuses of Klein's Buddhist turn:

"Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him."

"He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.... ... I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness.... It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended through bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine, and for the sake of our larger shared project...."

Writes Ezra Klein, in "Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way" (NYT).

That resonates with something Meade just texted me:

"When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against… pic.twitter.com/Kq1Cbq744S

— DiploAct (@diploact) September 10, 2025

"I'm still mulling the point... about whether or not both parties moved in an individualistic direction and that there were these big solidaristic movements on the left that that began to to fade.... "

"My instinct was it was wrong. And as I think about it, I think it's right, but I think that it's right for possibly a different reason...."

Mulls Ezra Klein, in the new episode of his podcast, "MAHA Is a Bad Answer to a Good Question." I'm jumping you to a spot about half an hour into the discussion:

"I think there's a sense that that politics failed... particularly after 2024... You look around at the way... communal shaming worked. You look at the way people look back on the pandemic. You look at the backlash now to what gets called wokeness, Me Too. And whatever you believe about the underlying arguments being made that the effort to shame your way to a better world was a political failure — not a small political failure, but a political failure that has empowered the absolute worst people, the people you feared the most, like a Murderers' Row of who you did not want to have power.... And the move — I'm not sure if I would call it towards individualism — but away from this heavily enforced solidarity of both action and language — very, very aggressive on speech and info hazards — that that was part of what went wrong....  [T]he left became extremely comfortable with the deployment of state power on behalf of institutions and so on in a way that really radicalized the other side. And the other side didn't become libertarian — in a strange way, they became authoritarian...."

Klein seems to be blaming the left for making the right authoritarian, but isn't he also accusing the left of authoritarianism? What is "heavily enforced solidarity" that's "very, very aggressive on speech and info hazards" — what is it to be "extremely comfortable with the deployment of state power" — if not authoritarianism?

By the way, what is a Murderers' Row? The term goes back to at least 1850, when it referred to a row of prison cells in New York City's Tombs. But most Americans probably think of it in as referring to baseball— especially the 1927 New York Yankees, which had a very intimidating batting lineup. If that's your reference point, Klein sounds like he's expressing awe and admiration for the left's adversaries. Trump is the Babe Ruth of politics.

"It reminds me of a line that I hear less now, but I used to see it a lot, which is: It’s not my job to educate you."

"I always thought about that line because on one level, I understood it. It’s probably not your job to educate anyone. But if you’re in politics, if what you’re trying to do is political change, I always found that line to be almost antipolitical. That if what you want to do is change a law, change a society, change a heart, and you’re the one who wants to do it — well then, whose job is it? And who are you expecting to do it?"

Said Ezra Klein, interviewing Sarah McBride , in "How to Beat Back Trump on Trans Rights — and Much Else/Representative Sarah McBride reckons with the trans rights movement’s shortcomings and how to win hearts and minds through a politics of grace" (NYT)(audio and transcript here, at Podscribe).

And here's something McBride said, elsewhere in the long discussion: "I think just candidly, I think we lost the art of persuasion. We lost the art of change-making over the last couple of years.... I think a lot of it can be traced to a false sense of security that the L.G.B.T.Q. movement and the progressive movement writ large began to feel in the postmarriage world. There was a sense of cultural momentum that was this unending, cresting wave.

"There’s this saying that Biden, and then Harris, both repeated... 'building a middle class from the bottom up and the middle out.' What the hell does that mean?"

"So the first thing is there’s this kind of consultant language that just needs to go away. That was always annoying to people. But when your opponent, Donald Trump, is clearly not on any consultant-speak, it just makes it more glaring that you seem like the typical politicians."

Said Ben Rhodes, who's recommending "authenticity." He's quoted in "Obama’s Not Going to Save Democrats, but This Might/Michelle Cottle and Ben Rhodes on what Democrats misunderstand about authenticity" (NYT).

And then there’s a second piece of this, which is, Democrats have these public debates that astound me where it’s like, “Maybe we need to go on TikTok” or “We need to go on that manosphere podcast.” If you can do that, if you can make a cool TikTok video and whatever your thing is that allows you to do that, that’s great. If you can’t, then please don’t. Please don’t go there. If you can go on “Joe Rogan” because you are up to speed on the conspiracy theories or you have a background in standup comedy or you know something about ultimate fighting, that’s great. But don’t go on “Joe Rogan” to talk about building an economy from the bottom up to the middle out. That will make his audience hate Democrats more. 

And so I think what Democrats miss about authenticity — it’s not like what platform I’m on. The point is that authenticity is about being yourself. It’s not about being what you think this demographic wants a politician to be.... [M]y point is essentially, Democrats love to, for instance, sit around and be like, “What’s the policy agenda that will win back America?” I — nobody cares. There’s great ideas out there — the abundance agenda and all the rest of it — but nobody is going to read that right now. That’s a great idea for Democrats if they actually win back power or maybe if they’re in power now.

Rhodes has his "a" word for saving Democrats — "authenticity" — and I see him glancing over at Ezra Klein's "a" word for saving Democrats — "abundance." What are some other longish "a" words that could be used by an elite commentator bullshitting about reinvigorating the Democratic Party? 

Well, you know what to do with a question like that, and that's just what I did. Do not read any further if you don't want to read something written by Grok:

1. Adaptability - Emphasizing the party’s need to evolve with changing times and voter priorities.
2. Aspiration - Focusing on inspiring voters with bold, forward-looking goals.
3. Accountability - Highlighting a commitment to transparency and responsibility to rebuild trust.
4. Altruism - Advocating for a selfless dedication to the public good over partisan gain.
5. Ambition - Calling for grand, unapologetic plans to energize the base and attract new supporters.
6. Articulation - Stressing the need for clearer, more compelling communication of values and policies.
7. Audacity - Urging the party to embrace fearless, unconventional strategies.
8. Atonement - Suggesting a reckoning with past missteps to reconnect with disillusioned voters.
9. Assimilation - Proposing a broader, more inclusive coalition that absorbs diverse perspectives.
10. Ascendancy - Framing the party’s path as one of rising dominance through moral and strategic clarity.

Obama already used #7, but now I feel like dabbling in crappy book titles, like "The Audacity of Altruism." Let's see... "The Articulation of Adaptablity," "The Assimilation of Atonement," "The Ambition of Accountability," "The Ascendancy of Aspiration."

Are we authentic yet?

"At some point, we gotta be upset about this," says Ezra Klein, nervously chuckling.

Yeah? What point?!

Ezra Klein explains how it feels to be a Democrat in under 30 seconds:
Ezra Klein: "The stimulus bill under Obama, that had 3 big headline projects for reinvestment.
High speed rail, smart grid, a nation wide system of interoperable health records. 0 for 3"
Gavin Newsom: "I… pic.twitter.com/Rlq1z8fGRb

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) March 26, 2025

Via Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, who's put together a nice series of clips and quotes on the theme "The Democratic brand is toxic right now."

This is a theme that gets my tag "Democratic Party in Trumpland."

BUT: Really, the problem Klein chuckles over pre-dates the Trump era. It's the failure of the Obama agenda:  "The stimulus bill under Obama — that had 3 big headline projects for reinvestment. It had high speed rail. It had smart grid. And it had a nation wide system of inter-operable health records.... 0 for 3."

Jon Stewart performs his classic oh-no-how-can-people-be-so-stupid mugging...

... as Ezra Klein reads 14 steps to apply for "Build Back Better" funding but I'm going to assume that some smart people knew what they were doing and plenty of people made money doing things this way:

Jon Stewart screams 'OMFG' and is rendered speechless after hearing all 14 steps to apply for 'Build Back Better' funding:
Ezra Klein: "We have to issue the notice funding opportunity within 180 days that's step one.
Step Two: States who want to participate must submit a letter… pic.twitter.com/n2B3knnNY8

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) March 28, 2025

ADDED: There's so much talk about how the Trump administration — especially DOGE — is moving too fast, so it's good to look back at the Biden administration, which was, as Klein tells it, moving way too slow. Slowness is the choice of those who love government and want more government, government that never ends. Look at what they did, not at what they said they wanted to do. Do they get problems solved or do they feed off unsolved problems?

"Democrats did worse in the 2024 election than you think. They completely failed to win over less engaged voters..."

"... who are becoming much more Republican. The higher the turnout, the more these voters show up and the worse it is for Democrats.... Low turnout is now the Democrats’ BFF!... Shor’s analysis... suggests that Trump outright won voters under 30. ... He also finds that Gen Z voters under 25 regardless of race or gender are now more conservative than the corresponding Millennial voters. So much for the Democrats’ generational tsunami. The issue landscape in 2024 was worse than most Democrats thought. The only really important issue Democrats had an advantage on was health care and that advantage was tiny by historical standards. The Democrats did have a large advantage on climate change—but voters don’t really care about the issue.... The way out is not with a feel-good Democratic playbook that leaves Democratic shibboleths intact. That hasn’t worked and it won’t work."

Writes Ruy Teixeira, in "How Deep Is the Hole Democrats Are In? Pretty deep" (Substack).

Shor = David Shor, who explained his findings here:

"In 2023, California saw a net loss of 268,000 residents in New York, 179,000....they're going to... Texas, Florida, Arizona...."

"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. You are not the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. In the American political system, to lose people is to lose power. If these trends hold, the 2030 census will shift the Electoral College sharply to the right. The states that Kamala Harris won in 2024 — they'll lose about 11 House seats and Electoral College votes. The states of Trump won would gain them. So in that Electoral College, a Democrat could win every single state Harris won in 2024 and also win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still lose the presidency."

Says Ezra Klein, in "There Is a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk," the new episode of his NYT podcast, audio and transcript at Podscribe.

The quoted part is from the beginning, where Klein effectively stirs up fears of future disaster for Democrats. The answer to the question asked in the episode title is: "If liberals don't make government work, zealots like Elon Musk are going to come in and burn it down." And: "If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promises of strong men, they need to offer them the fruits of effective government in the long run."

Yeah, just do that.

CORRECTION: I misread the headline as a question — Is There a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk? I hallucinated the humility that plainly belongs there!

"But I’m beginning to think students who don’t read are responding rationally to the vision of professional life our society sells them."

"In that vision, productivity does not depend on labor, and a paycheck has little to do with talent or effort. For decades, students have been told that college is about career readiness and little else. And the task of puzzling out an author’s argument will not prepare students to thrive in an economy that seems to run on vibes. Recent ads for Apple Intelligence, an A.I. feature, make the vision plain. In one, the actor Bella Ramsey uses artificial intelligence to cover for the fact they haven’t read the pitch their agent emailed. It works, and the project seems like a go. Is the project actually any good? It doesn’t matter. The vibes will provide...."

Writes Jonathan Malesic, in "There’s a Very Good Reason College Students Don’t Read Anymore" (NYT).

I remember "vibes" as a hippie word, so I have trouble seeing how it functions these days in the speech of the young, and so, it annoys me. I wish I'd made a tag for it long ago, so I could could keep track of how it annoys me — at least in its usage by mainstream media. Do non-media young people go around saying it? I don't know. It just irks me when I see it in media.

For example...