"Every other recent president has said that he saw his role as transcending partisanship at least some of the time, to serve as leader of all Americans..."

"... even those who disagreed with him. George H.W. Bush talked of ushering in a 'kinder and gentler nation.' Mr. Clinton vowed to be the 'repairer of the breach.' The younger Mr. Bush spoke of being 'a uniter, not a divider.' Barack Obama rejected the idea of a red America and blue America, saying there was only 'the United States of America.' Joseph R. Biden Jr. called for ending 'this uncivil war.' None of them succeeded at achieving such lofty aspirations, and each of them to different degrees played the politics of division at times. Politics, after all, is about division — debating big ideas vigorously until one side wins an election or carries the vote in Congress. But none of them practiced the politics of division as ferociously and consistently as Mr. Trump...."

From "In an Era of Deep Polarization, Unity Is Not Trump’s Mission/President Trump does not subscribe to the traditional notion of being president for all Americans" by Peter Baker, in the NYT.

Who is taking an accurate measure of the consistency and ferocity of the divisiveness of the various Presidents?

My prompt to ChatGPT: "What are the most ferociously divisive things Presidents have said in all of American history? Give me a top 10, with just the quotes, not the explanations."

The list [NOTE: I did not verify the accuracy of these quotes. What follows is with ChatGPT gave me and the entire thing could be hallucination. Proceed with care!]

"There was a time last summer when the Democratic Party was cool."

"Kamala Harris had just stepped in as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in the waning days of Brat summer. She went on the popular podcast 'Call Her Daddy.' Tim Walz’s outdoorsy drip led to a Chappell Roan-inspired camo trucker hat. The memes were flowing, and the party’s mood was high...."

That's the beginning of a NYT article called "What Is 'Dark Woke'? Democrats are trying out a new attitude. It’s provocative, edgy and perilously toeing the line of not being too offensive." The author is Jack Crosbie.

How painfully embarrassing to remember things that were painfully embarrassing at the time. But the media tried to palm it off as "cool" last summer... back when they were pretending America would vicariously appreciate Kamala's "joy." I'd have thought no one would be so cruel as to bring up "Brat summer" again. It was so insanely delusional. And that is not cool. 

But let's keep reading.

With Donald J. Trump back in the White House.... so-called masculine energy... seems like the dominant [culture].... As liberals try to get their groove back...

Ugh. 

... some party insiders say Democratic politicians have been encouraged to embrace a new form of combative rhetoric... “Dark woke.”

Is this like "Dark Brandon"? Why, yes it is: 

"Just hours after President Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who sought to pause the removal of more than 200 migrants to El Salvador, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare public statement."

"'For more than two centuries,' the chief justice said, 'it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' Mr. Trump had called the judge, James E. Boasberg, a 'Radical Left Lunatic' in a social media post and said he should be impeached."

Writes Adam Liptak, at the NYT.

Liptak was reminded of something the Chief said in 2018, "after Mr. Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy 'an Obama judge'": "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Of course, that doesn't stop the NYT from telling us the name of the President who appointed the federal judges whose names arise in the news.

"Elon Musk has announced an upcoming algorithm update for X, formerly known as Twitter, intended to promote more informative and entertaining content while reducing 'negativity"

"This change aims to enhance user experience by focusing on 'unregretted user-seconds,' where engagement is meaningful rather than just extensive. The update follows public discussions about how content visibility impacts free speech and platform dynamics, with some users and commentators expressing concerns over potential censorship or the stifling of diverse viewpoints."

That's what I'm reading at X in what is billed as "a summary of posts on X and may evolve over time. Grok can make mistakes, verify its outputs."

If you go to that link at a different time, will you see a different summary? Maybe! But trust me. What you see there is what I just copied, and you can see the time stamp on this post.

I can see I need to learn the term "unregretted user-seconds"! How does the machine know about regret?! Of course, I ask the machine for help. Oh! The answer is so different from my guess! I thought "user-seconds" might be the number of times users seconded a post — expressed agreement with it — by liking it or retweeting it. And I thought these reactions could be counted as "unregretted" if they were not subsequently deleted. But I see that "seconds" refers to the unit of time:

"Imagine you are about to have a political argument with a close friend or family member. You are on opposing sides of the left-right rift...."

"Doesn’t it sometimes feel that it would be simpler if you each just brought over a small TV and left it running in the kitchen, tuned to your respective network, while the two of you went into the yard and talked about something about which you possess some original knowledge? Once you’re out there, talking like that, won’t it be nice to feel your pre-formed 'political' carapaces drop away? And won’t it be discouraging and alarming when, as soon as one of you slips up and utters a triggering word or phrase ('immigrant' or 'Trump' or 'politically correct' or 'eating cats and dogs,' for example), you veer back into your canned 'political' jargon, like actors suddenly aware that the scripts you’ve been given must, at all costs, be honored?"

Writes George Saunders, in "Five Thought Experiments Concerning the Underlying Disease/Our civic wells are poisoned. Why?" (The New Yorker).

Saunders is a fine writer, but I'll be cruelly neutral and give him the "civility bullshit" tag he deserves. If Kamala Harris had won, would he be urging us to abandon political speech and get back to the little life of the backyard about which we possess "original knowledge"?

Bill Maher explains to Democrats that they are giving people "the ick."

"And multiple speakers delighted the crowd by alluding to the fabricated viral claim that Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, wrote in his memoir about having sex with furniture."

"'I wouldn’t trust them to move my couch,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said of the GOP ticket on the final night. 'I know a couch commando when I see one,' Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said minutes later. The jabs were just part of a more expansive case against Trump that Democrats laid out over four nights in Chicago. But they reflected a broader shift in tone for Democrats toward a no-holds-barred kind of rhetorical warfare many in the party once eschewed. Eight years after the Philadelphia convention cheered Michelle Obama’s famous line 'When they go low, we go high' — and with Trump still waging a campaign full of personal insults and baseless accusations... some Democrats said they are tired of being polite...."

From "Democrats once strove to ‘go high’ against Trump. Not anymore. This year’s convention culminated recent efforts to needle Trump on topics known to strike a nerve in the former president, with some Democrats saying they are tired of being polite" (WaPo)(free-access link).

This gets my "civility bullshit" tag, which in this case reflects my belief that the old "When they go low, we go high" was just a strategy choice, to be abandoned when it didn't seem effective... or when the low material is tantalizing enough, like that well-upholstered couch that seems be calling out to you.

"Going high is the only thing that works, because when we go low, when we use those same tactics of degrading and dehumanizing others, we just become part of the ugly noise that’s drowning out everything else. We degrade ourselves. We degrade the very causes for which we fight."

Said Michelle Obama, at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Quoted in "Walz’s 'couch' quip, and Democrats’ growing comfort in going low/The Democratic VP nominee’s apparent reference to a lewd, fake internet story reflects a more bare-knuckle campaign against a GOP presidential nominee who has spent years plumbing new depths." That's an essay by Aaron Blake, at WaPo.

It gets my "civility bullshit" tag, because civility has been advocated in the past, and Democrats are in a phase where they see an entitlement to reject it.

This also gets my "masturbation" tag. Who would have predicted that Democrats would lean heavily into masturbation shaming? It's 30 years since Bill Clinton fired Jocelyn Elders!

"They say something happened to me when I got shot, I became nice. If you don’t mind, I’m not going to be nice, is that okay?"

Said Donald Trump.

Quoted in "'Not going to be nice': Trump, Harris trade sharp attacks as 2024 race resets/The competing appearances are a chance for each candidate to frame the stakes of the race as it plunges into uncharted territory" (WaPo).

"This CNN anchor is saying Trump sent a bad message by saying fight fight fight... So the President who had just been shot was sending a divisive message?"

"Can you imagine these people? The president who had just been shot was at fault for the divisiveness, having just been shot. The guy who got shot, who almost died, who a bullet missed his head by, you know centimeters, I mean... it's crazy.... and somebody's on CNN going: Actually, we felt the message was a bit divisive. We're actually disappointed in the wording. We don't love the wording of that. I wish he had kind of workshopped that a bit as he was being bloodily dragged off the stage by the Secret Service. I wish he had kind of — I don't know— taken people's temperature more. We're trying to ramp it down.... Was that the Secret Service trying to ramp it down when there's nobody on the fucking roof? Is that what they were trying to do? Trying to ramp it down a week ago Biden goes: Let's put him in the bullseye?..."

Tim Dillon ridicules the civility bullshit:

Garnering conspiracy theories... and views.

I'm reading "Misinformation spreads swiftly in hours after Trump rally shooting/Conspiracy theories swell around false flags, Deep State, Biden and the Secret Service, filling the information vacuum as consumers choose their own reality" (WaPo)

Minutes after shots were fired, right-wing social media influencers and elected Republicans began insinuating that powerful figures were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the attempt. Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) posted to X that “Joe Biden sent the orders,” garnering over 4 million views, and later called for Biden to face charges for “inciting an assassination.” 

More broadly on social media, a TikTok user who posts under the handle @theoldermillenial.1 told his 1.2 million followers, “I guess because the court cases weren’t going so well, they decided to try a different avenue. Guys, don’t forget, this is what the left is capable of.”.... 

[M]isinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online.... But far-right channels on encrypted platforms were abuzz with a mixture of shock, rage and conspiracy theories. Triumphant slogans (“You missed!”) and calls for civil war captioned the instantly totemic image of a bloodied but defiant Trump raising a fist with the flag in the background. Without any clear word from authorities on suspects or motives, MAGA extremists instantly embraced the idea of a politically motivated assassination attempt. Disinformation swirled as trolls looked for easy clicks by sharing uncorroborated footage and information about people they claimed to be the assailant.

This makes it sound as though people were just exploiting the opportunity to draw traffic to their accounts, but it is the completely natural and uncontrollable need to communicate about an unfolding event. We're supposed to wait for "clear word from authorities"? We're still waiting for clear word from authorities about the JFK assassination!

Can this, then, be a moment?

I'm reading the what the Editorial Board of The Washington Post put up at 10:53 ET last night, "What do we want to do, America? We have all been touched by toxic politics — regardless of our beliefs":

In this moment, we have to recognize that we have all been touched by toxic politics — regardless of our beliefs or where we fall on an ideological spectrum.

Can this, then, be a moment to pause and rediscover our better selves? To hear our inner voices, as clearly as we heard those shots? Americans, what do we want to be?

I'm giving this post my "civility bullshit" tag, which I use for insincere calls for civility. I think the editors want to escape criticism for the overblown, hateful rhetoric its side has aimed at Trump over the years, and it fully intends — consciously or not — to return to its old ways when it will serve its political interests.

ADDED: Here's the moment I would like all politically sentient Americans to reflect upon. When you saw that there was an attempt to murder Trump, what did you think? How did you feel? Look into your own heart and see yourself. I know how I felt, and I experienced it in real time, with a minute and 2 seconds of wondering Did we just witness an assassination? — before we heard the famous voice say, "Let me get my shoes." My conscience is clear. I experienced horror and disbelief, and I did not want to lose Trump. But some Americans — how many? — must have thought, Oh, damn, they missed. We could have been rid of that bad bad man. Look into your own heart and see yourself.

"Jamaal Bowman was a Democratic Trump. Now he’s gone. It’s an encouraging sign that there is a critical mass on the left who can say: Stop."

That's the headline at WaPo... for a column by Dana Milbank.

This is the story of two New York demagogues. Both men have a history of bigotry, bullying, law breaking, promoting bogus conspiracy theories, engaging in obscene public rants and playing the martyr.

One, embraced by the Republican Party, became president and may well become president again. The other, kept at arm’s length by the Democratic Party, was dumped by Democratic voters in a congressional primary Tuesday night.

Obscene? Milbank notes that Trump has been saying "bullshit," "shitty," "scum," and "son of a bitch," whereas Bowman just had a rally where he said "We are going to show fucking AIPAC the power of the motherfucking South Bronx! … We’re going to show them who the fuck we are!"

ADDED: I would think the biggest problem with "We are going to show fucking AIPAC the power of the motherfucking South Bronx" is that Bowman's district is the north Bronx (along with the southern half of Westchester County).

"Respectability politics."

If that's a term of art, it's new to me. I'm seeing it, with a link to another article, in "Senators Need to Stop the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act," a NYT column by Michelle Goldberg. Context:

Some pro-Palestinian demonstrators seem to believe, given the moral enormity of mass death, displacement and starvation in Gaza, that deferring to mainstream Jewish sensitivities means buckling to so-called respectability politics, which whitewash horror in the name of civility. “To the Jewish students, faculty and trustees blocking divestment and urging the violent crackdowns on campus: You threaten everyone’s safety,” said a recent communiqué from the Columbia Law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing group that’s been providing legal support to the protesters.

The statement disdains the ethos of nonviolence, quoting Black Panther leader Kwame Ture, formerly Stokely Carmichael: “In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Within the movement, I imagine such rhetoric functions as a sign of total commitment, a no-going-back rejection of hollow liberal pieties. Outside of it, to the extent that anyone takes this language seriously, it serves to stoke a raging panic about the protests that both distracts from the war and feeds a growing backlash that threatens academic freedom....

The linked article is "What are the politics of respectability during a genocide?" by Maryam Iqbal in the Columbia Spectator. Excerpt:

"Former President Donald J. Trump says that his recent warning of a 'blood bath'.... was made in the context of electric vehicles..."

"... and that he was not talking about political violence generally. But if discussing a type of automotive technology in bloody terms seems odd to some, it fits in the increasingly brutal language Mr. Trump has been applying to electric vehicles, one of his favorite foils. He has long claimed electric cars will 'kill' America’s auto industry. He has called them an 'assassination' of jobs. He has declared that the Biden administration 'ordered a hit job on Michigan manufacturing' by encouraging the sales of electric cars.... Jennifer Mercieca, author of 'Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,' noted that... 'his speech was so disjointed it makes it difficult to know if he was threatening the U.A.W. workers, the U.S. auto manufacturers, or the nation as a whole.... In a sense, it doesn’t matter because Trump was threatening all at once.... Trump paints a dire picture of the nation, threatening economic ruin if he isn’t put in charge.... Using threats of force to gain power over a nation is authoritarian... not democratic.'"

Writes Lisa Friedman, in "Trump’s Violent Language Toward EVs/The former president has deployed increasingly aggressive talk about electric vehicles and their effect on the American economy" (NYT).

I should note that Trump's antagonists paint a dire picture of the nation ruined if Trump is put in charge. There's a lot of metaphorically violent rhetoric going around, but it's only denounced when it comes from the Trump side.

Much has been made of Trump's use of "bloodbath," but if Biden had used that word in his State of the Union, it would have been praised as feisty and fiery.

Biden's supporters begged for the violence:

This is what gets my tag "civility bullshit."

"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: 

I suspect that Trump, on his own, is pleased that he inspires Biden to splutter dirty words.

I thought nothing of it when I saw — in Politico — that Biden, speaking in private, has called Trump a "sick fuck" and said "What a fucking asshole the guy is.” There is nothing the slightest bit surprising about this. I remember half a century ago, when people were surprised and censorious about Nixon's dirty words on the Watergate Tapes. But is there anyone sentient who didn't already know Biden says "fuck" in the White House?

But this morning I'm reading "Trump tells supporters 'Biden just called me a sick F-word!' in fundraising email" (NY Post). So Trump is making something out of it:

"Is Nikki Haley aware that the Federalist Papers were written by founding fathers using pseudonyms?"

Is Nikki Haley aware that the Federalist Papers were written by founding fathers using pseudonyms?

Nikki Haley may be one of the most war-mongering and authoritarian candidates for president in some time. She's completely unhinged. This is blatantly unconstitutional. https://t.co/irQwxsSTrI

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 14, 2023

"A struggle ensued, with the crocodile attempting to pull Deveraux into the billabong, while Deveraux in turn, he said, tried to kick the creature..."

"... with his left foot. He was pulled deeper into the water and onto his knees. Then, in a move he described as 'half-accidental,' his teeth caught on the animal's leathery eyelid. 'I managed to have a bite,' he said, adding: 'I jerked back on his eyelid and he let go.'"

From "Crocodile Bites Man. Man Bites Back. A surprising tale of Northern Territory chutzpah" (NYT).

I'm reading that because it comes up in the dialogue between Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, a regular Monday morning feature in the NYT. Collins brings up the crocodile story because it reminds her of the GOP presidential candidates who are stuck fighting Donald Trump. 

Collins, like a lot of people in elite media these days, are pushing the idea of Nikki Haley as the one who ought to take on Donald Trump. But why? 

The Collins/Stephens dialogue begins with Stephens saying he's been "devoted almost entirely to outrages and tragedies in the Middle East: 

But I couldn’t help smiling for a second when Nikki Haley called Vivek Ramaswamy “scum” at last week’s G.O.P. debate, after he raised the subject of her daughter’s use of TikTok.

The sound of no one calling for civility.

 

Seen this morning because I went to Twitter and clicked on "Kavanaugh" in the "What's happening" sidebar.

If you're wondering whether writing "Really fuck you" on someone's photograph and posting it on Twitter is a protected speech under the First Amendment, read the Supreme Court's new "true threats" case, Counterman v. Colorado.