"What a blast from the past! The New York Times hasn’t pulled out the infamous 'beer test' for a political candidate since May 22, 2015..."

"... when it ran ['Finding a Candidate You’d Like to Have a Beer With.'] The 'beer test' was once a massively overused campaign reporting cliché. It grew out of a Sam Adams ad campaign in the 2000 race, and from Bush-Gore through the 2016 cycle it was nearly impossible to escape 'beer test' coverage. Then Donald Trump won the 2016 beer test by default — it was hard to imagine Hillary Clinton having a beer at all — leading even Slate to pronounce 'there has never been and perhaps never will be a candidate you’d be more eager to have a beer with than Donald Trump.'

That's Matt Taibbi, in "Cliché Alert: Return of the 'Beer Test'/The New York Times reverts to old form, thanks to a blue-party schism" (Racket).

Here's the NYT article that set Taibbi off: "He’s Not a Democrat. Democrats Love Him Anyway."

Dirtbagism.

I'm reading "Graham Platner and the Rise of the ‘Dirtbag’ Democrat/And what the Maine candidate reveals about politics today" in the NYT.

That's long, so let's jump to the place where the word "dirtbag" is thrown into the mix:

Michelle Cottle: And honestly, is it even fair to compare Platner to somebody like Paxton or Trump? 

Jamelle Bouie: You know, I don’t think it’s fair. And I say that because, so far, what we’ve learned about Platner is that, for lack of a better term, he’s kind of a dirtbag. Just a dirtbaggy kind of guy.... That’s versus Trump, who isn’t just a reprehensible person, but is actively engaged in harming other people in his private life, right? And I’d say the same for Paxton: not just a slimy guy, but a guy whose modus operandi, as a human being, is to try to dominate the people around him in really ugly ways. And so, I think Platner is more on the John Fetterman continuum than he is on the Trump continuum, which is just, eh, kind of dirtbaggy.

Cottle: OK, so I want to drill down just a little bit more....

The drilling down does not explore the concept of dirtbagism. Cottle was swooping in to take the conversation away from that, even though the headline writer saw the click-bait value of the word. In the conversation, "dirtbag" never reappears.

I asked Grok "how the word 'dirtbag' is being deployed what kind of people use that term and why" and got quickly tracked into the subject of the "dirtbag left." There's this New Yorker article from last October: "What Explains Graham Platner’s Popularity? The U.S. Senate candidate from Maine seems like the embodiment of the dirtbag left. But there’s another way to understand his appeal." Excerpt:

"The problem is less a 'boys will be boys' tolerance than a sense of resignation among politicians, staff and other members of official Washington that powerful, ambitious men are built differently."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "How Many People Heard About Swalwell and Did Nothing?" (NYT).

Cottle does not delve into this "built differently" hypothesis or the reasons why people believe it and choose to condone bad behavior. She seems to hope to light a fire under these weaker people and motivate them to oppose the "powerful, ambitious men" who — supposedly — are fueled by sexual desire. 

Maybe she doesn't delve into the hypothesis because she thinks it's true and self-evident. Maybe she's too puritanical to open up the subject. "Built differently." Say it clearly and explicitly. When I was a child, circa 1960, I asked my mother how babies were born. That was long ago, but I remember her answer verbatim: "Well, you know how men and women are built differently."

Can we please grow up and say it bluntly? There's no reason to be polite here. Powerful, ambitious men are built differently... the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. We're diminishing ourselves if we filter out the men who have it. Look at JFK. Look at Trump. And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.

That's not my personal belief. That's the hypothesis Cottle gestures at, and I'm just putting it bluntly. Maybe you can put it more bluntly, so I'll turn the conversation over to you.

What authenticity means these days.

1. "I am completely comfortable with having voted for Trump. It was my first time because of the apocalypse that was represented by the blue ticket. And so I just don't think there was any rational choice. We had an absolute emergency on our hands and this simple ability to vote for something that was in some way authentic made it the only game in town.... You know... President Biden was not the president in the meaningful sense.... And then at the point that that became implausible, to swap in an empty shirt is such a dire commentary on the state of the Republic" — said Bret Weinstein, in video at X.

2. "The beauty standards themselves are inauthentic — that is, unnatural and impossible to attain without surgical or technological intervention — but the open discussion around how to achieve them has been praised as a form of authenticity by fans, many of whom felt they had previously been gaslit by celebrities claiming their perfect forms were the result of diet and exercise.... Despite an expressed desire to be true to themselves, members of [Generation Z] have said they care less and less about authenticity from influencers — perhaps because the efforts to appear relatable have fallen flat" — from "An Era of Authenticity (or Something Like It)/Celebrities are being praised for openly discussing plastic surgery and Photoshop. Are they raging against a machine they created?" (NYT).

3. "Obviously, we’ve talked about authenticity, and if you watch Mamdani, he’s just electric, which [Kansas Governor Laura] Kelly is not. But they are authentically of their place"/"Her image in Kansas — she’s really leaned into the idea that she’s not a partisan figure. She grew up Republican. She is a moderate Democrat" — said Michelle Cottle, quoted in "There Is Hope for Democrats. Look to Kansas. Two Opinion writers on the Democratic governors who might just save the party" (NYT). 

4. "To say I know how our environment affects people? I have no idea. I really don't. And I don't want to know. I don't want it evaluated. I just want to keep trying to make the environment healthy and good and better — and authentic" — said Pat Murphy, manager of the Milwaukee Brewers, quoted in "MLB-leading Brewers cap best 60-game stretch in club history" (MLB.com).

"For years now, progressives have been engaged in a competition of sorts, which is like, 'In the hierarchy of intersectionality, who has the most right to be upset?'"

"And that has put conservative white men in particular on the defensive at a time when they’re already freaked out about shifting social and economic hierarchies. So a lot of people are tired of feeling guilty, and they have been very open to the idea that empathy or compassion is a weakness...."

Said Michelle Cottle, in "Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now/Three Opinion writers on the death of empathy in America" (NYT).

So there's the "hierarchy of intersectionality," the "social... hierarch[y]," and the "economic hierarch[y]." These "progressive" minds, obsessed with "hierarchy," love their own capacity for "empathy," but it's nothing like compassion for all human beings. It's something to give only to the ones you decide are most oppressed — those with what Cottle snarks have "the most right to be upset" — and something to withhold from everyone else.

"How far Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can go is a hot topic for many Democrats right now."

"With her youth, charisma, social media skills and political savvy, she is being talked about nowadays as not only the obvious heir to Mr. Sanders as leader of the progressive movement, but as a possible presidential contender for 2028. This both recognizes her potential and feels premature at best.... Her mere existence spins up Republicans to a degree reminiscent of their reaction to Nancy Pelosi in her heyday.... The Fighting Oligarchy tour organized by Mr. Sanders and featuring her as a 'special guest' drew fired-up crowds in numbers worthy of a presidential campaign: about 15,000 in Tempe, Ariz.; 11,000 in Greeley, Colo.; 34,000 in Denver.... Democrats freaked out by Mr. Trump are clamoring for leaders who share their sense of urgency. Fighting Oligarchy, with its revolutionary fervor, is working to scratch that itch.... [A]lthough Mr. Sanders is the tour’s headliner... it is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, serving as his fresh-faced, supportive warm-up act, who has many Trump-traumatized Democrats dreaming of a counterrevolution...."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "What Ocasio-Cortez Wants for the Democrats" (NYT).

Her mere existence spins up Republicans!

Meanwhile, Democrats are itchy, and AOC is scratchy.

"How horrifying it is on the regular."

I'm listening "Resistance, Where Art Thou?," the new episode of the NYT "Matter of Opinion" podcast. At 5:28 in the linked audio/transcript, Ross Douthat says:

From 2016 to 2020, there was a sense that there was a fundamental liberal, or at least center left majority in America that had been unfairly denied its rightful position of power and influence. And so it just made sense to say, we just need to mobilize.... [I]n the early days of 2017, and indeed throughout his presidency, [the White House] was filled with people who were not at all loyal to Donald Trump. Some of whom were just total opportunists, some of whom were sort of, you know, respectable Republican figures who felt like they were there to manage the weird, bizarre phenomenon of the Trump presidency. But those people played a very important role, a kind of feedback loop in driving the energy of the resistance by basically leaking constantly about how crazy things were inside the Trump White House.... [T]he teams that exist in the Trump White House this time have esprit de corps. They have internal loyalty and cohesion. And so whatever is going on... in the kind of Trumpian attempt to remake the executive branch, you know, people aren't interested in just telling Politico and The New York Times all about how horrifying it is on the regular.

By the way, I had a long conversation with Grok about the idiom "on the regular." I won't link to it. Have your own conversation with your own robot. 

I also wanted to quote this from Michelle Cottle: "There was a big piece in Politico saying, oh, you know, the Democrats are, are taking the bait by defending USAID, Americans hate USAID. They think that, you know, we give way too much money to people abroad and things like that. And... I, personally... I am much more familiar with the left critiques of USAID and the work that it's done around the world."

The left critiques of USAID. Where's the NYT article about that? When are we going to hear that side of the story? When — if — Elon Musk releases it into the public domain? Who wants to see that and who is desperately afraid?

President? What President? We have a President?

Screen grab from NYT home page just now. It links here, where Michelle Cottle writes: "It is time for Democrats to stop putting a mic in front of President Biden unless absolutely necessary.... With just a few days left in this race, I’d like to request — ever so gently — that Biden keep those lips zipped on political matters. Things are crazy enough out here without his help."

Either he's President or he isn't. He's made a mess of everything and deprived us of a normal process of selecting a President. And the Democratic Party candidate for President is entirely implicated in the dangerous, outrageous situation, and you just want to shut him up for a few days?! No, the entire shit show is the responsibility of Democratic Party that is aggressively seeking power over his half-dead body. Why should we look away?

"Do you think it’s at all reasonable for the mother of a teenage boy to worry about a false accusation of sexual assault? Or is that just like, a normal maternal anxiety?"

Asks Ross Douthat of Tressie McMillan Cottom, who answers: "I think it is about as normal as worrying that you’re going to be sex trafficked at the shopping center if you are a Middle America mom. That is to say, is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. And is there a much bigger threat out there that might be a better use of your maternal anxiety?... The feminist philosopher Kate Mann calls it 'himpathy; — this default sympathy for men and for the male condition and that it is so deeply embedded in our culture."

That's part of a conversation at "Diddy and Our Culture’s 'Himpathy' for Powerful Men/How the allegations against/Sean Combs change the way we talk about #MeToo, rumors and powerful men" (NYT)(and that's my last gift link of the month, which should tell you there's a lot more to read there).

Vague, vacuous, and not flustered... 2 looks at that Kamala Harris interview.

"Kamala Harris didn’t hurt herself in her interview this week with CNN’s Dana Bash. She didn’t particularly help herself, either."

Writes Bret Stephens in a NYT piece with a meaner headline: "A Vague, Vacuous TV Interview Didn’t Help Kamala Harris."

But really, absorbing that meanness, isn't vague and vacuous what they were aiming for? I'm saying "they" not because I'm rejecting the she/her pronouns Harris has announced but because I presume her performance was developed by a team.

Stephens identifies pluses and minuses. On the plus side, "she came across as warm, relatable." (Did she?) 

On the minus side, we see the basis for that headline:

She’s vague to the point of vacuous. She struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking and border security other than to say, “my values have not changed.” Fine, but she evaded the question of why it took the Biden administration more than three years to gain better control of the border, which it ultimately did through an executive order that could have been in place years earlier. It also doesn’t answer the question of why she reversed her former policy positions — or whether she has higher values other than political expediency.

We can infer the answer easily enough. What's she supposed to do, come right out and own it? 

The Stephens reaction is paired with a reaction from another NYT opinion writer, Michelle Cottle, who says, "I think that went pretty well, don’t you?"

Since you asked, I'll answer. Yes. Expectations were low, and there's no mistake for her enemies to feast on today. There were no big silences and no memorable passsage-of-time inanities.

Cottle gives Harris credit for not "ducking" questions or "getting flustered."

Flustered! To quote something I said in 2013: "That's a word that people have traditionally used — this is my observation — to portray a woman as incapable of standing her ground and dealing with emotional turmoil."

Why are you waiting to see if a woman gets "flustered"? It feels as though you're expecting her to prove her worth by not seeming like a stereotype of a woman. 

And Cottle continues with this "flustered" business:

The not getting flustered part was as important as the answers themselves. She absolutely needed to avoid giving any opening for the MAGA trolls — who are obsessed with machismo and performative toughness — to accuse her of being overly emotional or weak or easy to rattle. Amusingly, Bash looked more flustered than Harris did for most of the interview....

Yeah, why was that amusing... to Cottle? I'd have to guess that Cottle wanted Harris to win, and Bash's terror counted toward the Harris win. How presidential Harris was! She intimidated Bash. As if that means Putin and other dictators will be intimidated by Harris. But that inference is entirely unjustified. Bash was chosen because she was thought to be most inclined to help Harris. And Bash had the complex task of helping while seeming to be tough and properly journalistic.

Cottle projects her own worries about womanly inadequacies onto "MAGA trolls." Of course, they are out there, looking for material that can be used to attack Harris: They are "are obsessed with machismo and performative toughness — to accuse her of being overly emotional or weak or easy to rattle." But that doesn't mean Harris's own supporters are free of their own doubts and sexist stereotypes.

"Somehow, his typically insufferable manner worked well in the big convention setting."

I'm reading "'A Joyful Fellowship of Patriots': The Best and Worst Moments From Night 2 of the Republican Convention" — a collection of opinions from various NYT contributors. Asked what was the "best moment" of Night 2, there's this from Michelle Cottle:

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Vivek Ramaswamy was en fuego. His barn burner of a speech included the requisite partisan red meat, but the way he talked about the shrinking American dream could resonate well beyond the Republican base. Somehow, his typically insufferable manner worked well in the big convention setting. Go figure.

I haven't watched this yet. I'll give you the video and come back with my opinion:

 

ADDED: I've listened. Great content and delivery. But Cottle couldn't say it without calling him somehow simultaneously "insufferable." The "insufferable manner" works in the big arena. Fine. He's still insufferable (per Cottle). It's the received view of Ramaswamy and you must never forget it.

"Yes, Trump is a terrible person and was a terrible president. I, like many of you, believe he is unfit to hold any office. But around half the country does not feel this way..."

"... and even many people who do not much like him are wondering if he is really a worse bet than a president who at any given moment might come across like your shellshocked papaw after a few snorts of schnapps."

Writes Michelle Cottle in "One by One, the Reasons to Stick With Biden Are Failing" (NYT).

I've been looking for Trump-haters to begin to show respect for their fellow citizens who support Trump, and when I saw "around half the country does not feel this way," I thought I was about to see it, but then I ran headlong into "your shellshocked papaw after a few snorts of schnapps."

Is that how we talk? Ironic that someone who purports to be appalled at the rough-spoken Trump came out with "your shellshocked papaw after a few snorts of schnapps." I guess it's funny/clever because you're mocking an old man using old-time-y words like "papaw," "snorts," "schnapps," and the endlessly hilarious "shellshocked"...

Anyway, as for the reasons to stick with Biden... what's plain is that a key Democratic Party issue has been something about democracy, and Biden won a huge victory in the primaries. You're going to overthrow the results of that duly conducted democratic process and proceed to keep crying out about Trump's supposed disregard for democracy? Another irony.

But it's too late not to pitch the old man overboard. They've let it show that they've been lying miserably for years about this presidency. And yet there is no way to begin to tell the truth. Old lies are better lies... usually. I would think.

"I spent most of Mr. Trump’s speech not far from the stage, sandwiched between two exceptionally kind older guys clad in camo..."

"... one with a matching hat that read 'Ultra MAGA warrior.' One of them rustled me up a chair, offered to serve as a wind shield and even tried to lend me his gloves so my fingers wouldn’t freeze. I was comfortable enough, but after nearly an hour of listening to Mr. Trump’s usual ravings, I decided to call it a night."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "What I Found Inside the MAGAverse on the Eve of Trump’s Trial" (NYT). That's a free access link, so you can find more of Cottle's experience among the deplorables and her seeming surprise at finding them happy, not angry, and pretty nice.

"There was a vibe of unity, common purpose, faith and joy. I didn’t run across anyone sweating the trial. But I spoke with plenty of folks like Lauren Herzog — who was rocking pigtails, a MAGA hat and an American-flag pajama onesie — with her husband and a bunch of their friends, who were happy to field my questions about whether they were concerned that Mr. Trump would soon be in court. There was much laughter and even more cross talk, but the bottom-line ruling from the group was, 'Nah.'"

"It is time to unleash Dark Brandon on this soul-sucking downer of a presidential race."

I'm reading this: 

 

It's mainly about tonight's SOTU. I guess the idea that it's a statesmanlike address to the whole nation is shot to hell. It's a campaign event: 

"Wouldn’t it be wiser to stop the madness now and just jam that Silly Putty right back under Ms. Greene’s sofa?"

That's the last sentence of "Impeach Him! No, Him! And Him, Too!" by Michelle Cottle in the NYT.

I made a free access link, in case you feel motivated to decode the quote. I find the metaphoric violence unsettling. 

"He is up to his wattle in criminal indictments, and even if none land him in prison, the grinding stress and his advanced age look to be taking a toll on his mental acuity."

"Watching his increasingly disjointed rants, one cannot help but think, 'Something ain’t right.' He seems as likely as President Biden to suffer a serious health event — maybe more if you factor in all those burgers. As the primaries grind on, any number of developments could convince soft Trump voters that the MAGA king is a bad bet. All of which is to say that the Republican primary fight remains vital. And as we head into this crucial stretch, it is time for the most promising Trump challengers — who at this point appear to be Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley — to hunker down and show us what they are made of...."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "Why the Next Seven Weeks Are So Critical in the Race for President" (NYT)

Are Trump's rants increasingly disjointed? I had not noticed, and I am able to help thinking "Something ain’t right." For one thing, I don't use "ain't," especially in my thoughts. For another, I think the question about his "disjointed rants" has always only been do you want a President who speaks in that style? Can you understand him? To my ear, it's conversational, and I enjoy the lively spontaneity. It doesn't feel like mental derangement to me. It feels like a strength. Other politicians don't speak like that because they're more scripted and risk averse.

And what of this "up to his wattle"? Is Cottle — whose name rhymes with "wattle" — going to use words of contempt to mock the physical appearance of all the candidates? I think not. That would be bullying. But that doesn't apply to Trump, and if you believe that, you are attesting to his strength.

The rhymes for "wattle" and "Cottle" — in case you're working on a limerick — are "bottle," "throttle," and "glottal." All — like "wattle" — oddly neck related. 

"Asked specifically about Mr. Trump’s election fraud lies, which [J.D.] Vance has at times promoted, the senator again shifted into slippery explainer mode."

"'I think it’s very easy for folks in the press to latch onto the zaniest election fraud or stolen election theories and say, "Oh this is totally debunked,"' he said. 'But they ignore that there is this very clear set of institutional biases built into the election in 2020 that — from big tech censorship to the way in which financial interests really lined up behind Joe Biden. People aren’t stupid. They see what’s out there,' he said. 'Most Republican grass roots voters are not sympathetic to the dumbest version of the election conspiracy. They are sympathetic to the version that is actually largely true.' Except that, as evidence of what is 'actually largely true,' Mr. Vance pointed to a 2021 Time article detailing a bipartisan effort not to advance a particular candidate but to safeguard the electoral system. More important, the 'dumbest' version of the stolen election conspiracy is precisely what Mr. Trump and his enablers have been aggressively spreading for years.... Mr. Vance may want to believe that most Republicans are too smart to buy such lunacy, but he is too smart not to recognize the damage to American democracy being wrought by that lunacy."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "What Is J.D. Vance’s Angle?" (NYT).

"Mr. McCarthy, in his desperate pursuit of the speakership last winter, ran around making promises willy-nilly to the House’s small band of right-wingers..."

"...  and he will now rise and fall on how he handles those commitments and expectations.... His attempt to placate them by announcing an impeachment investigation into President Biden went over poorly, prompting multiple Freedom Caucusers to scold him for trying to buy them off.... Gaetz & Company have a point: Mr. McCarthy is out of compliance with several of his promises...."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "Maybe Matt Gaetz Is Right" (NYT).

"The entire place, in fact, has a time-warped quality. It is reminiscent of college or summer camp — but for people who..."

"... no longer have to worry about what they’re going to be when they grow up or what their political choices will bring. For Villagers, the future is less of a concern than living their best life. Right. Now. Here, baby boomers still reign supreme, in a place that caters to some of their most self-absorbed, self-indulgent impulses. The culture, like the overwhelmingly conservative politics, can feel like a scrupulously maintained bulwark against the onslaught of time and change.... Crime, inequality, homelessness, climate change, racial strife, the high cost of child care and college — these are challenges for other communities to grapple with.... Early one evening, I settle in near the Sumter Landing bandstand to watch the Hooligans, a local favorite that plays all the classics — Pink Floyd, the Clash, the Police, Rod Stewart. At one point, a trim, relatively young woman sporting short dark hair and a golf visor wanders over to ask if I’m the band’s agent.... After quizzing me about who I work for and what I’m working on, she introduces herself succinctly: 'Brenda. Strong conservative and strong Christian.'... [S]he drifts back into the sea of seniors swaying as the band belts out Radiohead’s 'Creep': 'What the hell am I doin’ here? I don’t belong here. …'"

From "The ‘Disney’ for Boomers Puts Hedonism on Full Display" by Michelle Cottle, opinionating from The Villages in Florida for the NYT.

That went up a few days ago, but I noticed it just this morning, when a lot of "To the Editor" letters went up. (The original article lacked a comments section.) Most of the letters complain about the bias and snobbishness. But not all. The last letter in the series says: 

"As is often noted, the essence of the modern Republican Party has been boiled down to: Own the libs. The impulse on the other side is not parallel."

"Democrats try to mobilize their voters with promises to enact popular policies — paid family leave, expanded Medicare coverage, cheaper prescription drugs, universal pre-K and so on. Democratic voters were desperate to send Mr. Trump packing. But beyond that, what many, many blue-staters want isn’t to own red-state America so much as to return to ignoring it altogether.... [W]hile the non-MAGA electorate may be rightly exhausted, Democrats should beware of letting their voters get comfy or complacent just because Mr. Trump is currently cooling his heels in Florida. That is exactly what his Republican Party is counting on in Virginia — and everywhere else."

From "Why the Virginia Election Is Freaking Democrats Out" by Michelle Cottle (NYT).

I think both parties rely on emotional politics, and I laugh at the assertion that Democrats are mainly only soberly serving up rational policy proposals. Cottle is fretting that the voters Democrats are hoping to motivate are more tired that the ones Republicans are keeping warmed up. Her idea seems to be to stir up the Democratic-Party-oriented people about the way Republican-Party-oriented people are more stirred up: Political emotion is scary, so get politically emotional. Ironically, that's what's so damned tiresome.