CONCERNS: We say "our democracy" is our concern!

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2024

How well do we know ourselves? "Your concerns are my concerns," the Hemingway character said.

We refer to the Mariel Hemingway character in the 1979 feature film, Manhattan. According to the leading authority on the topic, "the film received critical acclaim," though it didn't match the Best Picture Oscar win of its immediate predecessor.

At age 18, Hemingway was nominated for the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. In the face of some unusual subject matter, Manhattan was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.

"Your concerns are my concerns," the Hemingway character tells her boyfriend near the end of the film Culturally, there was an element of strangeness involved? The authority explains:

Manhattan (1979 film)

[...]

The film opens with a montage of images of Manhattan and other parts of New York City accompanied by George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, with Isaac Davis narrating drafts of an introduction to a book about a man who loves the city. 

Isaac is a twice-divorced, 42-year-old television comedy writer who quits his boring job. He is dating Tracy, a 17-year-old girl attending the Dalton School. 

Say what? The boyfriend was 42 years old. He was basically living with the largely unparented Hemingway character, who was still a senior in prep school. 

So it sometimes went in 1970s film. It was an era in which Brooke Shields, then age 11, appeared nude in one scene in Pretty Baby (1978), which we regard as a searching film about traditional gender roles.

We don't recall the extent to which the relationship in Manhattan produced critical cultural comment. We don't recall whether it produced any such commentary at all.

As noted, Manhattan was widely praised by major critics, largely for an array of fairly obvious reasons. The New York Film Critics Circle gave its director their award for best director of the year.

"Your concerns are my concerns," the Hemingway says to her boyfriend, in a truly beautiful line reading. It was never entirely clear what those concerns really were. 

So too for us who live in Blue America at this parlous point in time. What are our concerns at this time? But also, and very important:

Just how well do we understand ourselves? Favorable self-portraits to the side, just how well do we understand the true nature of our concerns?

Yesterday, a gruesome set of polling data emerged. All such data are, of course, subject to various forms of error. Also, these new numbers emerge as a bit of an outlier.

That said, these new statistics from CNN have Candidate Trump leading Candidate Biden by six points nationwide—49-43 percent. Those numbers could be substantially wrong—or they could be basically accurate, if only at this point in time.

Those numbers could be substantially accurate! That said, what sorts of concerns could be driving such figures? 

CNN asked! According to CNN's polling director, 65% of registered voters called the economy extremely important to their vote for president. 

No other issue scored that high. Headline included, CNN's report adds this:

Considering other issue priorities for the upcoming election, 58% of voters call protecting democracy an extremely important issue, the only other issue tested that a majority considers central to their choice. 

Nearly half call immigration, crime and gun policy deeply important (48% each), with health care (43%), abortion (42%) and nominations to the US Supreme Court (39%) each deeply important to about 4 in 10 voters. At the lower end of the scale, just 33% consider foreign policy that important, 27% climate change, 26% the war between Israel and Hamas, and 24% student loans.

There remain sharp partisan differences in which issues are most critical to choosing a president. Among Democratic-aligned voters, protecting democracy (67%), abortion (54%), the economy (52%), gun policy (51%) and health care (49%) all rank as key for about half or more, while on the GOP-aligned side, it’s the economy (79%), immigration (71%), crime (65%) and then democracy (54%).

Foreign affairs and climate change, good-bye! On the brighter side, a majority of respondents in each major party called "protecting democracy" a major issue. 

But what did respondents have in mind when they chose that as a point of concern? We were struck by this additional observation:

But the poll finds that Biden voters and Trump voters largely just don’t understand each other. Among those who do not currently support Biden, 66% say they don’t understand why anyone would support him, and 63% of those not backing Trump say they can’t understand why anyone would support him.

Our concerns may not be their concerns! And make no mistake:

When it comes to "protecting democracy," Red America's voters are thinking of one set of possibilities. Voters in our own Bue America will typically be thinking of something different.

According to the CNN survey, Biden voters and Trump voters "largely don't understand each other." This week, we'll be exploring a different question:

How well do we voters in Blue America understand ourselves? How well do we understand our own stated concerns?

Over and over, again and again, our thought leader say that their major concern involves the possibility that we will lose our democracy if Donald Trump wins—that this could be our last election.

But what are we eager to be talking about as we conduct our sacred elections? As with other human groups, we're inclined to paint a lofty portrait of our concerns, but when the rubber meets the road, what kinds of tracks are we leaving?

Did Donald J. Trump commit a crime with respect to his alleged sex life?

For ourselves, we don't especially care about that. That said:

Dating to the dawn of time, we humans have frequently displayed a tendency to be concerned with little or nothing else.

As a matter of basic anthropology, what exactly are our concerns? Has anything changed through the ages?

Day after day, we portray our concerns. How well do we know ourselves?

Tomorrow: Late Bronze Age election


SUNDAY: Why was Cohen sentenced to prison?

SUNDAY, APRIL 28, 2024

The novelization of news: Back in August 2018, Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison.

Cohen had been Donald Trump's "fixer." Among his various duties, he was deeply involved in the "hush money" payment to a certain "porn star."

(Phrasing it a different way, he was deeply involved in the NDA with an adult woman who wasn't Donald Trump's wife.)

If Cohen had to go to prison, why shouldn't Trump be sent there too? Nicolle Wallace has been asking that question for the past several years on her two-hour daily program, Deadline: White House.

We don't have an answer to that question. Today, we'll be asking a different question:

What were the crimes for which Michael Cohen get sentenced to three years?

On Friday's broadcast, Wallace answered that question as she spoke with "some of [her] favorite reporter and friends." She did so for perhaps the ten thousandth time by now.

Below, you see the bulk of what was said. For videotape of the exchange, you can start by clicking here:

WALLACE (4/26/24): I know a lot's been made of Michael Cohen's credibility. But what did Michael Cohen go to jail for?

LITMAN (with pauses): Ah, well— 

WALLACE: Just answer for me. Just help me understand. What did he—

LITMAN: Perjury!

WALLACE: But what was he lying about?

So the Socratic examination began. Here's the way it continued:

LITMAN (continuing directly): Oh, it's, it's—it's three versus— It's almost hard to follow. 

[Turns to Andrew Weissmann] 

What is it exactly? How many times he—

WEISSMANN: Well, his main perjury was in Congress. and it was for Donald Trump—

LITMAN: Trump! Yeah!

WEISSMANN: It was lying about the Moscow and Russia deal. 

WALLACE: But let me just— But—

SOMEONE OFF CAMERA: The fake election stuff was what he pled to.

WALLACE: But then his sentencing agreement is about what crimes? What crimes does Michael Cohen plead to in his sentencing?  Election crimes, right? 

LITMAN: Well, that's what [UNINTELLIGIBLE]. Yeah!

WALLACE: I mean, who was running for president? It wasn't Michael Cohen. Who had sex with Stormy Daniels. It wasn't Michael Cohen. Who had a ten-month love affair with Karen McDougal? It wasn't Michael Cohen...

He didn't benefit at all. I'm just trying to pick up on the common sense thing.

So the discussion went. We're going to focus on Wallace's account of what Cohen pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for. 

Wallace may have been "trying to pick up on the common sense thing," but she was doing a very poor job picking up on the basic facts. Beyond that, we can't swear that Wallace's guests weren't playing it a little bit dumb as this colloquy unfolded.

According to Wallace—but also according to someone off-camera—Michael Cohen pled guilty to "election crimes," to "the fake election stuff," full stop. In fairness, that's the standard answer on MSNBC programs.

In fact, Cohen pled guilty to eight or nine federal counts, depending on how you want to take the roll—and only two of the eight or nine counts were related to the election matter. 

Also, the other six or seven counts had nothing to do with Donald J. Trump. Those other counts involved fraudulent conduct by Cohen in support of his own business ventures and his own considerable wealth.

For what "veritable smorgasbord of criminal conduct" did Cohen plead guilty? (We're quoting the federal judge who handed down the sentence.) 

You can read the formal statement by the DOJ just by clicking here. Headline included, the statement starts as shown:

Michael Cohen Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison

Robert Khuzami, Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, announced that MICHAEL COHEN was sentenced today to three years in prison for tax evasion, making false statements to a federally insured bank, and campaign finance violations.  COHEN pled guilty on August 21, 2018, to an eight-count information before U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III, who imposed today’s sentence.  

In a separate prosecution brought by the Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”), COHEN pled guilty on November 29, 2018 to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Congress and was also sentenced on that case today, receiving a two-month concurrent sentence.

That was the start of the formal DOJ statement. Here's the report from NBC News, including their summary of the nine counts to which he pled:

Michael Cohen gets 3 years, says Trump's 'dirty deeds' led him to 'choose darkness' 

An emotional Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer, was sentenced Wednesday to 3 years behind bars for what a Manhattan federal court judge called a “veritable smorgasbord" of criminal conduct, including making secret payments to women who claimed they had affairs with Trump, lying to Congress about the president’s business dealings with Russia and failing to report millions of dollars in income.

Judge William Pauley found Cohen, 52, deserved “a significant term of imprisonment” for crimes that were driven by “personal greed and ambition.”

[...]

Charges brought by the Southern District:

Counts 1-5: Evasion of assessment of income tax liability for pleading guilty to failing to report more than $4 million in income from 2012 through 2016.

Count 6: False statements to a bank for Cohen pleading guilty to understating debt from his taxi medallion business in the process of applying for a home equity line of credit with a bank.

Count 7: Causing an unlawful corporation contribution for when he pleaded guilty to orchestrating a payment made by American Media to Karen McDougal for her “limited life story,” an allegation that she had an affair with Donald Trump.

Count 8: Excessive campaign contribution for when he pleaded guilty to making an excessive political contribution when he paid adult film actress Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her story and silence about Clifford’s alleged affair with Donald Trump.

Charge brought by Robert Mueller

Count 1: False statements to Congress for when Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress on Aug. 28, 2017, when he sent a two-page letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as during testimony before Congress.

Counts 7 and 8 involved the "hush money / NDA." The other seven counts involved separate, distinct federal crimes.

For the record, CNBC's report about the nine counts included the possible prison sentence each offense entailed. By far, the offense which carried the longest possible sentence—30 years, as opposed to just five!—was Count 6, which had nothing to do with the hush money payment or with Trump himself.

Wallace has discussed this all-encompassing topic for what seems like a thousand years by now. Is it possible that she still doesn't know the actual shape of this "smorgasbord" of criminal conduct?

We don't know how to answer that question. But how about her favorite reporters and friends? Is it possible that none of them knew that Cohen had pleaded guilty to nine different counts, only two of which were involved in the matter currently at hand? 

We knew that, right here at this site! Is it really possible that Wallace and her panelist didn't?

Putting it a different way, is it possible that Wallace's guests chose to hem and haw a bit this day? That they chose to avoid noting the fact that Wallace's account of this matter was pleasing but inaccurate?

We don't know how to answer those questions, but it seems to us that someone sitting on that set must have known that Wallace's account, like many accounts on today's "cable news," was tribally pleasing but wrong. 

None of this tells us if Donald J. Trump should be convicted of a crime by that Gotham jury. None of this tells us if he should be sentenced to prison.

That said, we aren't posting this to ask you to think about Donald J. Trump. We're suggesting that you think about the process we first described, more than two decades ago, as "the novelization of news."

From the Blue America perspective, Wallace created a pleasingly simplified story with her collapsed account of Cohen's guilty plea. It seems to us that her favorites and her friends may have been playing along.

That said, "cable news" tends to run on Storyline, not on accurate statements of fact. Our high-end journalism has worked this way for a very long time. 

The best description of this process came from E. R. Shipp, in a very brief column for the Washington Post when she served as the paper's ombudsman. Her column was written all the way back in early 2000 as mainstream journalists were writing a highly simplistic group novel in which they "typecast" the four major candidates with a shot at the White House that year.

(Bush, Gore, Bradley, McCain.)

The Post published Shipp's column; the typecasting continued. That's the way the game was played that year, and then in the years to come.

Michael Cohen got three years for his role in the hush money paid to the porn star! We've seen Wallace and her friends present that claim a thousand times by now.

For people hoping to lock Trump up, it makes for a vastly improved type of story. On a basic factual basis, it isn't accurate. But as the old saying goes, it's close enough for the kind of journalism referred to as "cable news."

Cohen pleaded to nine crimes. Only two involved the NDA. 

Whether you think it matters or not, there's little chance that you'll ever hear Wallace say that. None of this can really tell us what the verdict in Gotham should be. 

For those who can storm the paywall: For those of you who can storm the paywall, the New York Times' Alan Feuer wrote a colorful piece about the various crimes to which Cohen had pled.

His richest machinations involved the behaviors which didn't involve Donald J. Trump and the woman who wasn't his wife. Feuer's essay appeared beneath this headline:

6 Takeaways From Michael Cohen’s Guilty Plea

If you can storm the paywall, you should just click here

For the record, we're never happy to hear that someone is being sent to prison. Some people do have to go to prison, but we're glad that Cohen is out.


SATURDAY: He put a smile on our face twice again!

SATURDAY, APRIL 27, 2024

Termagant does double duty: It was the termagant's second night back from a well-deserved, week-long vacation. 

At exactly 10:02 p.m., the termagant struck again. It was the second joke of his opening monologue. The deep discussions followed.

The fellow is 59 years old. This is a typical part of his nightly diet:

Hillary Clinton this week claimed that Donald Trump wants to be like Vlad Putin. Which is odd, since she has more in common with Vlad in that she looks horrible topless.

[Photo of shirtless Putin appears]

AUDIENCE LAUGHTER

After a pause, the termagant added this:

...and kills people.

No sickness left behind! At 10:04, the termagant followed with a Governor Hochul "can't move her face" joke. 

Some Democratic women are too fat. Some have done too much Botox. 

As it turns out, other women the termagant loathes just look terrible topless! Also, the many people the Clintons have killed, courtesy of Jerry Falwell and Gennifer Flowers!

For what it's worth, this seems to be who and what the termagant actually is. Given the state of our political / journalistic culture, he's a major ratings star in primetime "cable news."

Earlier yesterday, on The Five, he regaled us with another of his standard touchstones. 

The group was discussing President Biden's (observably) stiff gait. In this new post, Kevin Drum lists a few of the medical reasons for this observable phenomenon.

The Fox News gang didn't bother with any of that. At 5:05 p.m., the termagant offered this analysis:

It's the woke handlers who are accelerating our nation's demise, and he's just there along for the ride. 

Who knows how much longer he'll be there? I think it's also— 

You know, it's also hard to walk when you've got a load in your pants. 

[ONE PANELIST LAUGHS]

Why do you think they call him Dark Brandon?

Shannon Bream was willing to step in and pretend that this garbage dump somehow makes sense.

The fellow is 59 years old! He grew up in a sunny place. This is the state of the culture.

For small discussion groups only: Jason Zinoman reviews small-bore comedy for the New York Times. 

The Times puts these essays in the Arts section! For today's example, click this.

Jason Zinoman is a good, decent person. Why don't he and his editors go ahead and produce a report about this?