The cultural need for villains is strong!

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024

Clarity, not so much: Caitlan Clark v. Chennedy Carter? The entirety of Blue America v. Mrs. [C-Bomb] Alito?

The astounding statement—from a major Blue American pundit!—that Justice Alito needs to learn how "to control his wife?" 

Ignoring Donald J. Trump's fairly apparent mental illness so he can be criticized as a moral being? Where once the press corps bragged about requiring two sources, they now ignore the findings of thirty-seven:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump
37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President—Updated and Expanded with New Essays

Sorry! Cannot be discussed! Also, it's a lot more fun this way, being "shocked shocked" every time he behaves in accord with his fairly obvious psychiatric disorder!

Within our failing national culture, the need to generate villains is quite strong at the present time. That's even true over here in the world of Blue America.

At present, that inclination will routinely be mixed with the inability to sort out convoluted complexities, such as the nature of the legal theory under which former president Donald J. Trump was recently found guilty of 34 felonies. 

His criminal conduct was extremely serious, we keep being told, because he kept the electorate from hearing an unconfirmable claim according to which he'd engaged in congress on one occasion, ten years before, with someone who wasn't his wife.

We the people needed to know that! (On what other possible basis would we want to vote?) When he kept that important news from us the public, Donald J. Trump committed an extremely serious offense.

To our ear, the entire culture is dissolving into a state of moral and intellectual incoherence. Sometimes you just have to throw back your heads and laugh at the way the need for villains interacts with the general state of overall incomprehension. 

So it was early last Friday on CNN This Morning. We start with Scott Jennings, a former Republican strategist who is now a reasonably sensible CNN political commentator.

As we start, Jennings is attempting to lodge a complaint about the previous day's 34 guilty verdicts. In fairness, it was hard to do that with anti-Trump conservative George Conway persistently butting in:

JENNINGS (5/31/24): That's the core of what a lot of decidedly non-MAGA Republicans are mad about, is that there is no underlying crime.

I looked at the statement from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who I think encapsulated it perfectly. She said this was a partisan prosecutor who promised to get Trump—

CONWAY: Nonsense.

JENNINGS: —and that's what he did.

CONWAY: Absolute nonsense.

JENNINGS: Not promise to go after the law, but he promised—

CONWAY: Pathetic nonsense.

JENNINGS: —he promised to go after Donald Trump. And so the issue is here, what is the crime? He's never been indicted for, or convicted of, the campaign finance theory at the core of this case.

And so Republicans are wondering today, you know, what—what do you have to do to build a defense against something you've never been convicted of in the first place?

Let the word go forth to the nations! In the wake of the 34 verdicts, George Conway had ingested a snootful. The fellow was feeling his oats.

(In order to watch the full exchange, you can start by clicking here.)

That said, we can't say we fully understand Jennings' nascent claim—his claim that there was "no underlying crime" in the case against Trump.

Maybe he could have explained what he meant if he'd been given the chance. Comically, no such opportunity would exist on this particular morning.

Moments later, Kasie Hunt turned to Conway, and this exchange ensued:

HUNT (continuing directly): I mean, George, I will say I have heard from some people who really don't want to see Trump get elected in the Republican Party, who—who are concerned that this is just, this particular case is just going to drive additional enthusiasm for the former president.

I'm interested in you responding to that. And you've got your face in your hands. What have you got to say to Scott?

CONWAY: I have to say—I mean, look—I mean, you know, Scott's lying, and that's the problem with the Republican Party. It is continually addicted to lies.

JENNINGS: Wait a minute. What are my lies?

CONWAY: Your lie—you're lying. You're lying, Scott. You're lying about the law. You're lying about what the jury was charged to find.

It was the start of the greatest sustained accusation of lying since Lawrence O'Donnell melted down on MSNBC, an event which went on much longer than this, as we neared the end of Campaign 2004.

As you'll see below, Conway's assault on the lies of Jennings wasn't done at this point. That said, we now extract a bit of found humor from what Conway said next:

CONWAY (continuing directly): They don't have to find an underlying crime. They had to find the intent to cover up an underlying crime.

And the underlying crime was pretty obvious.

Are you following that? According to Conway, the jury didn't have to find an underlying crime. They merely had to find the intent to cover up an underlying crime!

Meanwhile, the underlying crime—the one the jury didn't have to find—turns out to have been pretty obvious! So said Conway, before launching the L-bombs again.

We're not even saying that what he said there was "wrong." It's possible that Conway could have explained what he meant had he been given the chance.

That wouldn't happen this day! And simply put, a nation can't build a national discourse on so muddy a base. 

At any rate, Jennings now posed a question to Conway. Conway responded with a big swing and an even bigger miss:

JENNINGS (continuing directly): What was the crime?

CONWAY: You ran for public office, Scott. You—you ran for public office, Scott. You know, you can't take money from somebody and reimburse them for—you know, if it's a campaign expense. You know damn well—

JENNINGS: I've never run—I've never run for public office.

CONWAY: OK, fine. Well, you—you're close enough. You're involved in politics to know that. OK? 

So that's the problem with the Republican Party, is that they are suffused with lies. I don't know why this network is paying Scott to come in and say those lies.

Too funny! As it turned out, Conway's gotcha claim about Jennings was simply wrong. But so what? Without quite naming the underlying crime—the obvious crime the jury didn't have to find—he simply returned to complaining about Jennings' incessant lies.

At this point, Hunt felt she had to step in. This is what she said to Conway. But as with the famous "rage of Achilles," his fury would not be denied:

HUNT (continuing directly): Whoa, whoa. OK. Let's—let's not go there, George, please. Let's not go there.

JENNINGS: No, no, no. He should go there.

HUNT: Scott is—Scott is our colleague, and we're going to treat him respectfully as such. Continue.

CONWAY: Well, he shouldn't lie!

The underlying crime still hadn't exactly been named. In turn, Jennings never explained what he meant when he said there was no such critter.

Instead, Jennings now posed a second question to Conway—and he got a classic non-answer reply:

JENNINGS (continuing directly): Here's my question. If—if it is—if it is an obvious crime, why did the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission take a pass on it?

CONWAY: They should have prosecuted it. It should have been prosecuted on January 21—on January 21, 2021.

So it went on CNN, on the morning after the verdicts. 

We offer this for purposes of amusement only. On the other hand, this is the way our imitation of discourse routinely works at the top of the high-end press corps.

Th other guy is always a liar. Also, no one can ever quite seem to figure anything out.

Villains and liars are all the rage. Clarity, not so much!