TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#237051: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:17:40 PM

What were Nixon's policies even like? They don't seem to be as memorable as Watergate, for obvious reasons.

DingoWalley1 Asgore Adopts Noelle Since: Feb, 2014 Relationship Status: Can't buy me love
Asgore Adopts Noelle
#237052: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:23:22 PM

[up] From what I can tell, honestly quite moderate considering the man he was, and the years he was President over.

Probably because he had a Complete Democrat Congress under his Presidency.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#237053: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:35:54 PM

Ugh. Guys. Seriously. Can we stop conflating "Republican" with "The GOP"? Going "all Republicans are bad" is just causing more problems. The GOP has gone past the point of ridiculousness but claiming anyone who identifies as a Republican is too far gone is not just reductive but also defeatist.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#237054: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:39:00 PM

For the record, I didn't mean "there are no reasonable Republicans" when I said I didn't get what a "moderate" Republican is. I've just always had trouble understanding what a moderate member of a party is, at least politics/policy-wise.

I suppose people can be fanatical about the parties in the terms of "its my team" but those kind of people strike me as much less likely to care about actual policy.

rikalous World's Cutest Direwolf from Upscale Mordor (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
World's Cutest Direwolf
#237055: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:40:29 PM

I have some doubts about discussing artists relationships in an age-appropriate way, but yes, that part has been repeatedly overlooked.
Hecking Disney movies prominently discuss romantic relationships, so unless you've got something against artists...tongue

It's true we don't have what exactly was said, or for that matter exactly what age of elementary schooler it was said to. It's entirely possible that if we did I'd agree that it was age-inappropriate and worthy of censure. But based on the information available to me, including the quoted statement from the school, the alleged offenses sound like some pretty weak tea.

RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#237056: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:40:32 PM

@Lark: 'The GOP' is the Republican Party. I think I understand the kind of qualitative difference you're trying to make, but those may not be the best terms to illustrate your intended split.

It's been fun.
Galadriel Since: Feb, 2015
#237057: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:41:46 PM

It's a political party. By definition, a Republican = "supporter of the GOP". When someone chooses to support a political organization that's racist, misogynist, hostile to the poor, and generally hateful, that decision is a reflection on the type of person they are.

The condemnation is of people who support the Republican Party, not of anyone who's a political conservative. Conservatism is a valid political philosophy. The Republican Party at this point is just evil and nuts.

edited 29th Mar '18 7:42:58 PM by Galadriel

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#237058: Mar 29th 2018 at 7:42:13 PM

Hecking Disney movies prominently discuss romantic relationships, so unless you've got something against artists...tongue

It's true we don't have what exactly was said, or for that matter exactly what age of elementary schooler it was said to. It's entirely possible that if we did I'd agree that it was age-inappropriate and worthy of censure. But based on the information available to me, including the quoted statement from the school, the alleged offenses sound like some pretty weak tea.

My first thought was "how many dick jokes are in Shakespeare" and "how many pieces of nude art become less appropriate if you include romantic relationships". tongue

edited 29th Mar '18 7:42:37 PM by RainehDaze

megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237059: Mar 29th 2018 at 8:20:27 PM

More evidence that Trump is the pocket of Putin.

Trump tells aides not to talk publicly about Russia policy moves

WASHINGTON β€” President Donald Trump's national security advisers spent months trying to convince him to sign off on a plan to supply new U.S. weapons to Ukraine to aid in the country's fight against Russian-backed separatists, according to multiple senior administration officials.

Yet when the president finally authorized the major policy shift, he told his aides not to publicly tout his decision, officials said. Doing so, Trump argued, might agitate Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to the officials.

"He doesn't want us to bring it up," one White House official said. "It is not something he wants to talk about."

The White House declined to comment.

Officials said the increasingly puzzling divide between Trump's policy decisions and public posture on Russia stems from his continued hope for warmer relations with Putin and stubborn refusal to be seen as appeasing the media or critics who question his silence or kind words for the Russian leader.

Critics have suggested that Trump's soft approach to Putin has nefarious roots that are somehow entwined with Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the federal investigation into whether the president's campaign colluded in that effort, something the president has repeatedly denied.

Behind the scenes, however, Trump has recently taken a sharper tone on Putin, administration officials said, but the shift seems more a reaction to the Russian leader challenging the president's strength than a new belief that he's an adversary. Putin's claim earlier this month that Russia has new nuclear-capable weapons that could hit the U.S., a threat he underscored with video simulating an attack, "really got under the president's skin," one official said.

So much so that after hearing Putin’s speech, Trump called the leaders of France, Germany and the U.K. to say the Russian leader sounded dangerous, so the four of them needed to stick together, according to a White House official familiar with the calls.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tells-aides-not-talk-publicly-about-russia-policy-moves-n861256

And given that Mueller seems to be zeroing in on Collusion...

edited 29th Mar '18 10:19:58 PM by megaeliz

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#237060: Mar 30th 2018 at 4:07:48 AM

Reading that article about Kevin Williamson felt not unlike reading an article detailing a scientific discovery of a new and deadly virus strain.

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#237061: Mar 30th 2018 at 7:13:21 AM

A longtime correspondent for the National Review, Kevin Williamson is, at his best, a right-wing provocateur who writes enjoyable, if slightly retro, prose. At his worst, he’s a verbose and hateful troll.

Describing a 2014 visit to the impoverished city of East St. Louis, Illinois, Williamson compared a black child to a β€œprimate” and a β€œthree-fifths-scale Snoop Dogg” before likening his own trip through Illinois to Marlow’s journey up the Congo River in Heart of Darkness, all within the space of a single paragraph. (He later denied, unconvincingly, that the three-fifths reference was a slavery joke.) In a column that same year about Orange Is the New Black actress Laverne Cox, Williamson compared trans people to voodoo doll worshippers. β€œRegardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman,” he wrote. He accused Bernie Sanders, a secular Jew, of leading a β€œnationalist-socialist movement” in a too-cute-by-half bid for rage clicks. And perhaps most notoriously, he once opined on Twitter that women who had abortions should be hanged. β€œI believe abortion should be treated like any other premeditated homicide,” he later clarified, in case anybody doubted his sincerity. β€œI’m torn on capital punishment generally; but treating abortion as homicide means what it means.”

[...] All of this makes Williamson, with his frequent sneer, dearth of empathy, and dicey treatment of race, a bit of a weird fit for the publication. He reacted to Black Lives Matter with an O’Reilly-esque rant about β€œrace-hustling professionals” and black-on-black crime that I have a hard time picturing sharing space with a TNC essay.

So why did the Atlantic hire him? Goldberg and Ideas editor Yoni Appelbaum did not respond to my request for an interview, but it appears Williamson despises Donald Trump, and Never Trump conservatives have a lot of cachet these days among left-leaning media outlets that want to show a commitment to publishing a range of views.

The Atlantic has been a solidly center-right publication for most of its history — this hire seems totally in keeping with that heritage. It's the progressive articles published by Ta-Nehisi Coates and Peter Beinart that are the exception, and honestly, an example of Genre Adultery, since the casual reader will probably be surprised how altogether mainstream conservative the rest of the oeuvre is. Editorially, the magazine is much closer to Caitlin Flanagan's disapproving-conservative-suburban-hausfrau perspective than any liberal one.

edited 30th Mar '18 7:14:50 AM by CrimsonZephyr

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#237062: Mar 30th 2018 at 8:07:39 AM

I wonder if saying this is going to make her even more unpopular?
Is there anything Hillary could say that wouldn't make her more unpopular?

We were talking about why Shulkin was booted from the VA? Apparently the Koch brothers demanded he get fired for opposing privatization - despite the fact that the private sector literally can't handle all the care the VA provides. Full article text 

If you’re like us, your initial reaction upon hearing that President Trump had picked his personal physician to head the Department of Veterans Affairs was: β€œWhat? You mean the guy who looks like a retired Grateful Dead roadie and said β€˜unequivocally’ that Trump would be β€˜the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency’ ”?

No, not him. The doctor with no managerial experience nominated to head the second-largest federal bureaucracy is Dr. Ronny Jackson, the lead White House physician since 2013, who said after an exam in January that Trump was in β€œexcellent health,” despite being overweight and needing a higher dosage of cholesterol-lowering medication.

It seems that as secretary of veterans affairs, Jackson would not be tending to Trump so much as to the right-wing billionaires Charles and David Koch and others who support privatization of veterans’ health care and other services.

The man Jackson would replace as head of the department, David Shulkin, whom Trump fired on Wednesday, was the highest-ranking holdover from the Obama administration.

Shulkin had strong bipartisan support in Congress and was backed by almost all veterans groups. He guided important legislation through Congress. These laws led to an expansion of the G.I. Bill for post-9/11 veterans, an easier process to remove bad employees and quicker appeals on disability benefits.

The department’s inspector general found β€œserious derelictions,” though, in the way Shulkin spent his time and taxpayer money during a European trip, in which he had improperly accepted tickets to Wimbledon. That’s a serious problem. But it’s laughable to think this would be a disqualification for a president for whom corruption is a continuing business model.

So we come back to the Koch brothers. After a year of amity between Shulkin and Trump, there came word last month of behind-the-scenes intrigue inside and outside the department over replacing the secretary. Those supporting such a move had ties to the Kochs and a group they fund called Concerned Veterans of America.

The group advocates privatizing V.A. care, which Shulkin has opposed. While the department has increased the role that private doctors play in the treatment of veterans, most veterans advocates believe the solution is more funding and better management. They see privatization as a boon for the private sector, not for veterans. And, as Shulkin said in an op-ed published in The New York Times on Wednesday, the nine million veterans who use the V.A. would overwhelm the private sector. More than 1,200 hospitals and clinics in the V.A. system provide that care now.

Trump gave no reason for firing Shulkin, but it’s all too believable that powerful political donors lay behind it. Each administration is entitled to pursue its own goals. But once again, this one has chosen a policy that is opposed by the people it would affect and that would chiefly benefit an entitled sliver of Americans.

Shulkin himself fired back at the "political appointees" that advocated for his removal. Full article text 

WASHINGTON β€” David Shulkin spoke out Thursday morning, hours after being fired as secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and blamed his ouster on White House appointees who seek to dismantle the agency.

In a searing New York Times opinion piece, Shulkin wrote that the agency, which is responsible for providing medical care to 9 million veterans, became enveloped in recent months in a β€œbrutal power struggle.”

β€œThe advocates within the [Trump] administration for privatizing VA health services … saw me as an obstacle to privatization who had to be removed,” Shulkin wrote. He reiterated that message later Thursday morning during an interview with NPR, when he said some political appointees at the VA thought he wasn’t leading a fast enough charge toward privatization and sought to undermine him.

President Donald Trump fired Shulkin late Wednesday afternoon after weeks of internal strife at the agency that followed revelations of his questionable spending on a summer trip to Europe with his wife. The travel scandal and increased political grappling with White House insiders at the VA about the agency’s direction ultimately led to Trump’s disfavor with him.

An Office of Inspector General report on the travel scandal coalesced with his work in Congress to make major changes to how the VA uses private-sector care. It was clear that the debate on private-sector health care was a touch point in Shulkin’s rift with political appointees.

Beginning with his confirmation hearing 13 months ago, Shulkin repeatedly has said during the past year that he’s against privatizing the department. Many lawmakers and veterans organizations also believe an aggressive expansion of veterans’ health care into the private sector would erode VA resources and would dismantle the agency.

Shulkin wrote he and his family were the subject of β€œpolitically based attacks.”

β€œI have fought to stand up for this great department and all that it embodies,” he wrote. β€œIn recent months, though, the environment in Washington has turned so toxic, chaotic, disrespectful and subversive that it became impossible for me to accomplish the important work that our veterans need and deserve.”

Shulkin didn’t mention in the column the travel scandal that ignited chaos within VA headquarters. The IG released findings Feb. 14 that Shulkin violated ethical standards on an official trip that he and his wife took to Denmark and London during the summer. He improperly accepted tickets to a Wimbledon tennis match and spent much of the trip on sightseeing activities, the IG found.

During the fallout, Shulkin agreed to pay back $4,132 of taxpayer money spent on his wife’s travel expenses. He addressed the IG report Thursday with NPR, claiming the trip was β€œmischaracterized.” The purpose of the trip was to attend a veterans summit with allied nations. Following the release of the IG report, the White House would not allow him to put out an official statement responding to the allegations, Shulkin said.

He vowed to be an advocate of the VA from the outside. In the NPR interview, he also said he would help his replacement if needed. Trump nominated Rear Adm. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician, to replace Shulkin. Lawmakers and major veterans organizations expressed concern Wednesday night about Jackson’s nomination. Jackson served as an emergency doctor in Iraq and was named White House physician in 2006. But his experience with veterans issues and management remains unknown.

Will Fischer, with Vote Vets β€” a group critical of Trump, contended β€œnow is not the time for people who need training wheels when it comes to managing a massive health care system.”

The VA is the second-largest federal agency, with more than 360,000 employees. It operates on a nearly $200 billion budget. Besides its vast health care system, the agency operates 135 national veterans cemeteries and is responsible for distributing monetary benefits to millions of veterans each month.

In response to a question from NPR about whether Jackson was up to the job, Shulkin said, β€œNo one is naturally prepared to take on a task like this.”

In news that surprises me a little, Sessions blocked a request from Congress to investigate Mueller's investigative team. Full article text 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions rejected on Thursday a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations by conservatives that Justice Department officials abused their authority in surveilling a former Trump campaign official. In a letter to three congressional committee chairmen, Sessions said an existing Justice Department inquiry into issues raised earlier by the lawmakers included an examination of the surveillance matter, obviating the need for a special counsel. He stressed that he welcomed lawmakers’ scrutiny.

But the news that surprises me a lot, Oklahoma voted to raise taxes. So much for that Great Republican Experiment, huh? Full article text 

OKLAHOMA CITY β€” A package of Oklahoma tax increases aimed at generating hundreds of millions of new dollars for teacher pay and averting statewide school closures received final legislative approval Wednesday night.

The Senate voted 36-10 to increase taxes on oil and gas production, cigarettes, fuel and lodging β€” narrowly receiving the three-fourths’ majority needed to pass β€” and the chamber broke into applause afterward. The House passed the plan Monday. It is designed to generate about $450 million for lawmakers to spend, and Gov. Mary Fallin said she β€œabsolutely” plans to sign the package.

It includes a $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes, a 3-cent increase on gasoline, 6- cent increase on diesel and an increase on the oil and gas production tax from 2 to 5 percent. Amid a furious, last-minute lobbying effort by the hospitality industry, House and Senate leaders agreed to pass a separate measure to repeal the $5-pernight hotel and motel tax that was projected to raise about $45 million.

A separate bill to increase teachers’ pay by an average of about $6,100 also cleared the Senate on Wednesday.

And just for amusement: Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, "Father Jesus" arrested in Mississippi after pointing a gun at someone. Full article text 

GULFPORT β€” A Mississippi man who calls himself Father Jesus was arrested for disturbing the peace after allegedly pointing a weapon at a woman.

Gulfport Police said Jesus, 42, was arrested Sunday after a woman said he pointed a weapon at her.

Authorities said officers made contact with Jesus at a Gulfport house and he was wearing a white robe, gold-colored crown and a plainly visible shoulder holster.

A 12-gauge flare gun was recovered along with flares.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#237063: Mar 30th 2018 at 8:22:15 AM

[up][up]The Atlantic? Liberal? People actually thought that? Excuse me while I chortle.

edited 30th Mar '18 8:22:57 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
TheWanderer Student of Story from Somewhere in New England (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
Student of Story
#237064: Mar 30th 2018 at 9:25:05 AM

Eh, I think it would be fair to call the Atlantic as leaning center-left, at least in the calculus of US political leanings. More center than left, but all US news organizations seem to have a reflexive fear of being seen as too left. (Much like most Democratic politicians of the last 30+ years, I've occasionally half-joked that they're all afraid that Reagan will pop out of his grave and pull another electoral landslide on them should they ever dare to whisper that they intend to do anything with an actual leftist bent.)

Edit: there was a good editorial about this awhile ago, talking about the NYT's op-ed pages, and how they artificially limit their op-ed writers to what they imagine is the appropriate discourse. For the most part anything beyond moderately left is automatically discounted, and they keep pulling on writers from the right because they "want to challenge their audience".

The problem is that the righty writers inevitably fall into two groups: Never Trumpers, who, since Trump has the approval of around 80% of Republicans, thus don't actually represent the mainstream of the other side, or "provocateurs" like this asshole and the friend to Nazis like the Times wanted to hire.

The notion of challenging their audience from the left, however, as I alluded to above is automatically discounted. So these editorials are written within a relatively narrow political range, going between moderate left to how the moderate left wants to imagine the moderate right. Since neither of those actually captures the spirit of what's going on in reality, it makes the op-ed pages in serious danger of being irrelevant and out of touch at best. At worst they miss the point so blatantly you're almost left wondering if they're trying to do just that.

Edit 2: I found the piece I was thinking of.

The New York Times editorial page has come in for a great deal of criticism since it fell under the leadership of James Bennet, previously editor at the Atlantic, in March 2016.

Most recently, new hire Bari Weiss linked to a fake Twitter account as virtually her only evidence in a column devoted to the supposed epidemic of totalitarianism sweeping US universities. (FYI: There is no such epidemic.)

Before that was the controversy over hiring, and then quickly firing, Quinn Norton, who is friends with a Nazi. There was the controversy over hiring Bret Stephens, a climate denier and Woody Allen apologist. There was the controversy over the op-ed/press release by Erik Prince of the security contractor Blackwater.

And so on. David Uberti at Splinter has a nice rundown of the various fights, along with some trenchant critique.

The newspaper’s defense, articulated repeatedly by Bennet, news editor Dean Baquet, and onetime ombudsman Liz Spayd, is that the paper is pursuing diversity of opinion, attempting to challenge its readers. β€œDidn’t we learn from this past election that our goal should be to understand different views?” asked Baquet.

That defense doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. As I said in a column on Stephens last year, β€œit takes a particular sort of insularity to hire a pro-war, anti-Trump white guy as a contribution to diversity on the NYT editorial page.”

In one of his characteristically scathing columns, Glenn Greenwald notes that the NYT editorial stable currently contains only three women and no Arab-American or Latinx voices; ideologically, it β€œspans the small gap from establishment centrist Democrats to establishment centrist Republicans.”

It wouldn’t be that hard for the Times to draw from what lies to the left of those narrow confines. For starters, it could hire a columnist to represent the resurgent left, which rose alongside, but is not dependent on, Bernie Sanders. It stands on its own as a reasonably coherent social critique and policy program, involving greater social provision of basic services, and there are tons of writers who could do it credit.

...

The traumatic and unexpected 2016 victory of Donald Trump convinced a great many people in elite political circles that they are hopelessly out of touch, there is a whole parallel country of which they are only dimly aware, and they urgently need to understand the perspectives of the people who rallied behind Trump.

This has led to entire subgenres of news journalism, like β€œrural white people are very upset,” or β€œTrump supporters still like Trump,” or β€œget to know this Nazi; he’s just like you and me.”

But it’s a different dilemma for the opinion page. Bennet clearly believes liberals live in a bubble. He wants to challenge them. It still hasn’t occurred to him to challenge them from the left, so he goes out looking for more conservatives.

But what kind of conservatives are on offer at NYT?

Consider, oh, David Brooks. His conservatism, of Sam’s Club affectation, fiscal conservatism, tepid social liberalism, and genial trolling of center-leftists at Davos β€” whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Brooks?

Or Ross Douthat. He is sporadically interesting, often infuriating, but above all, pretty idiosyncratic. His socially conservative β€œreformicon” thing β€” whom does it speak for in today’s politics, beyond Douthat?

Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss are a familiar type of glib contrarian. Their opposition to Trump has given them undue credibility among Washington lefties, whom they relentlessly (and boringly) troll. But whom are they speaking for? What has the Never Trump movement amounted to?

...

The signal feature of the 2016 election is that it settled the question of whether US conservatism β€” the actual movement, I mean, not the people in Washington think tanks who claim to be its spokespeople β€” is animated by a set of shared ideals and policies. It is not.

For many years, many people have convinced themselves otherwise. A lot of people believe to this day that the Tea Party uprising and the subsequent eight years of hysterical, unremitting, norm-violating opposition to Barack Obama was about small-government philosophy and a devotion to low taxes and less regulation, and had nothing to do with social backlash against a black, cosmopolitan, urban law professor and his diverse, rising coalition.

But that kind of credulity can only stretch so far, and Donald Trump has stretched it to the snapping point. He abandoned the Very Serious conservative script entirely and the right ate it up. He pledged not to cut Social Security or Medicare, condemned free trade, and insulted the military and intelligence services, and they ate it up. He is a thrice divorced, self-admitted sexual predator wallowing in the kind of material ostentation that gives David Brooks nightmares, and they ate it up.

Before Trump, they thought the economy was terrible and Russia was bad. Now they think the economy is great and Russia is good. He’s one of their people, he hates who they hate, and he drives the libs crazy; that’s good enough.

...

There cannot be an intellectual Trumpism β€” a Trumpist philosophy, a Trumpist argument β€” because Trump is devoted only to Trump, only to bringing himself glory and defeating his perceived enemies. For now, his interests overlap (mostly) with the interests of the white, suburban and rural conservative base. The only conceivable motivation to support him is tribal; the only argument a tribalist needs to reward himself and punish his enemies is, β€œWe won.”

That means anyone who is devoted to the conservative intellectual tradition, anyone who thinks of themselves as a conservative through devotion to small government and traditional morality, has had to peel off. There is no way to pretend that Trump represents that tradition; he himself does not even try.

So how many of these β€œtrue” conservatives did there turn out to be? Almost none! A few intellectuals and writers have jumped ship (David Frum, Bill Kristol, George Will), but the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Breitbart, and the rest have happily adapted to acting as state media. For all intents and purposes, Trump commands the support and loyalty of the GOP coalition.

...

As I said, the conservatives who care about conservatism as an intellectual tradition and a governing philosophy have mostly jumped ship. If the Times wants to find authentic expressions of the sentiments animating Trump supporters, it will have to look beyond the confines of the elite establishment, to Breitbart, Town Hall, Infowars, or one of the avowedly right-wing outlets where conservatives cluster.

It will have to recruit Sean Hannity or Tomi Lahren or Mark Steyn β€” someone who thinks of liberals as godless traitors and accepts ludicrous conspiracy theories about Democratic staffer Seth Rich being assassinated or Hillary Clinton colluding with Russia to defeat Donald Trump or Democrats running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza restaurant. It will have to recruit Ben Shapiro to run serial variations on β€œrap is crap” or β€œwhites are the real victims of racism.”

It will have to recruit popular conservative columnist Kurt Schlichter, who mused this week that because β€œthe central tenet of the Democrat Party platform is now hatred and contempt for Normal Americans,” there is probably going to be a second Civil War, which conservatives will win, because they have more guns and liberals are easy to kill. (There’s a long section speculating on how a right-wing militia could invade San Francisco, which is β€œa hotbed of treason.”)

The people who support Trump have been embedded in a hermetically sealed right-wing media bubble for so long that they only know liberals as horrific caricatures and only experience politics as a war to save white Christian culture from its sworn enemies. They are exposed to endless lies and conspiracy theories designed to keep them in a frenzy, convinced that antifa is around the corner and Sharia law is imminent.

If the New York Times wanted to expose its readers to the motive force of contemporary conservatism, that’s the kind of stuff it would run.

But let’s be real, James Bennet is not going to run that stuff in the NYT. It can sometimes be difficult to tell, but the Times does have standards of accuracy, even on the opinion page, and most of that stuff I mentioned contains falsehoods. (The Democrats are not running a child prostitution ring.)

The NYT expects a certain civility, and Breitbart types are incapable of discussing opponents as human beings. The Times has decided, like most mainstream US institutions, that overt racism and misogyny are unacceptable β€” not part of the diversity of viewpoints it seeks to represent. But without them, the picture is incomplete.

Most importantly, the NYT sees the opinion page as a contest of ideas. And fundamentally, what Trumpist conservatives are advocating for are not ideas, but a demographic, a tribe.

It’s a tribe that has split off from mainstream institutions, rejects mainstream standards of accuracy, and now uses media entirely as a tool, a weapon. Its goal is to defeat the libs; what’s good is anything libs hate.

...

When the Times opinion page pretends that conservatism is David Brooks or Bret Stephens when it maintains the comforting illusion that American politics is a contest of ideas, it is not exposing its readers to uncomfortable truths β€” it is sheltering them.

Do NYT readers β€” who mostly read mainstream sources, mostly live in cities, mostly are not exposed to right-wing media β€” understand that the most active voices on the American right today are filled with paranoid rage, hopped up on lies and conspiracy theories, unmoved by reason, and devoted to their total destruction? Do they understand that the values and norms they assume safe and sacrosanct are in fact under heavy siege? Do they know that American democracy is in danger of coming apart?

I’m not sure they do; I think they still imagine Republican moderates gathered in a cave somewhere, ready to swoop in and take charge again at the sight of the David Brooks bat signal.

If the NYT wants to challenge their assumptions, it should challenge those.

edited 30th Mar '18 9:58:43 AM by TheWanderer

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#237065: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:27:48 AM

An analysis on how the "Roseanne" reboot reinforces myths about Trump supporters.

Mostly stuff that's been heard before, but since millions of people watched and will likely continue to watch, it's still relevant.

edited 30th Mar '18 10:49:08 AM by LSBK

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#237066: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:30:35 AM

Would be interested in seeing the political stances of the viewers myself.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
megaeliz Since: Mar, 2017
#237067: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:32:37 AM

[up] I still can't get over the fact that it was trending with Russian Bots.

Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#237068: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:36:16 AM

[up][up] The audience may be more diverse than you think given most people won't refuse to watch a show because of political preference and I'm sure there won't be that heavy of a focus on the issue in a comedy. Hell, I've watched and enjoyed many episodes of Last Man Standing.

Life is unfair...
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#237069: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:43:27 AM

Conservative comedians almost always put their politics front and centre. Each episode may not be about the glory of Trump, but you can reliably expect their programming to take lots of shots at "political correctness", women, and minorities.

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#237070: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:45:54 AM

The only bit of the new Roseanne that I've seen was a joke where she asks a liberal family member if they want to "take a knee" before dinner. That was enough to tell me that it's not something I'd ever want to watch.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#237071: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:55:53 AM

TBH, I can't remember the last conservative comedian I actually found funny.

edited 30th Mar '18 10:56:02 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#237072: Mar 30th 2018 at 10:58:36 AM

I think this quote from the article sums it up:

β€œIt basically treats politics as an emotional issue for white people, something that they need to work out with each other, but not as something that makes anyone's lives better or worse. The idea that it doesn't really *matter* is the basis of the reconciliation,”

So basically the same bullshit fatalism you see from shows like South Park.

Ultimatum Disasturbator from the Amiga Forest (Old as dirt) Relationship Status: Who needs love when you have waffles?
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#237074: Mar 30th 2018 at 11:11:00 AM

[up][up][up][up] ... that's Actually Pretty Funny to me.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#237075: Mar 30th 2018 at 11:11:55 AM

[up][up]One of them is a libertarian; last I heard Stone is a registered Republican.


Total posts: 417,856
Top