MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2023
Our blue tribe bungles and fails: In fairness to the college presidents, maybe they should have fled the room in the first few minutes of last Tuesday's hearing.
The disastrous hearing was held by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The committee's chairwoman is Rep. Virginia Foxx, an 80-year-old conservative Republican from North Carolina's fifth congressional district.
Stating the obvious, Rep. Foxx has every right to hold standard red tribe views. On a personal basis, she was basically courteous to the presidents during the hearing, which lasted more than five hours.
(Some other Republicans weren't.)
That said, the presidents should possibly have fled the room when the chairwoman's opening statement started like this:
FOXX (12/5/23): Before we begin, I’d like to begin with a moment of silence to recognize all the Israelis and others who have been killed, injured, or taken hostage by Hamas terrorists.
Thank you.
Today, each of you will have a chance to answer to and atone for the many specific instances of vitriolic, hate-filled antisemitism on your respective campuses that have denied students the safe learning environment they are due.
Say what? According to Foxx, the presidents were being given "a chance to atone" for the volumes of hate-filled antisemitism allegedly present on their campuses.
In retrospect, it's possible that the presidents should have fled the scene of the show trial right then!
What has been happening on those college campuses? To what extent have those campuses been riven by antisemitism?
At least in theory, those are very important questions. In practice, we saw few signs that anyone on the House committee was trying to address or answer such questions in the course of this endless event.
In our view, subsequent reporting and punditry has sometimes been even worse. That includes reporting and punditry from major blue tribe elites.
Was last Tuesday's hearing designed as a good faith, fact-finding mission? If so, Foxx's invitation to the presidents—her statement that they were receiving the chance to atone—might not have been the most auspicious way for the hearing to begin.
That said, before she was done with her opening statement, Rep. Foxx had authored a somewhat comical presentation—the familiar kind of statement which seems to bring red tribe cluelessness directly center stage.
For members of our own blue tribe, it's easy to laugh at such presentations. Near the end of her opening statement, Rep. Foxx described the ongoing state of play on the college campuses in the following way:
FOXX: For years, universities have stoked the flames of an ideology which goes by many names—anti-racism, anti-colonialism, critical race theory, DEI, intersectionality, the list goes on.
This value system taught in universities is absolutely foreign to 99 percent of Americans. It centers the identity on immutable racial and sexual characteristics. It presents a delusion that the color of one’s skin and expression of one’s chromosomes sort society into classes of oppressed and oppressors.
And now it is clear that Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole and without protection under this critical theory framework
A prime example of this ideology at work is at Harvard, where classes are taught such as “DPI-385: Race and Racism in the Making of the United States as a Global Power.” The Harvard Global Health Institute hosts seminars such as “Scientific Racism and Anti-Racism: History and Recent Perspectives.” Even the Harvard Divinity School has a page devoted to “Social and Racial Justice.”
Even that! At the Harvard Divinity School, you can even find "a page" which is "devoted to racial justice!"
Why would a divinity school have an interest in something like that? According to Foxx, 99 percent of the American people would be "absolutely" puzzled by something like that!
It's easy to laugh when red tribe leaders make such public statements. But then, we googled the page in question—and when we reviewed some of the materials found on that page, they seemed a bit like an all too familiar type of song sung blue.
The "absolutely foreign" page in question can be found by clicking this link. To our eye and ear, its contents sometimes seem to display a massive amount of upper-class self-involvement—and a general lack of political or theological wisdom, insight or skill.
Others will disagree with that assessment. Almost surely, Rep. Foxx was way off base with her claim about the 99 percent.
That said, the contents of the page in question did strike us as "more of the same." To our eye and ear, those contents seemed to come from a realm in which the various elites of our own blue tribe have helped create a world in which Donald J. Trump may well get elected again next year.
Last Tuesday's hearing has turned out to be a cosmic political event. In our view, the college presidents performed remarkably poorly.
That said, the performance by their grand inquisitor was only that much worse. And her performance is now being affirmed by major blue tribe elites!
Last Tuesday's hearing has turned out to be a cosmic event. Over the weekend, we watched the entire five hours and thirty minutes of the hearing. On balance, we were struck by how unskilled and unhelpful the committee's members had been, red and blue members alike.
Our own blue tribe has spent many years laughing at the babble emerging from clueless members of the red. It's easy to laugh at Rep. Foxx's befuddlement—her befuddlement concerning the fact that a divinity school might have a page devoted to racial justice.
That said, let the word go forth to the nations:
Last Tuesday, and in last Tuesday's aftermath, we've been able to see the groaning incompetence which came from representatives of several of our own blue tribe elites. We plan to spend the rest of the week detailing these songs sung blue.
Within its leadership cadres, the red tribe is crowded with dissemblers and incompetents. Given that fairly obvious fact, it's easy to ignore the endless failings of our own blue tribe elites.
For many people, last Tuesday's hearing came as a major shock. In our view, the hearing and its aftermath have given us the chance to recognize the problems with a very long list of extremely unhelpful songs which have been sung very blue.
Those songs sung blue are helping Trump. With next November approaching, we're gloomily forced to guess that it may be too late to turn back.
It's always easy to spot the other tribe's failures. At this highly perilous time, can we come to terms with our own?
Tomorrow: Rep. Stefanik got it right, the blue tribe scholar said!
From Heather Cox Richardson, a reminder of the Declaration of Human Rights, now having its 75th anniversary since its creation by the UN:
ReplyDeletehttps://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/december-10-2023?r=brgvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Somerby is singing his blue songs but what the world needs is a reaffirmation of these rights for all with a serious effort toward accomplishing them.
Richardson is one of our best public intellectuals, certainly puts Somerby to shame.
Delete
ReplyDelete"Even that! At the Harvard Divinity School, you can even find "a page" which is "devoted to racial justice!" "
Hmm, well, why the irony? Is it normal, in your considered opinion? "Racial justice" certainly does sound like some Nazi shit.
"Anti-colonialism", on the other hand, is a perfectly fine, well-respected cause.
Anti-colonialism is Nazi shit. Under the Hitler government, Germany didn’t have any colonies, so he envied the French and British empires.
DeleteTo be fair, rep Foxx claimed that “anti-racism” was a concept foreign to 99% of Americans.
Delete"sounds like some Nazi shit." Only to you, weirdo Mao
Delete"In retrospect, it's possible that the presidents should have fled the scene of the show trial right then!"
ReplyDeleteA congressional hearing is not a trial of any kind, much less a "show trial" (a reference to the trials used in authoritarian countries to convict enemies of the state). This is Somerby's propagandistic language.
Then Somerby asks:
"What has been happening on those college campuses? To what extent have those campuses been riven by antisemitism?"
Is Somerby seriously trying to claim that there have not been pro-Palestinian demonstrations by students on the campuses of the presidents attending the hearing? He is quite obviously pretending that these demonstrations were not anti-semitic, and yet there have also been instances of harrassment of Jewish students and complaints that Jewish and Israeli students do not feel safe in the midst of the campus outcry against Israel. Somerby apparently wants to go back to square one and investigate such occurrences, as if they have not happened, instead of starting with efforts of campus presidents to keep peace among students.
This is an evasion of the responsibility referred to by Rep. Foxx. To their credit, the three presidents did not run from the hearing, but faced it and tried to explain why free speech (no matter how antisemitic) is the right of the students and not a cause for discipline under conduct codes. Somerby has been unwilling to examine that himself here. Instead, Somerby blames the professors for what he considers to be a poor performance.
Somerby never states what he thinks those three college presidents did wrong. He quotes Foxx at length, but not one word about what Somerby would have preferred those so-called liberal elites (there is no evidence any of the college presidents are liberal) to say. Given Somerby's wonder about whether antisemitic behavior has occurred, perhaps he expected them to support his view that the students chanting are not being antisemitic, in other words, to join the students in their protests? It should be obvious to Somerby why they cannot do that, no matter what their personal feelings.
Again we have a lopsided essay in which Somerby clearly blames Foxx and calls her a variety of names, then equates the left's behavior with the right, without specifying what the left has done wrong in his view, merely referring to a "poor performance" and claiming that leftist elites have let the country down and will elect Trump. No mention of how or what they said or did to accomplish that -- we are supposed to know, I guess, amidst the piling on to attack those women who did their best to explain human rights to Somerby. But Somerby is not listening.
Now the trolls are using form-letter comments. How lazy is that?
DeleteSomerby might have been more clear and on firmer ground had he objected to the politicization of a hearing, an attack on several universities based on their divergent political views, since that is what Somerby is accusing Foxx of doing.
ReplyDeleteBut on what basis does he claim that the presidents engaged in a poor performance or were bad at their jobs? They answered the questions honestly (being under oath) and tried to explain the separation of free speech from conduct governed by campus codes of conduct. That made them a lightning rod for anger among those on both sides of the Gaza war. Somerby has the added pleasure of attacking female elites, mocking them for doing their jobs, which he claims they should have shirked by running away.
Somerby's malice is clear. Less clear are his motives. And there is some irony that he seems to blame these college presidents for not sticking up for the students, while himself refusing to clearly state his own views on any topic, after wishing to dodge the whole exercise by pretending there has been no antisemitism on campuses.
9:18 makes a coherent and important point. The hearing made Foxx and Stefanik look bad, the presidents looked like the adults in the room. As a result, the right is trying to put their thumbs on the scale and create a false narrative. Somerby is a tool.
Delete"For many people, last Tuesday's hearing came as a major shock. In our view, the hearing and its aftermath have given us the chance to recognize the problems with a very long list of extremely unhelpful songs which have been sung very blue.
ReplyDeleteThose songs sung blue are helping Trump. With next November approaching, we're gloomily forced to guess that it may be too late to turn back."
What is a song sung blue? The actual song was about moods and emotions, someone being sad about the breakup of a relationship. That is clearly not the way Somerby is using the term here, though. He seems to have grabbed the phrase solely because of the word "blue" and is applying it to Democrats, progressives and liberals.
But, do all people on the left hold the same views about antisemitism, Gaza and the student protests? Not really. Jews who support Israel still have been a traditional part of the left voting coalition and an important part of activism, labor organizing, and social justice movements. A newer faction among progressives has been supporting Palestinian claims and efforts to resist Israel. Progressives have been a less consistent support for Democratic candidates (supporting Bernie, who is not a Democrat and third-party candidates) and students have been less likely to vote while also more capricious in their support for the traditional party. So, there is a split on the left that Somerby seems to be ignoring today (and as usual). This issue of antisemitism does not split cleanly along red/blue lines because there are people in both "tribes" supporting both sides in the Middle East. It is not a partisan issue except that Somerby is trying to make it one with this blue song meme that he is pushing so strongly today.
It seems odd to me that no one has been drawing parallels between this current student unrest on campuses and the prior anti-war efforts of the late 60s and 70s in Vietnam. How many students knew much about that war despite having strong feelings about it? How many knew anything at all about the history of the area, the lives of the people of Vietnam, the atrocities on both sides (not just the US)? There was similar strong propagandizing on campuses and peer pressure among young people to resist the war. Those who joined the military and went to fight were not the college-bound elites but the working class and those who could not avoid the draft. There were students shot at Kent States and students jailed in Berkeley due to sit ins and vandalism. And it later came to be seen as a youth movement trying to find an identity in an alienating culture. Will later historians see today's uproar over a middle east problem that has long existed and will continue to exist after this flare-up as a kind of similar youth expression of malaise and disaffection, exacerbated by covid and unrelated to anything done in Palestine or Israel but very relevant to the needs of college students themselves?
ReplyDeleteSomerby, as usual, makes no attempt to see beyond his own personal needs and issues. This is the same essay he writes every day, knocking his scapegoats and pushing his own agenda. As usual, he is tiresome and offensive and a lost soul, even more than Rep Foxx or the college presidents who may lose their jobs over student unrest, just as their peers did back in the day.
Your commentary is ridiculous. Student protesting against the Viet Name war knew about napalm, carpet bombing, My Lai and other sordid events from Walter Cronkite and Time magazine. Their own lives were at stake. They recognized it for what it was, a tragedy of immense proportions. Males over 18 all got draft numbers. Some got phoney medical deferments, others joined the national guard, or like Bob did some charity time. But the majority were at very real risk for a low draft number and being shipped off to a disastrous war they knew all about. You think that they were subjected to propaganda, without which they would have supported that conflict? Preposterous.
DeleteDid they know what the Chinese did or about Northern atrocities? Most protesters were not in danger of being called up and yes, they did lots of things to avoid serving. They might never have supported the war but they might have supported their country and those who did serve absent the propaganda and peer pressure. Those who were vets were mistreated.
DeleteSupporting their country meant protesting a war that ultimately killed 50,000 Americans and countless others in Viet Nam. There was no such "peer pressure". Viet Nam was a misguided and very tragic fiasco that was recognized as such by the majority of Americans. To suggest that one could simultaneously protest the war amid atrocities that were regularly reported and support the troops who were responsible for implementing it is nonsensical. Your conjecture suggests that you did not live through that period. There was no peer pressure. A completely bizarre rendition of that history. Returning vets did not deserve their treatment but they were linked to the killing of innocents, and the disparagement of the Vietnamese as gooks was not looked upon kindly by those protesting the war. So they returned as victims of their acquiescence to a senseless misadventure, and those who saw them as perpetrators were unforgiving.
DeleteIt is really disappointing to read 9:37's cartoonish and warped view of the Vietnam fiasco.
DeleteErecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.
ReplyDeleteYou are making a mistake.
DeleteIt was intended as a way to purge Jews from Europe and the US, but it didn’t work out that way, it was indeed a mistake.
DeleteIt was intended as a homeland where Jews would be protected from persecution by everyone. Many of the exiles had already been deported from their homes. Among them were 900,000+ Jews tossed out of Arab nations.
DeleteZionism began in the 19th century; the settlement of Palestine by Jews from predominantly eastern Europe began and was self described as a colonial movement towards the latter part of that century and built up steam in the early 20th to the extent that Jewish settlers and the native Palestinians were initially in competition which brewed into outright conflict by the time the British washed their hands of presiding over the place in 1947. There was an entity called the Jewish Colonial Association. At the time of the UN partitioning there were an estimated 700,000 Jews in Palestine to 1,300,000 Palestinians. The Palestinians never accepted the partitioning which gave the Jews considerably more land per capita and property that was more valued. The UN partitioning was arbitrary and unfair to the indigenous Palestinians, favoring the settler/colonists.
DeletePalestinians had no standng to accept or reject anything then. First you claim bias in favor of jews then call the partitioning “arbitrary.” We get it that Palestinians want more land. That’s obvious.Specifically they want Jewish land. Why does that entitle them to attack Israel?
DeleteI love jews. Especially with mustard and mayo.
DeleteI am Corby.
It is ironic that Foxx and Elise Stefanik, both Trump supporters are allowed to parade themselves as the champions of Jewish students when they support an anti semetic candidate for president. The college presidents were apparantly incapable of stating the obvious. They hemmed, they hawed, and equivocated when a simple answer would have sufficed.
ReplyDeleteanon - I certainly don't like trump in the least - but the case that he is antisemitic is flawed. He is very pro-Israel, (not something I personally find praiseworthy; he recognized Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, a change in U.S policy under all prior presidencies (since Israel was formed); His daughter converted to Judaism, fer chrissakes.
DeleteTrump has a long history of antisemitic rhetoric.
DeleteTrump’s support of Israel is an electoral strategy to win over evangelicals.
Ivanka’s conversion was obviously performative.
1:43’s comment is either from ignorance, from operating in bad faith, or from having been severely conned.
Her conversion was "obviously performative." On what evidence do you base that? Give some examples of this "long history" of his antisemitic rhetoric. Other than bald assertions, you haven't supplied any evidence in support of your assertion. If you can show real evidence of your contentions, I'd be happy to acknowledge my error. (And yes, I know about his meeting with Kanye west and that white supremacist guy. that example is weak evidence that Trump is actually antisemitic..
DeleteTrump has no religion but Kushner’s family would consider it important to raise the kids in their faith. That’s obviously why she converted.
DeleteHanging around with other antisemites and adopting their language about gobal Jewish conspiracies (references to Soros and globalists, which is code for Jews, for example) is evidence because those who are not antsemitic cannot stand to be around such people. Trump was on his own time, socializing for no official purpose. How do you suppose Russian oligarchs and gangsters feel about Jews?
There were Democratic house members on the committee, who asked questions and elicited responses from the college presidents during the course of those five hours. Somerby hasn’t bothered to share any of that with his readers, but has chosen only to share a brief moment from the hearing as a justification for his claim that they gave a poor performance. Otherwise, he omits five hours of discussion.
ReplyDeletemh, whenever (which is often, it's a basic part of his spiel) TDH faults the blue tribe pundits and elites, you seem to have a limbic reaction to go on the defense of the blue opinion leaders against TDH's assaults. It was a long hearing. He's only got so much space and chose not to describe to any degree what the dem pols came up with at this stupid hearing. I'm quite willing to accept TDH's take that the dem pols performed weakly. TDH says that "the performance by their grand inquisitor was only that much worse [than the college presidents]. And her performance being confirmed by major blue tribe elites." He called the hearing a "show trial" an apt metaphor. I tend to think that if you want to see what the dems said in those 5 hours, you could with a modicum of effort ascertain it.
DeleteWhy assume the dems performed poorly? They don’t usually. There is a burden of proof on Somerby.
DeleteAC, I didn’t defend anyone. I wondered why Somerby didn’t bother to examine other parts of a very long hearing. It seems a fair question to me.
Delete“To our eye and ear, its contents sometimes seem to display a massive amount of upper-class self-involvement—and a general lack of political or theological wisdom, insight or skill.”
ReplyDeleteHe doesn’t provide specific examples, so we are left with the impression that Rep Foxx has a point, even if some may disagree. He doesn’t limit this accusation to a racial justice link at Harvard Divinity school (one of many links from the main page), but claims that this is another “song sung blue” that helps Trump.
Since this was such a “cosmic” event, in Somerby’s opinion, it would be helpful to show how these “songs sung blue” (in this case “anti-racism, anti-colonialism, critical race theory, DEI, intersectionality” apparently promoted at the Harvard divinity school) are “foreign” to Americans (whether 99% or some other percentage) and how they do this apart from the constant drumbeat of people like Foxx saying that they are foreign.
“To our eye and ear, its contents sometimes seem to display a massive amount of upper-class self-involvement—and a general lack of political or theological wisdom, insight or skill.”
ReplyDeleteWhy would racial justice not be something a divinity school might deal with? Setting aside politics, what in Somerby’s view demonstrates the lack of theological judgment here?
Does the Harvard divinity school also teach other things, such as class issues, the problem of poverty, or the problem of religious disagreement as theological issues? There may be links to such things that can also be demagogued by people like Foxx, and thus, is that fact alone enough to question the political judgment of Harvard divinity school?
Why is Somerby so preoccupied with this particular biblical myth?
DeleteI sure dislike where Bob is coming from in this series of posts.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Presidents' testimony had a valid purpose -- exploring the frightening extent of antisemitism on college campuses, and the official tolerance of that antisemitism. These facts could lead to legislation or to administrative action. Furthermore, there was huge value in exposing this situation to the public.
To repeat an obvious point, if the same level of anti-black bigotry were being exposed at the Hearing, nobody would be questioning the value of the Hearing.
Davy thinks the Republicans were acting in good faith by engaging this obvious political theater.
DeleteThe hearing failed to expose any antisemitism.
DeleteThere’s plenty of antisemitism going around, Trump spews it all the time, so it was obviously not the actual goal of the hearing.
Maybe you're the same as the anon below - can you provide the evidence that Trump spews antisemitism all the time (or ever)?
DeleteHe said the KKK were "very nice people" after the Charlottesville riot.
DeleteStephen Miller, Nick Fuentes, Proud Boys. Anti-Soros conspiracy theories. Charlottesville “good people” shouting “Jews shall not replace us!” And that old remark he made about wanting a room full of Jews counting the money in his casinos. And the admiring remarks he made to his staff about Hitler doing good things.
Deleteanon 7:42 & 7:48 - he didn't say the "KKK" were very fine people. He said there were "fine people" on both sides, and also condemned some on both sides, apparently including the KKK elements. He's a vile demagogue, but his son-in-law's role as his advisor, his daughter's conversion, his over-the-top pro-Israel stance seem to contradict the narrative accusing of "antisemitism." I don't think Trump dislikes or penalizes someone simply based on their Jewish religion or heritage. His standard is whether or not someone is MAGA, whether they praise or criticize him.
DeleteBob gets this so right I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't 1995. As Bob pointed out earlier, specifics on these campus outrages are seemingly nonexistent. Is the real problem that these campuses have banned cell phones?
ReplyDeleteA counter take to this hang the intellectual women mob seems equally impossible to produce. Special derision is earned by by Mika Brzezinski. Kellyanne Conway is always safe from Mika, but She's happy to go with the flow if intellectual (left?) are getting bashed. Stefanik is always on safe ground and will never have to answer a hard question about, you know, selling out her Country to the Orange One.