MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2024
The fatuous conquers all: Nor all that long ago, tradition held that next Monday—September 2—would be when it would actually start.
By tradition, American presidential campaigns were said to start on Labor Day. Back in May, NPR's Steve Inskeep recalled that outmoded bromide on All Things Considered:
INSKEEP (5/24/24): Not so many years ago, it was traditional for political pros to say the presidential campaign begins after Labor Day in September.
People don't say that any more. Campaigns must start sooner. President Biden and former President Trump acknowledged this reality by scheduling a debate for this June 27. And that is the headline for this story.
The decisive part of the election is not this fall. It's this summer. It's now. NPR senior political correspondent Domenico Montanaro is tracking the changing political calendar.
Domenico, good morning...
Good lord! In Inskeep's rendering, this year's campaign was going to start with that June 27 debate. We all know where that took us.
Now we're engaged in a great civil war. By tradition, one of the candidates—unfortunately, in our view—has a whole lot of splainin' to do.
We refer to the candidate for whom we'll be voting—we refer to Candidate Harris.
Back in May, then on into June, no one knew that Vice President Harris was going to be the candidate. She was slated to run once again in the VP slot—and then, on Sunday, July 21, President Biden announced that he was leaving the race.
She's had a bit over a month to put her own campaign on the rails. In our view, she was sensational at the Democratic Convention—but now, to borrow from sacred Chekhov, "both of them knew very well that the end was still a long, long way away and that the most complicated and difficult part was only just beginning."
The most difficult part may just be beginning! Unfortunately in our view, the candidate for whom we'll be voting may still have a lot of explaining to do.
She may have to explain an array of matters—but she will likely have to explain her stance on the southern border. A front-page report in today's New York Times speaks to that likelihood:
On Immigration, Harris and Democrats Walk a Delicate—and Harder—Line
When Vice President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic presidential nomination last week at her party’s convention in Chicago, she sought to strike a delicate balance on the issue of immigration, promising to approach enforcement and security at the nation’s southern border as the prosecutor she once was, without abandoning the country’s values.
“I know we can live up to our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants and reform our broken immigration system,” she said on Thursday night. “We can create an earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border.”
It was the kind of equilibrium on the issue that Democrats had striven for all week—a leveling between calls for more officers and judges at the country’s southern border and a system that treats people humanely, between promises to uphold the law and rebukes of the fear-mongering over “the other” that has permeated the national immigration debate.
But the overall message on immigration from the Democratic Party in the past week, as it has been since Ms. Harris announced her candidacy last month, has been decidedly more hard-line than it has been in decades. The shift reflects just how much of a political vulnerability the issue remains for Ms. Harris and down-ballot Democratic candidates in November, as many voters have come to see the challenges at the southern border as a top concern...
Everyone knows one part of the way the candidate will frame this issue. Sadly, though, the candidate won't be free to state her policy proposals going forward and just leave it at that.
Almost surely, she will also be asked to explain the first three years of immigration policy under the Biden administration—and that may not be especially easy to do.
How will this candidate explain the meltdown in border security which led to a very large increase in unauthorized border crossings? That remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, she'll be asked to explain those three years in the context of a fatuous public discourse. Of that, there can be no doubt.
That discourse is often built around fatuous theoretics which emerge from the Fox News Channel—such theoretics as these:
Fox News Channel verities:
1) If one columnist says something at the Washington Post, that means that "the Washington Post" has said it.
2) If one journalist anywhere makes some statement, that means that "the media" has said it.
3) Since Kamala Harris has served as vice president in the Biden administration, that means that she secretly made all of that administration's policy decisions.
4) Because Harris is currently vice president, she could go ahead and implement her policy views right now!
We know! You think we're dreaming those theoretics up.
In fact, those verities currently serve as the basic gruel driving Fox News Channel pseudo-discussions. With great regularity, Verity 4 is explicitly stated on the ridiculous programs of this ridiculous "cable news" channel.
It's also true that those pseudo-discussions must ignore an obvious fact. "Cable news" is now a major part of the national discourse, and the Fox News Channel is remarkably dominant within that branch of "the media."
The Fox News Channel is a powerful driver within the "the media!" Comically, performers on the Fox News Channel must never acknowledge that fact.
Should we the people be trying to make the American discourse great again? Consider some of the changes with which we wrestle today:
Back when Labor Day really was the start of the White House campaign, we didn't have "cable news" channels. There were no such channels at all.
We didn't have the Internet, and we didn't have social media. Talk radio didn't exist as a national phenomenon.
In short, we didn't have 24-hour "news!" When Candidate Kennedy defeated Candidate Nixon, the evening news programs on the three major networks lasted just 15 minutes.
Today, we're surrounded by the constant performance of "news." In large part for that reason, our discourse has never been more fatuous than it is today—and it's within the context of that fatuity that Candidate Harris does most likely have a whole lot of splainin' to do.
In theory, so does Candidate Trump! But when he recently spoke with CBS News, the interview was spectacularly fatuous. Fatuous questions were posed to the candidate, and the candidate's fatuous replies went unnoticed, unchallenged, unchecked.
Next Monday is Labor Day—and on that day, the fall campaign is going to start in earnest. On September 10, Candidates Harris and Trump will debate—unless Candidate Trump follows through on his ten millionth recent silly tweet by deciding he won't show up.
Our discourse has long been defined by performances of the fatuous. Indeed, the fatuous is so widespread now that it can be difficult for us the people to see it.
Candidate Harris has a fair amount of explaining to do. In theory, so does Candidate Trump. These expectations exist within a culture whose public discourse has surrendered to the market-based demands of the absolutely fatuous.
Within the context of "cable news"—within the context of our mainstream news orgs—how fatuous can the American discourse get?
Our public discourse can get very fatuous. With Labor Day bearing down on the world, we'll examine this problem all week.
Tomorrow: Explaining President Biden
"Now we're engaged in a great civil war. By tradition, one of the candidates—unfortunately, in our view—has a whole lot of splainin' to do.
ReplyDeleteWe refer to the candidate for whom we'll be voting—we refer to Candidate Harris."
It isn't just that Somerby is repeating right wing talking points this morning, but his chiding tone against a candidate who was just nominated, as if she has been hiding information about her views.
Most Democrats are familiar with Kamala Harris because she has been VP for four years, has a lengthy career and public presence, and because she has made it clear what she stands for. Somerby joins the Republicans in complaining that she has a lot of explaining to do, when she is as much of a known quantity as Al Gore was when he ran to follow Bill Clinton.
"Most Democrats are familiar with Kamala Harris" that may be, or it may not be. Either way, I think the people Harris really needs to sway are 1) republicans that aren't thrilled with voting for Trump, 2) independents, and 3) any undecided voter that doesn't pay close attention to politics and the daily news cycle. I think "most democrats" would vote for whoever the party put up whether it was Kamala Harris or not. I know for myself I am not thrilled with VP Harris, and thought she was one of the least desirable candidates in 2016, but I would vote for a dead person before I voted for Trump, so people like me aren't the ones you need to convince...
DeleteYou don't convince those categories of low information voters by wading into the weeds with the specifics of programs, as Somerby seems to be demanding today. You do it the way she is doing it already. That's why trying to encourage her to get wonkish strikes me as trying to undermine her effectiveness as a candidate.
DeleteSomerby lists a set of "theoretics" that he attributes to Fox. These are the same theoretics he himself uses when discussing the media. If one journalist has made an error or an overheated statements or done anything at all that Somerby disapproves, then the entire press has done it. Not to mention that the mainstream media is supposedly Blue America, and not a group of individuals with differing personal views who are representing a diverse media.
ReplyDeleteThis is called overgeneralization and it isn't only Fox doing it.
The rare occasion when I agree with one of the Somerby-hating anonymi. And quite often, Bob goes even further and, based on a very partial sample size, condemns the entire human race, saying it isn't rational.
DeleteThis is Women's Equality Day but Kamala Harris has a whole lot of explaining to do -- sez Somerby. Crickets from Somerby about women's rights or the historic nature of the Harris campaign or any women's issue (except he doesn't think there is a gender pay gap).
ReplyDeleteSomerby knows what is wrong with our society -- the election didn't start when it should have, or some such crap.
"By tradition, one of the candidates—unfortunately, in our view—has a whole lot of splainin' to do."
ReplyDelete"Saying a person or entity "has some ‘splainin’ to do" (in a Cuban accent) is a humorous way of suggesting that they have done something illegal or otherwise embarrassing.
The catchphrase dates back to the 50's "I Love Lucy" show." [Urban Dictionary]
So, this is a twofer for Somerby. He gets to use the sexist overtone of Ricky's overbearing infantilizing treatment of his trad wife Lucy while reducing Kamala Harris to an immigrant trope. As if Kamala Harris has no good explanations for her policies, which are obvious to anyone paying attention. As if she were as foolish as Lucille Ball in the comedy sketches portraying ridiculous situations, a goofball and a joke.
With friends like Somerby, Harris doesn't need conservative enemies.
Grow up.
DeleteYou forgot to say "what's the matter, can't you take a joke?" and "Is it that time of the month?" and "women have no sense of humor" and "Somerby is just funnin'".
DeleteSomerby hasn't explained any of his positions. He hasn't even expressed any coherent policies and he keeps talking about Sharks and Hannibal Lecter and walking back previous statements (such as about abortion or EVs) because someone gave him money. But Harris has the explaining to do. And I'm the one who needs to grow up?
typo correction: Trump hasn't explained any of his positions.
DeleteSomerby pities Trump and so grades him on a curve; Somerby is jealous of Harris and so grades her with an eye towards shaming.
DeleteSomerby is afraid that Harris will be a Feminist on Day 1.
DeleteKevin asks a relevant question:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-whos-the-most-militaristic-president-whos-the-least/
Today is Women's Equality Day. Somerby might have said something about the historic nature of Kamala Harris's nomination, what her candidacy means to women, especially as we see the right wing attempt to force women back into second-class citizenship. There is a reason why there is a widening gender-gap in the Republican party, why women are saying "We will not go back." This effect is being under-sampled in the polls but even so is obvious to election-watchers.
ReplyDeleteInstead, Somerby pretends that Harris has not been forthcoming about her policies, borrowing a theme from the right wing. How can Harris be behind in her explaining when the campaign season starts on Labor Day?
If Somerby were supporting Harris, he might be using his blog to examine her positions on various issues, to help educate the public. Instead, he joins the Republicans in disparaging her, as if she doesn't have any policies or has been unprepared to take over for Biden (as if the convention didn't show the falseness of that suggestion). Or as if she does have policies but cannot state them without people realizing she is a dangerous Commie trying to impose big Government on us all, as David (in Cal) fears.
And as if the fact that Trump is crazy didn't moot the detailed examination of Harris's policy positions that might occur if two normal people were running for president. Is Somerby hinting that if Harris doesn't "splain" everything properly and soon, then he might vote for Trump, the crazy megalomaniac who calls Hannibal Lecter a great man? But Harris needs to spell out her ideas in greater detail...
He said unequivocally he'll be voting for Harris, so you, like a Gauloise-smoking continental deconstructionist, see the possibility of Trump support.
DeleteSnidely @ 11:39 AM - you left out "latte sipping" and Volvo driving."
DeleteNo, he hasn't said so "unequivocally" and these complaints about Harris are part of his equivocation.
Delete11:39 falls for the snake oil every time.
DeleteSomerby: "We refer to the candidate for whom we'll be voting—we refer to Candidate Harris."
DeleteI don't know how he can be any clearer. I've been reading the daily howler since the late 90s and I see absolutely zero chance that Somerby votes for Trump, whether Harris does any "splainin'" or not...
Yes, we can all read the words. That doesn't mean we must believe them. We can read the other words Somerby writes too, the ones where he attacks the Democratic candidates and promotes Republican talking points. Our task as readers is to put all this together and make some kind of sense out of ALL of the words. You, legalistically, want to isolate that one sentence and consider only its meaning in isolation from Somerby's other, ongoing behavior.
DeleteSomerby claimed he was voting for Clinton too, yet he criticized her regularly, and more tellingly, exhibited none of the emotional reactions that Clinton-backers felt when she lost.
In the literature on detecting deception linguistically, researchers have found that lies more often use third rather than first-person pronouns. That would be they-statements rather than I-statements. Somerby avoids that by using we-statements (first person plural). Note that he has never said "I plan to vote for Kamala Harris" but rather "We refer to the candidate for whom we'll be voting -- we refer to Candidate Harris." That is an enormously evasive construction that never specifies who "we" is.
DeleteSomerby is coy and sneaky enough to be holding his fingers crossed when he says "we," perhaps referring to we liberals or we Harris voters, while mentally excluding himself from that group. It could by the extended Somerby family or Democrats are "we" while Somerby will make himself an exception, thus describing what "they" will do but not himself. He has never said who he means when he says "we," as he has done for decades. If Somerby is talking about his own intentions, why does he not say "I" instead of "we" and if he is making "we" into "they" by maintaining some mental reservation, then he is using the language more common to liars.
Consider the sentence "We Democrats may not all vote for Harris." Does that require Somerby to vote for her because he is a Democrat and because most Democrats will vote for her? He plays such games and blames it all on Wittgenstein.
So, @2:49, here is how Somerby can be clearer. He can say: "I refer to the candidate for whom I'll be voting -- I refer to Candidate Harris."
Consider the sentence "We plan to vote for Harris, but this sentence is false."
DeleteSomerby is shouting at clouds today. Fatuous means "silly and pointless." Complaining because there has been progress in media, because we now have an internet and cable news instead of print newspapers, is what senile old people do when they can't get their medicine bottles open with those new-fangled childproof caps or they cannot figure out how to turn on their cellphones.
ReplyDeleteThe problems with the media are not because technology is bad or change has upset how we used to do elections. It isn't even because Rachel Maddow was paid a large salary back in the day. If Somerby were actually interested in how the media functions and how it has changed over time, where people get their news today, there is a lot he could read and discuss here, instead of the fatuous drivel he repeats here every day.
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-new-media-s-role-in-politics/
DeleteThis article can provide the basis for a discussion of how media have changed and problems within this election cycle. Read down to the part about the Post-Truth Media and The Ascendance of Fake News. The role of the press as watchdog acting for the public good is discussed, but:
"However, there are aspects of the media’s watchdog role that have become more difficult to fulfill. Countering outright lies by public officials has almost become an exercise in futility, even as fact-checking has become its own category of news. The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” identified almost 1,500 false claims made by President Trump in just over 250 days in office (www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker). Sites focusing on setting the record straight, such as PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck, can barely keep pace with the amount of material that requires checking Despite these efforts, false information on the air and online has multiplied.
There is evidence to suggest that the new media allow political leaders to do an end-run around the watchdog press. In some ways, the press has moved from being a watchdog to a mouthpiece for politicians. This tendency is exacerbated by the fact that there is a revolving door where working journalists move between positions in the media and government. Some scholars maintain that this revolving door compromises the objectivity of journalists who view a government job as the source of their next paycheck (Shepard, 1997)."
The article concludes:
"At the same time, the coalescence of the rise of new media and post-truth society has made for a precarious situation that subverts their beneficial aspects. Presently, it appears as if there are few effective checks on the rising tide of false information. Substituting scandal coverage for serious investigative journalism has weakened the press’ watchdog role. The ambiguous position of the media as a mouthpiece for politicians renders journalists complicit in the proliferation of bad information and faulty facts. It is important to recognize that American journalism has never experienced a “golden age” where facts always prevailed and responsible reporting was absolute. However, the current era may mark a new low for the democratic imperative of a free press."
Somerby dislikes academia, but it seems to me that they are analyzing the situation more cogently than Somerby does with his repetitions Gutfeld and attacks on Harris.
This is an excerpt from a book that was published while Trump was in office (2018), so when it talks about the release of incorrect information by government officials, it should be remembered that these were Trump's appointees. It was pre-covid, so the worst was yet to come.
DeleteThe new media has become stronger in the meantime and provides the major source of news to people, as has been pointed out many times here in Somerby's comment section. Treating the legacy media as if it were the problem, and not the proliferation of post-truth disinformation and propaganda, seems short-sighted on Somerby's part.
I hate childproof caps.
DeleteI took his comments about the internet and news channels not as someone that pines for the print newspaper days, but more to suggest that with the advent of internet and 24 hour news channels we are simply bombarded with politics much more and much earlier in the political cycle.
DeleteTrump announced his 2020 and 2024 campaigns immediately after the previous election. He did this to enable fundraising (grifting), using his campaign funds for various exigencies such as lawsuits, and to protect himself against criminal charges. The media cannot refuse to cover his activities as a candidate but they aren't the ones who have made this into such a lengthy campaign cycle. Trump did that.
DeleteSomerby presumably knows this, so why is he blaming the media for what Trump has done?
We support this:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2024/08/25/middleeast/former-palestinian-detainee-sexually-abused-in-israeli-prison-mime-intl/index.html
That is a tough read, one assumes you support the journalism, not the abuse.
DeleteIt is heartbreaking how aspects of society have led to such warped people, with those tragically wounded then victimizing others in a hard to break cycle.
Please do not hijack this discussion to talk about the Middle East.
Delete11:49, it seems like 11:00 is pointing to an example of good journalism and 11:30 is addressing broad societal issues, so your "hijacking" fears seem a bit overblown.
DeleteAnd, of course, if someone wants to discuss the Middle East, there is nothing wrong with that.
No, the U.S. does not "support" that. Nor do the majority of Israelis. During WWII, there was undoubtedly some bad behavior by a few "bad apples" on the allied powers side. Does this make everyone on that side bad?
DeleteBtw, that article is by a news organization that is as mainstream and corporate as it gets. How do you square that with your "manufacturing consent" paradigm? And there exists a million other examples that run counter to that paradigm.
The US supports Israel, regardless of its crimes.
DeleteDuring WWII, public opinion supported allied war crimes, such as incendiary bombing of residential neighborhoods.
No one supports war crimes, even when they commit them.
DeleteCorrect, the U.S. supports its allies, even if some of those allies' citizens commit crimes. You seem to be suggesting that allies should only support each other if none of their citizens commits any crimes. There would be no allies left in the world. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is to blame for every bad action that any of its citizens might engage in. You seem confused about bone simple moral distinctions.
DeleteWe support Israel’s crimes.
DeleteYou're changing the topic (probably because you realize how ridiculous your original claim was). But regarding your new claim, you're wrong there, too.
DeleteSomerby thinks we should be complaint worker bees and leave the thinking to "elites".
ReplyDeleteHere is some of what we have learned over the past few days, gleaned from the democratization of media:
-Trump finally admitted he lost the election, indicating the emptiness of one of Somerby's main themes about "lies"
-Fed Chairman Powell came out of his hole and announced that we ("leading" economists) haven't a clue about what causes inflation, but nonetheless we are cutting rates
-CNN misled it's audience by highlighting a Trumper but misidentifying him as an independent, this is the kind of corporate media nonsense Somerby has fallen for many times (often the supposed small town worker is in reality a Republican operative)
Is Somerby just dumb? No, he is more like a slightly more erudite Tim Pool, running a con with the empty agenda of manufacturing ignorance.
Let's hold our fire on whether Trump 'admitted he lost the election.' If he truly did that, he would disintegrate into a smoking pile like Margaret Hamilton.
ReplyDeleteWe just happened to see Margaret Hamilton in a movie today. My wife said, "That woman is ugly."
Delete"A new analysis from The Washington Post reveals that just 50 megadonors are responsible for $1.5 billion in campaign cash for the 2024 presidential cycle.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this group of billionaires skews toward former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party — although there are Democratic megadonors in the mix as well.
The largest donors are railroad magnate Timothy Mellon, who has contributed $165 million to various GOP PACs along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s independent campaign, which he ended last week before throwing his support to Trump. Ken Griffin, the financial tycoon who previously backed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is currently supporting a number of Republican campaigns to the tune of $75 million. And financiers Jeff and Janine Yass, who have poured in another $75 million to various GOP causes."
https://www.rawstory.com/campaign-donations-2669072507/
But Somerby thinks the problem is the mainstream media and its corporate owners.
But . . . but . . . Soros!
DeleteThe Democratic Convention, which selects the party's presidential candidates, only happened last week. That doesn't suggest the early start Somerby claims has happened. Biden's early debate was because he was the presumed nominee, as the incumbent. If Biden had been in his second term, the candidates would have vied for the nomination up to the convention. So in what sense has anyone jumped the gun this year? None. That makes Somerby's argument about campaigns starting prematurely specious, especially since he entirely ignores that Trump explicitly started his campaign for the next term during the first year of his first term. And he announced his run for 2024 shortly after losing in 2020 -- to obtain whatever immunity from prosecution might be available to him as a presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteBut Somerby thinks it is Harris who started early? Or perhaps he is trying to eliminate the argument that she has had very little time to provide the detailed platform Somerby thinks should have been provided to him already, enabling him to be lukewarm in his support for her (because she has a lot of 'splaining to do)? That would be Somerby's thumb on the scales for today's argument. There is too much campaigning and not enough 'splaining.
Talk about fatuous...
what led you to believe that Somerby was saying that it was Harris that started the cycle early? I read it to mean that he felt the entire election cycle starts earlier these days because of social media, talk radio, and 24 hr news channels, not because of Harris. And he has written a number of times that the complaint about harris not doing interviews or posting a platform are somewhat disingenuous given that she has been the nominee for less than a month. I think you are reading him wrong.
DeleteIt starts when there are declared candidates. Harris didn't declare until after Biden withdrew, which is late in the cycle -- no chance for others to compete for the nomination during primaries.
DeleteI think Somerby is unclear and that people read him wrong because of his shifting positions on who is responsible for what. For example, it sounds like Somerby is among the right wingers who will be critical of Harris over her immigration policy:
"Everyone knows one part of the way the candidate will frame this issue. Sadly, though, the candidate won't be free to state her policy proposals going forward and just leave it at that.
Almost surely, she will also be asked to explain the first three years of immigration policy under the Biden administration—and that may not be especially easy to do.
How will this candidate explain the meltdown in border security which led to a very large increase in unauthorized border crossings? That remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, she'll be asked to explain those three years in the context of a fatuous public discourse. Of that, there can be no doubt."
Somerby's framing of this issue reflects the right wing view of it. He ignores the recent reductions in border crossings and Harris's role in reducing the influx of asylum seekers by working with donor countries. He frames this as a liability for Harris when it is a strength, given the current greatly reduced flow of asylum seekers (Abbott couldn't find any asylum seekers to ship to Chicago during the convention, for example). Somerby might have fact-checked the accusations he apparently just repeated. A supporter of Harris would not have selected this example because it does not put in a spot at all, but gives her a chance to describe her real accomplishments (which Somerby never mentions).
The staffers who run Biden Administration will also be the staffers who will run, God forbid, Harris Administration. It is very reasonable to hold Harris accountable for every in-your-face, middle-finger-to-normal-Americans decision taken by Biden in the last 3.5 years
ReplyDeleteShe’ll bring in her own staff.
DeleteThis is the Republican talking point that Somerby hints at by demanding that Harris explain. The right wing is saying she will be Biden's puppet, and there are theories that both she and Biden are Obama shills because the Obama's have been controlling the govt. This demand to "explain" her policies is a thinly veiled call-out to those conspiracists who say that Harris couldn't possibly have her own ideas so she must be controlled by and implementing some other perhaps Communist agenda.
DeleteHarris has been giving speeches that are specific and way more detailed than Trump's (which say nothing at all) and yet are insufficient to satisfy Somerby. That's why this seems like support for Republican memes and not a genuine need for Harris to explain more about her plans.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50369-kamala-harris-economic-platform-resonates-across-party-lines
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/19/harris-2024-platform-democratic-national-convention
Movement conservatives date back to the early 50's - Taft jr, McCarthy, Buckley jr, Mont Pelerin Society - and came to the fore with the Reagan admin which propagated a massive redistribution of wealth, $50+ trillion, from the 99% to the 1%.
DeleteThis welfare for the wealthy got little pushback, even from Dems like Clinton and Obama.
Biden has struggled with policy towards Israel, but broadly, he is the first president in our lifetimes to reverse this trend of making most of us suffer on a knife's edge while the few wealthy frolic around living off our labor; he is the first president since FDR to NOT say "fuck you" to middle Americans and those in need.
Harris/Walz appear to want to continue this trend, and appear to have better views on Israel as well.
Here's Chris Hayes and Bernie Sanders "manufacturing consent":
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBQcUvRKRc
As a Republican, Somerby seems to support my general views about human nature and society, yet still claims he is going to vote for Harris.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some issues related to cognitive dissonance, it is hard to discern if Somerby is suffering from that, or attempting to engender it in others.
The Left seems concerned about physical comfort and mental well being and relatively unconcerned about physical abilities, whereas the Right seems emotionally fragile yet hyperfocused on enhancing their physicality, often via things like steroids and human growth hormones.
ReplyDeleteI will vote for Kamala. So will David and Cecelia.
ReplyDeleteIncreasingly it seems like Harris will win (using neoDem strategies that have been successful in past eras - pre neoliberalism - and since 2018, such as wokeness, aggressively fighting against right wingers by drawing clear distinctions, and opposing right wing oppressions), so Somerby will have to backtrack from his main theses, but he will attempt to do so subtlety and, as always, with plausible deniability.
ReplyDelete