DEMOCRATIZATION: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear!

MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2024

Jennifer Rubin's glitch: For quite some time, we've been advancing a basic point:

We humans weren't exactly built for this task—for the current assignment.

Nor have we ever been "the rational animal" in any obvious sense. The great anthropologists have noticed this fact—major scientific giants like Brabender, Cummings and Brown. 

The great anthropologists have noted the mismatch. Indeed, it's been more than a decade since we began quoting Norman O. Brown:

BROWN (1960): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned.

[...]

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

For the record, we don't have the slightest idea what Professor Brown was talking about. On the other hand, we strongly suspect that he got it right!

Norman O. Brown was very hot at that time. We don't know what he actually meant, but we feel fairly sure he was right.

Were we humans built for democratization—for "the democratization of media," to cite one modern manifestation? We're willing to say that we weren't.

We could start today—we could start the week—with the breaking news about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the baby bear he dumped in the park. It's a remarkable fact about our democracy that this very strange person has been garnering substantial support as a third-party presidential contender.

We could start with that! Also, we could start with what JD Vance said in his brief remarks at Saturday's rally in Atlanta. As we watched him make an astonishing, inexcusable comment, our thoughts turned to the 1962 version of The Manchurian Candidate.

(Surely, this guy has been brainwashed, a tiny voice said in our head.)

We could return to the crazy statements Donald J. Trump kept making during his endless remarks at that Atlanta rally. We could return to the way the mainstream press corps has dealt with his recent crazy claims that the 2020 election was stolen—and not just in the state of Georgie, but in Minnesota too.

We could start with any one of those recent topics—or with the number of people President Biden's dog had to bite before he was frog-marched away from the White House. (USA Today: "at least 25 biting incidents in less than a year.") Or with the way Blue America's major thought leaders kept ignoring the fairly obvious fact that President Biden seemed to be diminished in some way.

We could start with those incidents and episodes. Any one of them helps us see that democratization (and rational behavior; and adherence to Enlightenment values) aren't exactly Us. 

We could do it, but it would be wrong! Instead, we're going to start with the latest thing Jennifer Rubin has said at the Washington Post.

Rubin has been at the Post since 2010. She was once a favorite of the right. Today, for what seem to be similar reasons, she's a favorite of the left. 

Today, Rubin votes the same way we do! At present, we refer to the opinion piece which appears beneath this dual headline:

The NABJ interview with Trump provides a model for media coverage
No other sit-down this cycle has laid bare as much about the candidate.

Rubin was writing about the recent interview in which Candidate Trump crazily claimed that Vice President Harris had recently "turned black."

It's true! There's a lot to learn about Candidate Trump from that interview. Also, there's a fair amount a person could learn about the "media coverage" the gent has received in this latest election cycle.

Today, we'll start to clue you in concerning one aspect of that media coverage. We'll discuss what we can learn about our upper-end mainstream press corps from the way Rubin ended her piece about that interview. 

This is the passage in question:

RUBIN (8/4/24): The mainstream media now faces a test of sorts. After the June 27 debate, the media spent three weeks flooding the zone with coverage of Biden’s frailty, in effect demanding every Democrat to defend Biden or distance themselves from him, and consulting a host of experts on aging. Failure to deploy similarly exacting treatment of Trump would confirm Democrats’ complaints that there is a bizarre double standard in coverage that allows Trump to escape appropriate scrutiny. It’s long past time to stop using euphemisms and soft-pedaling his bigotry. (As I have noted, the vast majority of outlets also have steered clear of assessing Trump’s mental and emotional state, despite repeated episodes in which his slurred speech, verbal glitches, incoherent ranting, mixing up people and bizarre references are obvious to anyone watching.)

It's true! After the June 27 debate, the mainstream media spent a fair amount of time assessing President Biden's possible "frailty."

(In our view, they should have done so earlier. Fox News beat them to it.)

Arguably, it's also true that Candidate Trump escapes with something resembling "a bizarre double standard," in which his endless array of crazy claims are allowed to pass unnoticed, without serious comment. 

We expect to return to that phenomenon before the week is through. That said, also this:

We almost never read Rubin's work—but for some reason, we did click on this newest column. We were struck by that final, parenthetical passage, in which Rubin says this:

"As I have noted, the vast majority of outlets also have steered clear of assessing Trump’s mental and emotional state, despite repeated episodes in which his slurred speech, verbal glitches, incoherent ranting, mixing up people and bizarre references are obvious to anyone watching."

We're inclined to disagree with the general thrust of that assessment. Instead, we're inclined to think that some outlets in Blue America have tended to overstate, indeed to invent, the alleged episodes to which Rubin refers. 

We think they've done so due to the basic shortcomings which dog the stars of Blue America's major news orgs—basic shortcomings those of us in Blue America tend to overlook.

At any rate, is it true? Is it true that Candidate Trump has generated "repeated episodes in which his verbal glitches are obvious to anyone watching?" 

Based on brutal experience, we're inclined to doubt such claims. For that reason, we decided to click on Rubin's link—on the link she provided beneath the key term, "verbal glitches."

Clinking that link would let us see what sorts of "glitches" she had in mind! It would also let us see what sorts of journalistic standards now prevail in Blue America—more specifically, at a justifiably famous newspaper like the Washington Post.

Skillfully, we clicked the link Rubin provided. It took is to this excited piece at The New Republic, a publication which was once a vehicle of clear-minded liberal thought:

Try to Make Any Sense of What Trump Is Saying Here:
Donald Trump’s glitches are getting out of control.

That's what the dual headline said at The New Republic. The piece had been written by Talia Jane, and it spoke of one lone "verbal glitch."

Long ago—in an earlier century!—we learned a basic fact:

You can't believe the things you're told by people like Rubin and Talia Jane.

Also, you can't automatically believe the things you're told in the pages of the Washington Post. You can't automatically believe the things you're told in newer versions of once reliable orgs like The New Republic.

We learned that back in the 1990s. Now, that learning would be put to the test!

Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found when we reviewed the alleged verbal glitch. For the record, we don't think that "verbal glitches" are any significant part of the obvious problem which is put on display by the endless disordered behavior of Candidate Trump.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found when we fact-checked that claim of a "verbal glitch." For now, we'll return to the basic point:

We human beings are built to run in packs. We're built to believe the dogmas of the tribe to which we belong.

On balance, we aren't especially rational. Nor are we especially honest at times of tribal conflict.

Spoiler alert! Quite plainly, Donald J. Trump didn't produce a "verbal glitch" in the example in question. What he said was perfectly clear. For whatever reason, Talia Jane almost seems to have authored a bit of a con.

For whatever reason, Jennifer Rubin extended the con. We'll guess she simply hadn't wasted her time conducting a fact-check of Talia Jane's pleasing claim. 

All in all, this is the way we humans are inclined to behave at fraught times such as these. If we actually care about "our democracy," we need to start folding such insights into the ways we analyze our social and political systems.

All in all, democratization isn't exactly Us! All in all, we humans weren't built for some such assignment.

Today, Jennifer Rubin is one of Blue America's many favorites. Tomorrow morning, we're going to show you every word of the "verbal glitch" she alleged.

Our species wasn't designed for this work. As we'll note all through week, few facts are much more clear.

We need a new secret, Professor Brown said. We'll guess that he had it right!

Tomorrow: You can't believe the things you're told! (Donald J. Trump's alleged glitch)

Later today: The candidate and the bear