OTHERS: Why did people vote for Trump?

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

Biden disappoints Blow: Why did people vote for Donald J. Trump?

We have no idea. That said, back in November 2020, 74 million people did. You'd have to ask them why they voted that way—and they wouldn't all say the same thing.

In our view, Donald J. Trump was the worst presidential candidate ever. Those others didn't agree with our view. As a matter of basic principle, we respect them as neighbors and friends—and as fellow citizens. 

We disagree with the way those people cast their votes—but then, they disagree with the way we cast ours! Some of us people respect other people. Quite a few of us people just don't.

At any rate, what do Trump voters think today? Last Saturday night, the Atlantic's Elaine Godfrey made an attempt to find out. 

Godfrey attended Donald Trump's rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. While there, she spoke with various supporters of Trump, including the ones who said this:

GODFREY (9/5/22): Trump is back at the forefront of American politics, just two months ahead of the midterm elections. This time, the former president is in a strange new position: He’s backed into a corner by legal trouble. And his ever-loyal fans have joined him in a defensive crouch. “We came because of the Mar-a-Lago raid,” Mike Rutherford, a truck driver from East Stroudsburg, told me. He sat near the stage in a folding chair alongside his wife, Pat. “We’re here to support him,” Pat said, nodding. “I can’t believe how brave that man is.”

For the record, that isn't our own basic view. 

Of course, depending on where you get your "news" in our segregated news environment, you can be encouraged to think a wide array of things about a wide array of topics. With perhaps a hint of condescension, Godfrey extended her reporting:

GODFREY: The Trump fans I’d spoken with earlier, standing near the Dippin’ Dots ice-cream stall and in line for Chickie’s & Pete’s chicken cutlets, all had his back. “It’s politically motivated,” Jim Shaw, a barber from New Milford, told me when I asked what he made of the search at Mar-a-Lago. “If Donald Trump wasn’t looking like he was the [leading] Republican candidate for president, I don’t think it would have happened.” Every one of the dozen or so people I talked with offered some defense of the former president: The search was a setup; the evidence was planted; Biden’s DOJ was trampling on Trump’s constitutional rights to keep him from running for office again.

I detected a touch of desperation in many people’s responses—a sense that, if Trump-endorsed candidates don’t win in November, America as they know it will cease to exist. Here in northeast Pennsylvania—just 20 miles down the road from Biden’s hometown—was a gathering of people not just pessimistic about the future of the country under his leadership, but deeply fearful too. “At this point right now, I’m worried about being targeted by the FBI because I’m a Christian, I’m conservative,” Pat Rutherford said. “I know they won’t find anything, but I am going to need a lawyer to prove I am innocent.” The DOJ “is like a militia for the Democrats,” Linda Hess, from Selinsgrove, told me. “I think our First Amendment rights are basically gone as conservatives. I really do.”

"Trump and his loyalists are eager to fan these fears," Godfrey now said. This helps introduce one of the world's most basic distinctions—the eternal distinction between the misleaders and the misled.

As they stood near the Dippin’ Dots stand and the Chickie’s & Pete’s, these barbers and truck drivers gave voice to various views which arguably have been derived from "fanned fears"—and from misinformation. 

Our own blue world often runs on the fuel of misinformation too. But very few public figures in American history have produced crazy claims to the extent that Donald Trump has, and he has had plenty of help from Republican leadership cadres—from groups of high-ranking "MAGA Republicans."

He's had help from the gaggle of undisguised Crazies—from Giuliani, Powell and Flynn. He's had help from the Republican senators who refuse to push back in public against his relentlessly unfounded and ludicrous claims.

By and large, barbers who stand near Dippin' Dots stands believe that the last election was stolen. Within our segregated news and information culture, they hear this claim again and again, then again and again—and they don't hear it contradicted.

Republican senators know that this claim is ludicrous, crazy, bogus. The barbers near the Dippin' Dots stand believe that the statement is true. 

They also know that they'll be mocked for being barbers standing near Dippin' Dots stands. Our blue tribe culture has frequently functioned that way, going back a great many years.

As our political world has fallen apart in recent years, many people have conspired to mislead the misled. 

For ourselves, we regard Donald J. Trump as being so disordered that we aren't sure what he actually may believe. That said, the United States Senate is full of people who know that these "stop the steal" claims are clownishly false.

They know these claims are clownishly bogus, but they refuse to say so.

President Biden could have named some of their names when he gave his blood-red speech on Thursday, September 1. He could have described their conduct when he gave the several speeches which preceded it. 

Instead, he spoke in sweeping terms as he made blood-red accusations. He failed to distinguish between the Republican Party's leadership cadres and the GOP rank and file.

It's a form of kicking down. Dating back many decades, members of our own blue tribe have often seemed to relish the unhelpful practice.

Starting on August 25, we were troubled by a toxic combination—by the vehemence of Biden's descriptions, matched with his refusal to say, with any clarity, who he was talking about. 

This past Monday, on Labor Day, he began to walk his rhetoric back. He began to signal that he was mainly discussing the GOP's rancid leadership cadres, rather than the masses of the misled. 

Tomorrow, we'll show you what he said. We'll also cite Charles Blow, who made a point of saying that he prefers to loathe the entire 74 million. 

Charles Blow is a good, decent person, but he's inclined to loathe Others en masse. This longing is deeply bred in the bone, and it's how nations come apart.

A barber stood near the Dippin' Dots stand. The lesser angels of our blue tribe's nature have had a strong tendency, for a very long time, to proceed unwisely from there. 

The Others can see us when we do this. This constitutes one of the ways large nations come undone, fall apart.

Tomorrow: Biden and Blow

Full disclosure: We lost a lot of time this morning. For that reason, we're stretching things out.

OTHERS: President Biden describes the Others!

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

But also, one fleeting disclaimer: It started on Thursday, August 25.  

On that date, President Biden introduced his current, ongoing rhetorical campaign against "Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans." 

President Biden named one person that day; he named Donald J. Trump. But who else was he talking about? In a public address in Maryland, he painted a remarkable picture of who these extreme people are.

According to President Biden, these extreme MAGA Republicans "have made their choice." They've chosen "to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division."

They aren't "real Republicans," the president said. Beyond that, he said he didn't "respect these MAGA Republicans." 

As he continued, it became obvious why he wouldn't respect these unnamed, unidentified people. As he ended his speech, the American president said this:

BIDEN (8/25/22): I’ll close with this: We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history. 

The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace—embrace!—political violence.  They don’t believe in democracy.

This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country— Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans—we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America.  

The president was talking about a group of people who "embrace political violence"—who "don’t believe in democracy." Indeed, the MAGA Republicans are committed "to destroying America," the  embattled president now said.

It's rare to hear an American president describe a group of American citizens in such a remarkable way. We're not sure if any major elected official since Joe McCarthy has described a group of American citizens in such an alarming way.

According to the White House transcript, the president's final description drew applause—but who was Biden talking about? So far, he had named only one person. He had named Donald J. Trump. 

The president had named Donald J. Trump, but who were these other MAGA Republicans—these people who want to destroy America? Why wouldn't he offer some names?

Briefly, our own assessment:

If Biden was talking about the individuals who created the violent riot at the Capitol, we'd think his description might be a bit overwrought in certain ways, but we'd also think that it made a type of sense.

If he was talking about the public figures who have joined Donald J. Trump in claiming the last election was stolen, we'd also say that his description made a type of sense. 

But is that who he was talking about? And if that's who Biden was talking about, why didn't he simply say so? Why didn't he name some names, or offer some general descriptions?

Who was Biden talking about? In part due to his lack of specificity, many observers—red and blue observers alike—seemed to think he was talking about Trump voters in general in the two speeches he offered on August 25. 

Perhaps for that reason, when he spoke again on September 1, he offered a basic disclaimer:

BIDEN (9/1/22): Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.  Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. 

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

Joe Biden wanted to be very clear. Not every Republican is a MAGA Republican, he now said. It isn't even most Republicans, the president now declared.

President Biden had made it clear. Most Republicans aren't numbered among "the MAGA Republicans," he now said.

If that assessment is accurate, we ought to be grateful. Because as he continued, the president continued to describe these people who want to destroy America in the following ways:

BIDEN (continuing directly): But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.

These are hard things. But I’m an American president—not the president of red America or blue America, but of all America.

And I believe it is my duty—my duty to level with you, to tell the truth, no matter how difficult, no matter how painful. And here, in my view, is what is true: 

MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. 

They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state, to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Biden was speaking about a group of people who are working, right now, "to undermine democracy itself." They're "a threat to the nation," he again declared.

Let us say this about that:

Has anyone since Joe McCarthy ever presented such detailed claims about an enemy within? And for the record, we'll say this again:

Depending on who Biden was talking about, we'd say there's a type of justification for those startling claims. But who was Biden talking about? Even in this blood-red speech, he still named only one name.

Who has Biden been talking about? In our view, his failure to articulate this basic point represents an enormous failure in presidential rhetoric.

Based upon that one disclaimer, it seems that he isn't talking about Trump voters in general.  

Based upon that one disclaimer, he isn't saying that, if you voted for Donald J. Trump—even if you'd do so again—that means that you're committed to destroying America. He isn't saying Trump voters are trying to undermine democracy itself.

Biden offered that one disclaimer, but that one disclaimer was fleeting. Almost surely, the tone and tenor of Biden's speech gave many people a different impression. 

That includes the many liberals, in comment threads, who have gloried in the notion that every Trump voter is encompassed by Biden's accusations. Every such voter is one of the Others, liberal voices have routinely declared.

We're going to focus again today on this failure of Biden's rhetoric. Beyond that, we'll offer this thought once again:

Down through the annals of human history, such rhetoric has tended to be dangerous.

Who has Biden been talking about? As of his blood-red speech on September 1, he still hadn't managed to say.

He said they want to destroy America, but he still hadn't said who they are! Imprecision of such type can easily lead to disasters. In our view, we the people deserve better from elected officials.

Let's say it for the third time. In our view, Biden's description could be defended as reasonable if it's aimed at an array of Republican leadership cadres. But even in his blood-red speech, Biden made amazingly little attempt to say who he was talking about when he made his remarkable claims.

Coming from an American president, we think that was grossly incompetent rhetoric. We also think it constituted irresponsible, dangerous conduct. 

In fairness, he hadn't called the Others "cockroaches"—but within the realm of political speech, he'd come fairly close. Viewed within an historical context, we thought his rhetoric had him playing with fire.

We thought his rhetoric was lazy, unwise. Monday afternoon, on Labor Day, his rhetoric started to change.

Tomorrow: Inevitably, Charles Blow

It can't make any difference, but...

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

Key thoughts on the "banning of books:" As a minor bit of background, let's think about what parents constantly do.

Also, what aunts and uncles constantly do. Also, family friends.

Parents constantly think about the books they give their children. (Also, about the TV shows they let their children watch.)

Parents consider whether the content of some book is appropriate. They also wonder if the book in question is "age appropriate."

Surely, we all understand that parents, uncles and family friends all consider such things. Well sir, school boards make the same decisions for an entire community's kids!

A given school board may decide that the content of some book is inappropriate for their district's curriculum or for their school libraries. They may decide that they like the content some book, but that it isn't age appropriate for some particular grade.

Surely, these points are all perfectly obvious. This brings us to Alex Kingsbury's presentation on the op-ed page of yesterday's New York Times.

As you can see in Kingsbury's tweet, the presentation was granted large display in print editions, right at the top of the op-ed page. As you can see, it appeared beneath this hard-hitting headline:

Only Cowards Ban Books

Only cowards ban books! Kingsbury's piece was given a large display, but it included a very short text. Between the headline and the short text, the presentation included a visual of a QR code.

Here's his presentation, in full, as you can see in his tweet:

Only Cowards Ban Books

[Visual of QR code]

Conservatives are frantically banning books about race, gender, sexuality and American history from public schools, lest students read them and develop empathy for others.

Now Oklahoma is trying to revoke the teaching certificate of an English teacher who shared this QR code with her students. It leads to the Brooklyn Public Library's free online collection of banned books.

Banning books is as un-American as it is futile in the age of the Internet. But censorship still claims victims—authors and readers and the teachers and librarians who would connect them.

We're going to say that there's a great deal of liberal / progressive Otherization on display in that short text. For starters, just notice the way the very short essay starts:

It isn't just that "conservatives" are said to be "banning books from public schools," with no documentation offered. They're said to be frantically banning such books.

This lets us see how unhinged these conservative book-banners are. Also, of course, they're "cowards."

Quickly, the sliming gets worse. Why are these conservatives "frantically banning" these books? Simple! They're afraid that, if public school students read these books, they'll "develop empathy for others!" 

What an astonishing statement! It's also an ugly example of present-day liberal / progressive demonization, in which we liberals keep telling ourselves that we are the good, decent, intelligent people, while these Others are deeply immoral.

For the record, you'll note that Kingsbury cites no example of some school district "banning a book." And by the way, can we simply say this at this point:

Parents haven't "banned a book" if they decide that some book isn't right for their son or daughter. They aren't engaged in "censorship" (see Kingsbury's closing paragraph) if they make some such decision, as parents do all the time.

Similarly, school boards haven't "banned a book" if they decide that some book isn't appropriate for their district's children. They've simply decided that some other books are better.

That said, we liberals love to talk about "book banning." It's one of our favorite moves.

Stating the obvious, the gigantic majority of published books won't appear in some district's curriculum. That will be true in liberal communities and in conservative communities as well. 

That doesn't mean that the books in question have been "banned." It simply means that some other limited number of books have been chosen for inclusion.

Stating the obvious, there are ugly right-wing books few liberals would want in their district's schools. There are books with horrible gender politics. Some books are quite bad about race.

Also stating the obvious, you or your Cousin Jane may disagree with the selections some "conservative" school board makes. But that doesn't mean that the board in question is "banning books," except in the growing fever swamps of our failing liberal brains.

Apparently, Kingsbury disagrees with an alleged attempt by "Oklahoma" to revoke some teacher's certificate because of a piece of conduct he fleetingly describes.

As a general matter, we would always be loath to terminate someone's employment. We'd also be disinclined to publish a sweeping piece of demonization without explaining the basic facts behind the one (1) case of alleged bad judgment to which we make fleeting reference.

Kingbury is surely a good, decent person. That said, his piece is an ugly example of tribal propaganda at a savagely polarized time. 

He makes an ugly, sweeping claim about the frantic and "un-American" way conservatives are now behaving. His explanation for their frantic behavior—they're afraid that kids will become empathetic!—is right up there with calling conservatives "cockroaches."

That said, this is the way the human mind is inclined to work. Our human brains are wired to function this way.

This pattern has played out around the world since the dawn of time. This is the way our brains are wired, even here in our precious blue camps.

For the record, Kingsbury has cited zero examples of anyone "banning a book." What he's done is sell us our latest dose of Otherization on a very familiar wide scale.

Frequently, we humans behave this way, here in our blue tribe too! And as is true all over the world, we liberals have a very hard time seeing this unappealing fact about our own highly fallible group.

In conclusion:

Different people won't always agree about the content of various books. At such times, this is what happens:

Goofus starts to name-call Others. Also, he makes ugly statements about their alleged motives. 

Gallant understands that people will sometimes have reasonable points of view which may actually differ from his!

Why is our tribe so widely disliked, in ways which cost us votes? This is an obvious part of the answer, and this isn't going to stop.

These conservatives today! They're afraid that kids may develop empathy for other people?

As one of the analysts instantly muttered, What ever happened to ours?

OTHERS: What we heard when Biden spoke!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

The strains of a very old tune: In this morning's New York Times, Bret Stephens says he's writing "as someone who has long thought that [Donald J.] Trump represents a unique threat to democracy."

We agree with that assessment, and we'd raise Stephens a tad. Beyond that, though, let it be said:

In the course of this morning's column, Stephens places an array of other pro-Trump cadres within the "threat to democracy" camp. 

He lists "violent Oath Keepers and Proud Boys," along with "the antisemites who marched at Charlottesville." 

He cites "election deniers like lawyers Sidney Powell and John Eastman," along with the "conspiracy theorists" who have "schemed" with Trump to let him "remain in power." 

He cites the "mob" which conducted "an assault on Congress" on January 6, thereby "put[ting] the life of his vice president in jeopardy."  

Stephens mentions all those pro-Trump cadres along with Trump himself. He doesn't mention the long list of Republican senators and congressmen who have refused to come forward and state the blindingly obvious.

We refer to the many elected officials who have refused to say that there is exactly zero evidence that the 2020 election was stolen—who have refused to say that Donald J. Trump is deceiving millions of voters when he persistently makes this claim in the total absence of any relevant evidence.

For our money, that was a large omission. But Stephens restates his long-standing claim that Trump is a "threat to democracy," and he says that other cadres also form part of that threat.

Stephens cites Trump and many pro-Trump cadres. But alas, it isn't enough! 

Stephens goes on to say that Joe Biden's recent speech about "these extremist MAGA Republicans"—actually, his recent set of speeches—painted with too broad a brush. In Stephens' view, Biden "claimed to distinguish MAGA Republicans from mainstream ones and then proceeded to conflate them." 

Our own reaction to the president's speeches has been somewhat different from that. But we'd have to say that Stephens has a perfectly decent point in what he says in this column.

Stephens condemns Donald J. Trump as a deeply dangerous threat. He lists an array of other cadres who fit in the same category.

Needless to say, this wasn't enough! Let us quote again from Stephens column as we state our own long-standing point:

At times like these, "the 'mobocratic spirit' that Lincoln warned against in his first major address" tends to manifest itself on all sides, from all warring tribes and factions. 

In accord with that mobocratic spirit, all the Others must be denounced. To see that spirit seizing the soul of our own increasingly mobocratic blue tribe, you need only read through the many comments to Stephens' column.

Stephens is denounced, again and again, because he suggests that Biden's denunciations of the MAGA Republicans was too "capacious"—too broad. 

He didn't criticize everyone who isn't as brilliant and moral as We are. For that reason, by ancient logic, his column must be denounced.

An eternal impulse drives the vast bulk of these comments. The very first commenter of the day voices a (very rare) agreement with Stephens. For that reason, in line with ancient law, this sub-comment appears:

COMMENTER FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE (9/6/22): Most people in the U.S. disagree with you and Stephens. Trump lost and the continue$ attempts at fulminating autocracy will never work.  Best if you move to Hungary and let Orban think for you.

Most people disagree with you. So it would be best if you left!

America—Love it or leave it! Back in the street-fighting 1960s, this was frequently the voice of the angry, prowar right. 

Just like that, this ancient impulse is stated again, this time representing the voice of our own blue tribe.

We largely agree with Stephens' assessments of Biden's speeches. In his initial speeches about "the MAGA Republicans," we think he cast far too wide a net—and we think this was unwise.

We note that, as of this Monday afternoon, Biden had begun to change his rhetoric, putting the emphasis where we think it more wisely belongs—on "these extremist MAGA Republicans in Congress."

Tomorrow, we'll run you through that change in the president's language and tone. Incomparably, we'll charge no consultant's fee for the president's narrowed focus, which rather plainly came in reaction to our earlier posts.

That said, our reaction to Biden's first three speeches was somewhat different from Stephens'. Just this once, we're going to let you ask us about what we heard when Biden spoke, starting back in August.

We were troubled by what we heard on August 25, when the president made the first of his speeches about "these extremist MAGA Republicans." 

It was partly the words he spoke—but more than that, it was the tenor and tone, the sound of his address. We thought we heard the voice of an old catastrophe—a very familiar catastrophe, as experienced, not long ago, in catastrophized Rwanda.

What happened in that sacred land? For one thing, very rough language! Title included, here's the start  of Kennedy Ndahiro's recollection, for The Atlantic, of what happened in 1994 in his profoundly unfortunate land:

In Rwanda, We Know All About Dehumanizing Language

In Rwanda, we know what can happen when political leaders and media outlets single out certain groups of people as less than human.

Twenty-five years ago this month, all hell broke loose in my country, which is tucked away in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Hordes of members of the Hutu ethnic majority, armed with machetes, spears, nail-studded clubs, and other rudimentary weapons, moved house to house in villages, hunting for Tutsis, the second largest of Rwanda’s three ethnic groups. The radio station RTLM, allied with leaders of the government, had been inciting Hutus against the Tutsi minority, repeatedly describing the latter as inyenzi, or “cockroaches,” and as inzoka, or “snakes.” The station, unfortunately, had many listeners.

Within the past year, we'd once again watched Hotel Rwanda, the Oscar-nominated 2004 film. That film includes some of the audiotape of those radio broadcasts.

In those broadcasts, one group heard a group of deeply despised Others described as "cockroaches." 

What happened next is human history. And no—that isn't going to happen here, at least not in the same cultural trappings.

Also, President Biden didn't refer to "the extremist MAGA Republicans" as "cockroaches." Nor, we feel completely certain, would he ever do any such thing. 

Joe Biden would never do that. But behind his words, we heard a tone, and we flashed on Hotel Rwanda and on what happened there.

Back on August 25, President Biden didn't use such ugly language, nor would he ever do so. That said, we heard the tenor and tone of that familiar disastrous conduct in the remarks he offered that day. 

We thought his conduct was very unwise. We thought his conduct was dangerous.

The catastrophe which occurred in Rwanda is a very old catastrophe. That catastrophe has happened all over the world. It has happened right here in this country.

The impulse toward such behavior is bred quite deep in the bone. For that reason, very important public figures should stay away from the sorts of remarks which encourage such ancient reactions. 

Through his relentlessly ugly remarks, Donald J. Trump invites such catastrophes on a nearly daily basis. Decent people like President Biden should avoid such behavior, in part because human nature remains unchanged all over the world.

Love it or leave it, one commenter says in the New York Times. For what it's worth, the bulk of many such comments to Stephens' column strike us as highly recognizable in human terms, but also as highly unintelligent.

That said, this is the way we humans are wired to react at times like these. Such reactions have led to catastrophe all through history, and all around the world.

President Biden didn't call anyone a cockroach, and he never would. Having said that, let us also say this:

Last Sunday, the third caller to C-Span's Washington Journal offered the remarks shown below. In no way did Biden cause these remarks, but in no way have his recent speeches helped:

EDDIE FROM GEORGIA (9/4/22): You know what? When I woke up this morning and listened to C-Span, woke up and turned to C-Span and saw Donald Trump on there this morning with that, that, that KKK, KKK rally that he's [INDECIPHERABLE]—

He's a maggot. That's what it is to me! There's a bunch of maggots out there, standing out there, listening to him complaining and crying and talking about people...

To hear the full comment, just click here, then move ahead to the 11-minute mark. And yes, the caller was saying "maggots," presumably a play on "MAGA."

When he woke up this Sunday morning, this caller had seen "a bunch of maggots standing out there," listening to Donald J. Trump. We'd thought of Rwanda back in late August, but we thought of Rwanda again.

This Monday afternoon, Biden began to adjust his language. We won't be charging a consultant's fee, but we think his adjustment was (insufficient but) wise.

Tomorrow: Biden adjusts

We love to assail the "banning of books!"

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022

Times board member's complaint: We liberals!

We simply love the banning of books. Rather, we love to assail the banning of books, especially at times like these.

We're behind on time today. so we'll leave it right there for now. That said:

By clicking this link, you can see the short "contribution to The Discourse" which was granted a large display in print editions of today's New York Times.

(Online, it's hard to find. Most likely, that's why it's been tweeted.)

Alex Kingsbury is a member of the Times editorial board. We're sure he's a good, decent person. Tomorrow, we may be able to critique his short, high-profile contribution.

We liberals simply love these complaints. They help define the (imagined) culture of our tribe, though we'd say they aren't especially empathetic, helpful or smart.

What qualifies as the "banning of books?" Compare and contrast. Discuss.

Instant update:   In a totally different context, this was posted by Kevin Drum on this very day:

If you watch group interactions, it's clear that lots of people operate with no real understanding that other people have different ways of viewing the world. They aren't just being stubborn about recognizing "obvious" truths.

One of the things the MBTI does is devote some time to explaining (a) how different personality types are good at different things, and (b) how you should interact with different personality types...[T]he simple idea that you should acknowledge differences in people and act accordingly is fairly valuable.

 Compare and discuss. Contrast!

OTHERS: Who has Biden been talking about?

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022

The misleaders and the misled: Joe Biden began to deliver the message on Thursday, August 25.

That said, what exactly was the message? The messaging was extremely tough—but who was he talking about?

He spoke at a public event in Maryland. Here's part of what he said:

BIDEN (8/25/22): Look, I believe America is at a genuine inflection point that occurs every six or seven generations in world history—one of the moments—one of the moments that changes everything. And Americans are going have to choose. 

You must choose. Will be it—will we be a country that moves forward or backward?  Will we build a future or obsess over the past? Will we be a nation of unity, of hope, of optimism—not a nation of anger, violence, hatred, and division?

Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division.

Setting generational chronology to the side, we agree! We agree that the nation has reached a serious "inflection point"—an inflection point which may change a great many things moving forward. 

It was at this point that President Biden cast the blame for this state of affairs. He blamed "the extreme MAGA Republicans" for this dangerous state of affairs—but who was he talking about? 

According to Biden, these MAGA Republicans have made "the choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division." Depending on who he was talking about, we don't disagree with that—but as he continued, Biden made a fairly remarkable statement:

BIDEN (continuing directly): Well, here’s the deal. Here’s the deal: What’s happened is—what’s happened is there are no—there are not many real Republicans anymore.

By the way, your sitting governor [Larry Hogan]—he’s a Republican you can deal with.  We disagree—no, no, I’m serious!  But at least he’s within the mainstream of the Republican Party.

I respect conservative Republicans.  I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans.  

(Applause.)

"I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans," the president now said.  We don't exactly respect such people either—depending, of course, on who it is that Biden was talking about.

The president of the United States doesn't respect a group of Republicans—people who, the president said, are committed to hate and violence. Depending on who he was talking about, that would be a fairly remarkable thing for a sitting president to say.

As the president closed, he drove his point home. But he still hadn't made it entirely clear who he was talking about: 

BIDEN (continuing directly): I’ll close with this: We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history. The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace—embrace—political violence.  They don’t believe in democracy.

This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country— Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans—we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America.  

(Applause.)

The group of people of whom Biden spoke are "a threat to our very democracy." And yes, it gets even worse: 

In fact, the group of people of whom Biden spoke "are [committed] to destroying America!" Or so the American president said, producing  a round of applause.

At this point, we're prepared to admit it. When we watched these excerpts that night, we almost thought we heard echoes of human disasters from various points on the globe. These human disasters have occurred, with great regularity, all through the annals of time.

We'll make another admission. As we watched those excerpts that night, we thought the president's tone was ill-advised. Most of all, our reaction was this:

If a sitting president is going to make such striking remarks, he should go to great lengths to be very clear concerning who he's talking about. But in this speech, President Biden named only one name:

He named Donald J. Trump, two times—but he named no one else.

As we watched these excerpts that night, he thought we might be hearing echoes of human disasters from around the world. We'll name some locales before the week's done. For today, we'll quit with this:

We wondered who Biden was talking about as he painted this startling portrait of a world of Us Against Them. 

Who were the unnamed Others, the people he said we must stand to oppose? In particular, our question would be this:

Was he talking about Republican leadership cadres—the political and journalistic figures who have followed Donald J. Trump in producing waves of dis- and misinformation over the past seven years? 

Or was he talking about the Republican rank and file—the 74 million people who voted for Trump the last time out? The millions of people who, by and large, don't know that they're being misled by their tribe's leadership cadres.

We agree with most of what Biden said, depending on who he was talking about! But who was he talking about? During this address, and an earlier private event that day, he had named only one name—that of Donald J. Trump.

(At the earlier private event, Biden has used the term "semi-fascism" to describe "the entire philosophy that underpins" the conduct of this heinous group.)

Biden was using remarkable language as he urged us to go to war with these demonic Others—with the people who are "committed to destroying America."

Biden was using remarkable language. Depending on who he was talking about, we'd say he was basically right.

But if history has taught us anything, history has tried to teach us this. It actually does make a major difference who Joe Biden was talking about:

Who was the president talking about? The misleaders or the misled?

Tomorrow: Some things some Trump voters believe

OTHERS: A strikingly empty—and dangerous—speech!

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2022

The president's four-letter word: Over the weekend, we watched Joe Biden's speech.

He delivered the speech last Thursday night at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Two Marines, in dress uniform, stood on blood-red display behind him.

We thought that display was notably odd. Beyond that, we're not sure we've ever seen an emptier, more fatuous political speech. 

The speech struck us as remarkably empty. We regard that fact as deeply unfortunate, because the president made some important and accurate statements that night, including this early remark:

We must be honest with each other and with ourselves.  Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

That's true! A great deal of what is happening today is profoundly abnormal. In our view, vast amounts of that abnormal behavior—of those abnormal statements and beliefs—track back to the disordered behavior of former president Donald J. Trump.

We've long regarded Donald J. Trump as being profoundly disordered. In our view, a great deal of abnormal behavior and belief tracks back to the aggressive influence he has exercised over the past seven years. 

That said, we can't ignore President Biden's unfortunate speech. In our view, his speech was strongly given to a dangerous form of otherization. The process worked like this:

Biden defined a group of Others without taking care to explain exactly who he was talking about. He kept describing the views and ambitions of "MAGA Republicans"—but who did he mean by that?

Was he talking about Republican leadership cadres? Was he talking about the Republican rank and file? Biden made little attempt to define who he was talking about before denouncing such Others in passages like this:

BIDEN (9/1/22): MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.  They do not believe in the rule of law.  

They do not recognize the will of the people.  They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state, to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards—backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

Those are potent indictments. In our view, a person could easily justify such claims if he was talking about a wide array of Republican leadership cadres—if he was talking about many Republican office-holders, many Republican party officials, many Trump-aligned high-profile propagandists.

That said, who was Biden talking about? He made little attempt to explain who those "MAGA Republicans" actually are—and then, as he continued his assault, he repeatedly used one of our most dangerous four-letter words:

BIDEN (continuing directly): They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th—brutally attacking law enforcement—not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.

And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people.  This time, they are determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.

They they they they they they they, the president unwisely said.

The president listed many things "They" are determined to do. Dangerously, he hadn't made a significant effort to be clear about who these demonized evil-doers actually are.

He was willing to name only one name—that of Donald J. Trump. Aside from that, the target of his sweeping indictment was left almost wholly unclear.

"They" is an extremely dangerous four-letter word. (It's right up there with "You people.") It has been a dangerous word all through the sweep of human history.

"They" is a dangerous word! It leads directly to "Us and Them," then onward to the tribal warfare which has driven the bulk of our human history. 

Biden made a cursory attempt to define his target, then plowed roughly ahead. In our view, he was feeding the "Us Against Them" impulse. 

That impulse is deeply bred in the bone. It has proven deadly, again and again, all over the face of the globe.

We thought Biden's speech was poorly articulated, and therefore deeply unwise. That said, also this:

This Sunday morning, roughly similar thinking was remarkably widespread from callers to C-Span's Washington Journal. We refer to sweeping claims which were made by callers on the Democratic line. 

Callers were asked to explain what a "MAGA Republican" is. Below, you see part of the penultimate call during the 7 A.M. hour:

PATRICIA FROM GEORGIA (9/4/22): You know, you—you're the same people that were leaving church with Bible in your hands and going to the square and lynching black folks. You are the same people that hung pregnant women—hung pregnant women, cut their baby out of the womb—

C-SPAN MODERATOR: Wait! You're applying that to all Republicans?

PATRICIA FROM GEORGIA: Yes, sir. 

C-SPAN: How so?

PATRICIA FROM GEORGIA: Let me tell you why...

Patricia from Georgia went on to explain You can hear her entire call by clicking this link, then moving ahead to the 57-minute mark.

Calls like that were remarkably widespread on Sunday morning's Washington Journal, from the first phone call on. The otherization was general, even more aggressively than had been the case in Biden's poorly articulated speech.

As a general matter, Biden's speech struck us as remarkably empty. Beyond that, we thought he kept using a very dangerous word.

We'll discuss that speech, and those phone calls to C-Span, all through the course of the week. For today, we'll quit on this point:

"They" is a dangerous four-letter word! We thought President Biden was careless—unhelpful—in its use when he spoke, as part of a blood-red display, from what he described as "sacred ground" in Philly last Thursday night.

Tomorrow: To whom did he refer?

How many documents have been recovered?

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2022

Specifics to date are now in: Every once in a while, it makes sense to get clear on a few basic facts.

With new information released yesterday, it's now possible to say exactly how many classified documents have been recovered from Mar-a-Lago. That includes the specific number of classified documents which were marked "Top Secret."

For the record, such documents were recovered on three separate occasions during this calendar year:

January: In January, Trump's associates returned a large amount of material to the National Archives. Twenty-five documents marked Top Secret were included in those materials.

June: On June 3, Trump's associates returned an additional set of documents to officials from the Justice Department. Seventeen of those documents were marked Top Secret

August: On August 8, FBI agents recovered 103 additional classified documents during a court-authorized search.  

Yesterday, specific numbers became available concerning the fruits of that August 8 search. On that day, the FBI recovered 103 classified documents—18 marked Top Secret, 54 marked Secret and 31 marked Confidential.

This lets us report the number of classified documents which have been recovered to date:

Recovered from Mar-a-Lago to date:
Classified documents marked Top Secret: 60
Classified documents marked Secret: 162
Classified documents marked Confidential: 103

In a word, sixty (60) documents marked Top Secret have been recovered to date. According to the available data, 325 classified documents have been recovered in all.

We now restate an important point:

That's just the number of classified documents which have been recovered. There's no way to know if other such documents were taken by Trump and may still be retained, at Mar-a-Lago or elsewhere.

Also this:

There's no way to know if other such documents have been transferred to other parties. There's no way to know if copies of some or all of these documents have been made at some point.

(In fairness: There's no way to know if these documents were taken for some nefarious purpose, or if their presence at Mar-a-Lago was simply a marker of Donald J. Trump's massive, endemic disorder. Weirdly, the presence of so much lower-level classified material could be seen to cut in Trump's favor.)

Most of the data to which we've referred are included in this DOJ document. (On Wednesday, we linked you to the wrong document. That link has been corrected.) Specifics about the August 8 search became available yesterday, as reported in today's New York Times.

At any rate, those are the basic numbers to date, though only for the classified documents which have been recovered. Once in a while, it doesn't hurt to create a record of such basic facts.

For the record: For the record, 325 is the largest of those numbers. Based upon common understanding, 60 is the number which should cause the most concern.

(Again: Concerning the total number of classified documents taken, that number remains unknown!)

President Biden, pursuing The Other!

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

The Misleaders and the Misled: Why would former president Donald J. Trump have done the things he did?

Assuming he did so knowingly, why would he have taken those top-secret documents to Mar-a-Lago in the first place? Also, egregiously, this:

Following repeated requests to return the documents, why would he have evaded compliance in the ways he apparently did?

It seems to us that there's one obvious answer to such questions. President Trump has long struck us as severely disordered. He's strongly inclined to display his contempt for everyone, and for every thing, other than himself.

He'll do so in every circumstance. He'll do so every time.

This strikes us as a psychiatric / medical condition. But our high-end journalists have refused, right up to the present day, to discuss his endless behavior in such terms.

Our journalists are shocked anew every time. In this way, they refuse to traffic in basic components of twentieth century science.

Then too, there's President Biden, with his heated attacks on the "MAGA Republicans." We haven't yet studied last night's speech, but excerpts from two recent speeches have us thinking this:

A savvy person should always distinguish the misleaders from the misled. A decent person will criticize the former group, but will maintain the "bonds of affection" with friends and neighbors and fellow citizens who have been misled.

Our blue tribe is often misled too. They hear about this on the other tribe's cable channel. We don't hear about it on ours.

Distinguish misleaders from the misled! Do so every time you speak. Do so before you say anything else.

The rest is basically Otherization, and it's a dangerous game.

(Bill Clinton: We don't have a single person to waste. Barack Obama: We worship God in the blue states, and they coach Little League in the red states.)

Predicting Trump: Bob Dylan predicted Trump in 1967. 

He recommended pity for such a failed being. While trying to stop him from doing harm, that would be our advice too:

I pity the poor immigrant
Who wishes he would've stayed home
Who uses all his power to do evil
But in the end is always left so alone.
That man who with his fingers cheats
Who lies with every breath
Who passionately hates his life
And likewise fears his death.

(Who eats but is not satisfied, who hears but does not see.
Who falls in love with wealth itself and turns his back on thee.)

(Who fills his mouth with laughing, but builds his town with blood.)

For the record, "poor immigrant" was metaphorical. Dylan sings it here.

EXPLANATION: Putting the "meta" back in physics!

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

Where does the number 2 live? Professor Goldstein encountered a collection of words—a collection which made "the mind crash."

What collection of words could possess such power? As we noted yesterday, the collection of words was this:

"This very sentence is false."

This very sentence is false! We feel safe in telling you that no one has said that to you, not even once, in the normal course of daily activity. No one has ever said any such thing, no matter how long you've lived!

This very sentence is false! To borrow from Wittgenstein, it's the sort of thing a person will say "only when doing philosophy." 

That doesn't necessarily mean that something is "wrong" with this ancient collection of words. But just to refresh your recollection, here's the way Professor Goldstein discussed that collection of words in her ecstatically-blurbed 2005 book, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel:

GOLDSTEIN (pages 49-50): Paradoxes, in the technical sense, are those catastrophes of reason whereby the mind is compelled by logic itself to draw contradictory conclusions. Many are of the self-referential variety; troubles arise because some linguistic term—a description, a sentence—potentially refers to itself. The most ancient of these paradoxes is known as the "liar's paradox," its lineage going back to the ancient Greeks. It is centered on the self-referential sentence: "This very sentence is false." This sentence must be, like all sentences, either true or false. But if it is true, then it is false, since that is what it says; and if it false, well then, it is true, since, again, that is what it says. It must, therefore, be both true and false, and that is a severe problem. The mind crashes. 

Paradoxes like the liar's play a technical role in the proof that Godel devised for his extraordinary first completeness theorem...

According to Professor Goldstein, that collection of words—This very sentence is false—produces "a catastrophe of reason." 

"The mind crashes" in the face of that catastrophic collection of words. "A severe problem" has arisen—and not only that:

According to Professor Goldstein (and many others), "the greatest logician since Aristotle" built his famous incompleteness theorem(s) out of catastrophic material like The Liar's Paradox. Such puzzlements "play a technical role in the proof that Gödel devised for his extraordinary first completeness theorem."

Given the silliness involved in the power she (and others) attribute to that silly collection of words, this leads us to wonder about the ultimate cogency of Gödel's famous work itself. 

That said, we don't have to investigate Gödel's (broadly inexplicable) work to see the foolishness involved in Goldstein's claim about that collection of words. 

As we noted yesterday, The Liar's Paradox functions at the approximate level of an amusing but silly card trick. It's astounding to think that the mind of a major intellectual would crash in the face of the silliness involved in this ancient carnival act.

That said, Professor Goldstein is a major public intellectual, and the book in which her mind proceeded to crash was published in 2005. Nor is there anything new about this:

At the highest levels, our public intellectuals—in this case, our ranking philosophy professors—have been engaged in this sort of foolishness since the dawn of time.

Alfred North Whitehead issued the famous statement all the way back in 1929. “The European philosophical tradition...consists of a series of footnotes to Plato," he said.

Arguably, Whitehead was describing a problem. Plato lived at the very dawn of the west. In the end, very few things he ever said ended up making actual sense.

Thousands of years have passed since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle—denizens of a tiny Athenian state—began the task of trying to figure the universe out.

A handful of people lived in the Athens of their time; these were three of the brightest. Inevitably, they got a million things wrong, but Professor Goldstein correctly described the state of play which persists to this very day.

Gödel was a Platonist, Goldstein correctly (though fuzzily) wrote:

GOLDSTEIN (page 44): Gödel's commitment to the objective existence of mathematical reality is the view known as conceptual, or mathematical realism. It is also known as mathematical Platonism, in honor of the ancient Greek philosopher...

Platonism is the view that the truths of mathematics are independent of any human activities, such as the construction of formal systems—with their axioms, definitions, rules of inference and proofs. The truths of mathematics are determined, according to Platonism, by the reality of mathematics, by the nature of the real, though abstract entities (numbers, sets, etc.) that make up that reality.

Strange but true! Major intellectual figures—people like Gödel—advocate something called "mathematical Platonism" to this very day. 

It isn't Professor Goldstein's fault that she has a hard time explaining or describing this alleged school of thought. It is her fault that she doesn't come out and call attention to the general incoherence surrounding this alleged "view."

Note the giant fuzziness which prevails even as Goldstein sets out. According to Goldstein, Platonism is the view that "the truths of mathematics" are determined by "the reality of mathematics."

Beyond that, "the truths of mathematics" are determined by "the nature of numbers." The truths of mathematics are determined by the nature of numbers, which are "abstract entities" but are also "real."

According to the Platonists, the truths of mathematics are determined by the reality of mathematics! A skeptical figure might venture this thought:

Intellectual giants can hardly go wrong while espousing such foofaw as that!

Through no direct fault of her own, Goldstein is already knee-deep in nonsense as she starts attempting to describe this alleged school of thought. As she continues, things may get even worse.

Rather quickly, she's quoting a famous passage from an eminent British mathematician, G. H. Hardy (1877-1947). 

As Goldstein notes, Hardy "expressed his own Platonist convictions" in a classic 1940 essay, A Mathematician's Apology. On page 46 of her book, Goldstein quotes Hardy offering such thoughts as these:

I believe that mathematical reality lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it...317 is a prime, not because we think so, or because our minds are shaped in one way or another, but because it is so, because mathematical reality is built that way.

"Mathematical reality lies outside of us?" Mathematical reality is "built a certain way?" 

Statements like these may conjure images of some sort, but do we feel sure that we know what such statements actually mean?

Meanwhile, why is 317 a prime? Stating the blindingly obvious, the number 317 is a prime for two obvious reasons, pretty much full stop:

The number 317 is a prime because it can't be divided evenly by some other number, and because that's the definition of a prime! 

Because there's nothing mysterious about any of this, it's hard to know why mathematicians and physicists  are often inclined to wander further afield, introducing peculiar imagery about where this "mathematical reality" lies.

That said, our greatest mathematicians and physicists will often wander into such lands when they venture across the boundaries which define the academic fields in which they plainly excel. Here's science writer John Holt, trying to describe what Gödel , as a very young man, would have said he believed about this:

HOLT: Gödel entered the University of Vienna in 1924. He had intended to study physics, but he was soon seduced by the beauties of mathematics, and especially by the notion that abstractions like numbers and circles had a perfect, timeless existence independent of the human mind. This doctrine, which is called Platonism, because it descends from Plato’s theory of ideas, has always been popular among mathematicians...

In Holt's rendering, Gödel believed that numbers and circles enjoy "a perfect, timeless existence independent of the human mind." 

It's hard to know what that might mean, and we can always imagine that Holt is simply mischaracterizing what Gödel really believed. But mathematicians have long been drawn to such peculiar formulations, and it's a very short walk from there to mocking questions like these:

Where does the number 2 live? Do the circles live next door?

This morning's presentation started with a simple question. Given the fact that The Liar's Paradox is little more than a carnival trick, how is it possible that similar "paradoxes" could have played a key role in Gödel's famous theorems?

Also this:

Given the fact that The Liar's Paradox is little more than a carnival trick, how can it be that a major public intellectual was describing it, in 2005, as "a catastrophe of reason" which makes "the mind crash?" 

By any normal measure, Rebecca Goldstein is very bright. How can it be that she was describing The Liar's Paradox that way in a book which was praised for its lucidity by such major figures as Stephen Pinker, Alan Lightman and Brian Greene? So our question goes.

Alas! The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we humans have always been drawn to remarkably fuzzy thinking, even at the very highest academic levels. When even our most brilliant mathematicians put their slide rules down, it often turns out that they're inclined to walk this way.

Some such thinking will turn out to be "mystical;" some might be thought of as "metaphysical." But this fuzzy thinking has never left us, dating to the years when the breezes off the Aegean cooled the originators of the European philosophical tradition.

The later Wittgenstein explored the fuzzy thinking which has infested high-end academic work since the dawn of time. Eventually, we'll try to summarize his account of the way "linguistic illusions" lead on to "muddled thinking."

(We're borrowing from Professor Horwich.)

It may seem strange to think that major public intellectuals could engage in the kind of work found in Goldstein's account of The Liar's Paradox, but Wittgenstein explored the ways such jumbled thinking persists.

As Wittgenstein sensed (but struggled to explain), bungled thinking is deeply bred in the bone of our species. Pulling one comment by Wittgenstein out of its immediate context, bad explanation at the highest levels is "as much a part of our natural history as walking, eating, drinking, playing." 

Indeed, obvious errors made at the top can go unnoticed for hundreds of years! Next week, we'll illustrate this surprising point with a chapter from Einstein himself—with a chapter in which one of history's greatest intellectual tried attempts to explain a basic part of his own work.

His explanation didn't make sense. More than a hundred years have passed. To this day, no one has noticed.

Next week: Einstein explains

EXPLANATION: What was Gödel talking about?

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2022

Top scholars, strange explanations: "Love is strange," Mickey & Sylvia said.

(To hear them say it, click here.)

At the highest academic levels, explanations can be very strange. We think of Rebecca Goldstein's 2005 book about Kurt Gödel, the Austrian "logician and mathematician" who is widely described as "the greatest logician since Aristotle."

Gödel composed his "incompleteness theorem" (or theorems) in 1931, when he was just 25. But what was Gödel talking about in those famous theorems?

Goldstein's book—Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel—was an attempt to answer that question for non-specialists.

Goldstein, of course, is no slouch. She's a high-ranking philosophy professor and a well-regarded novelist. Her book was festooned with blurbs from high-level public intellectuals, praising her ability to make Gödel's work accessible for general readers.

For ourselves, we don't have the slightest idea what Gödel was talking about. Beyond that, we lack confidence in the belief that Gödel's famous theorems even make elementary sense. 

You may think that any such thought is insane. Our response would go something like this:

Who's being naïve now, Kay?

Our concern begins with the following paragraph from Goldstein's book. It's part of a passage in which Professor Goldstein starts to describe or explain  Gödel's theorem.

Goldstein links Gödel's theorem to an ancient paradox. Her presentation starts like this 

GOLDSTEIN (pages 49-50): Paradoxes, in the technical sense, are those catastrophes of reason whereby the mind is compelled by logic itself to draw contradictory conclusions. Many are of the self-referential variety; troubles arise because some linguistic term—a description, a sentence—potentially refers to itself. The most ancient of these paradoxes is known as the "liar's paradox," its lineage going back to the ancient Greeks. It is centered on the self-referential sentence: "This very sentence is false." This sentence must be, like all sentences, either true or false. But if it is true, then it is false, since that is what it says; and if it false, well then, it is true, since, again, that is what it says. It must, therefore, be both true and false, and that is a severe problem. The mind crashes. 

We rank that as the most interesting paragraph of the current century. We say that because Professor Goldstein plainly isn't some shlub. She's a high-ranking philosophy professor whose work is praised, all over the dust jacket, for its sheer lucidity.

Her presentation comes from the highest ends of the academic world. Also, it makes no sense. Let's run through this nonsense again:

In that presentation, Goldstein refers to an "ancient paradox" widely known as The Liar's Paradox. In reality, this ancient "paradox" operates on the level of a silly carnival sideshow. But as we see, Goldstein will go on to link The Liar's Paradox to  Gödel's great theorem.

Why would we compare this "paradox" to a silly card trick? Let's run through it again:

In Goldstein's accurate presentation, The Liar's Paradox centers on this (allegedly) confounding collection of words:

"This very sentence is false."

If that sentence is true, then it's false, Goldstein says. But if it's false, that means that it's true!

In the face of this "catastrophe of reason," Goldstein says "the mind crashes." Sadly, attempts at explanation can be strange, even at the highest levels of academic authority.

What makes this card trick so silly? Let's get clear about the factor which makes the collection of words in question seem so confounding, so strange. In doing so, we'll employ the type of (rather simple-minded) analysis the later Wittgenstein would have employed, along with some of his language.

This very sentence is false! On the surface—in what we might call its "surface grammar"—that collection of words seems to resemble such familiar statements as these:

Rudy Giuliani's statement about the Dominion voting machines is false. 

The very first sentence in John Smith's new book is demonstrably false! 

What you just said is absurd, bogus, ludicrous—false. 

"Barack Obama was born in Kenya?" We're sorry, but that's plainly false.

Such statements are wholly recognizable parts of everyday public discourse. Please note:

In each instance, someone has already made a statement. Then, a second party comes along and says that this statement is false.

In the slightly twee language of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, this is a very familiar type of "language game." The "language game" goes like this: 

A familiar type of occurrence: 
Person A makes a statement (Statement A). Then, Person B comes along and, in a second statement (Statement B), he says Statement A is false. 

This sort of thing happens all the time. Everyone is familiar with this sort of exchange.

Continuing, please notice this:

On the surface, the collection of words which makes Goldstein's mind crash seems to resemble the statements we've posted. On the surface, it looks like someone is declaring some statement to be false.

But in the case which makes Goldstein's mind crash, there is no pre-existing statement! No one has actually made a statement—a statement which can then be challenged! And, until someone has actually made a statement, there is no way to declare a statement false.

In the circumstance which makes Goldstein's mind crash, there is no pre-existing statement to be declared false! It's a bit like conducting a boxing match in the absence of an opponent.

The Liar's Paradox has been around forever. It does indeed date to antiquity. It has confounded college freshmen since the dawn of time.

Also, it operates on the level of a silly card trick. It's astonishing to think that a major philosophy professor in the post-Wittgenstein 21st century could think that it represents a "catastrophe of reason"—could suggest that such silly-bill nonsense can and does make "the mind crash."

Left on its own, the paragraph we've posted above represents an indictment of Professor Goldstein on the occasional bad day. That said, the paragraph can't be left on its own. In the book which scholars praise for its lucidity, Goldstein continues as shown:

GOLDSTEIN (pages 49-50): Paradoxes, in the technical sense, are those catastrophes of reason whereby the mind is compelled by logic itself to draw contradictory conclusions. Many are of the self-referential variety; troubles arise because some linguistic term—a description, a sentence—potentially refers to itself. The most ancient of these paradoxes is known as the "liar's paradox," its lineage going back to the ancient Greeks. It is centered on the self-referential sentence: "This very sentence is false." This sentence must be, like all sentences, either true or false. But if it is true, then it is false, since that is what it says; and if it false, well then, it is true, since, again, that is what it says. It must, therefore, be both true and false, and that is a severe problem. The mind crashes. 

Paradoxes like the liar's play a technical role in the proof that Gödel  devised for his extraordinary first completeness theorem. Gödel was able to take the structure of self-referential paradoxicality, the sort of structure that causes our minds to crash when considering "This very sentence is false"—and turn it into an extraordinary proof for one of the most surprising results in the history of mathematics... Gödel  was able to twist the intelligence-mortifying material into a proof that leads us to deep insights into the nature of truth and knowledge and certainty.

Really? Gödel was able to take the foolishness of The Liar's Paradox and "twist [it] into a proof that leads us to deep insights into the nature of truth and knowledge and certainty?"

On its face, this notion seems absurd. That said, scholars who try to explain Gödel's theorem routinely cite The Liar's Paradox as they stumble about, attempting to make his work accessible to the general reader.

Here, for example, is Professor Douglas Hofstadter. This passage appears early in his endless, Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Elegant Golden Braid (1979):

HOFSTADTER (page 17): In its absolutely barest form, Gödel's discovery involves the translation of an ancient paradox in philosophy into mathematical terms. That paradox is the so-called Epimenides paradox, or liar paradox. Epimenides was a Cretan who made one immortal statement: "All Cretans are liars." A sharper version of the statement is simply "I am lying" or, "This statement is false."...It is a statement which rudely violates the usually assumed dichotomy of statements into true and false, because if you tentatively think it is true, then it immediately backfires on you and makes you think it is false. But once you've decided it is false, a similar backfiring returns you to the idea that it must be true. Try it! 

"Try it!" Hofstadter says. This is precisely the sort of manifest dumbness which animates that interesting paragraph from Goldstein's later book.

The dust jacket of Goldstein's book is festooned with blurbs in which major public intellectuals praise her brilliance and her lucidity. (Brian Greene is one such advocate.) Within the book, the reader will find manifest foolishness of the type we've described.

Along the way, the reader is told that the greatest logician since Aristotle built his great pair of theorems out of the kind of foolishness involved in The Liar's Paradox. At this point, the mind should crash—or should at least consider doing same.

What did Gödel actually say, discover, demonstrate, find? Like you, we have no idea. We've never seen an account of his work, including Goldstein's, which make his theorems accessible to general readers. Based on decades of brutal experience, this leaves us wondering about a possible "catastrophe of reason" in which the greatest logician since Aristotle was offering incoherent work.

As a sensible person, the reader will be inclined to think that no such thing could be possible. The reader will assume that our highest intellectual authorities couldn't possibly be singing the praises of work which, in the end, simply doesn't make sense.

The later Wittgenstein had a standard retort to any such sense of assurance. His retort would have gone something like this: 

Who's being naïve now, Kay?

Wittgenstein said that much of our highest-order academic work is built upon the type of "bewitchments of language" (Professor Horwich: the "linguistic illusions") found in that ridiculous passage from Professor Goldstein's book. 

If you find it hard to believe that our highest academic authorities could have functioned that way down through the ages, we'll invite you to come back tomorrow. We'll be probing this embarrassing question:

Where does the number 2 live? 

Love is strange, Mickey & Sylvia said. Wittgenstein noticed how strange it can get when our top academics start offering explanations of the way the world works.

Tomorrow: Where does the number 2 live?

Next week: Einstein himself explains

How many documents have been recovered?

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2022

The best numbers we can offer at this point in time: During or after Donald Trump's presidency, a large number of documents marked as classified found their way to Mar-a-Lago.

During the course of the current year, a large number of such documents have been removed from Mar-a-Lago—first in January, then on June 3, then in the FBI search conducted on August 8.

By this time, how many such documents have been recovered? Also, how many of those documents were marked as "Top Secret?"

At the higher ends of our journalism, statistics can seem to be boring, and statistics can be very hard. 

For that reason, we're going to report the total number of such documents which have been recovered to date, according to official filings by the Justice Department.  Also, we're going to list the number of such documents which were marked "Top Secret."

One bit of confusion is already infesting the way some journalists are describing this matter. Below, we'll offer the dope on that too.

How many such documents have been recovered in all?

How many documents marked as classified have been recovered from Mar-a-Lago? Here are the best numbers available at the present time, according to this newly released DOJ document: 

Recovered in January: 184 such documents (DOJ document, page 7)

Recovered on June 3: 38 such documents (DOJ document, page 10)

Recovered on August 8: "Over one hundred unique documents" (DOJ document, page 12)

For whatever reason, the newly-released document isn't specific about the number of classified documents recovered on August 8. That said:

Given what we know at present, at least 323 documents with classified markings—and some unknown additional number—have been recovered to date.

How many documents marked Top Secret have been recovered?

How many documents marked Top Secret have been recovered from Mar-a-Lago? Here are the best numbers available at the present time:

Recovered in January: 25 such documents (DOJ document, page 7)

Recovered on June 3: 17 more such documents (DOJ document, page 10)

Recovered on August 8: The newly released DOJ document doesn't give a specific number. It merely says that some unstated number of such documents were recovered that day.

Earlier reporting said that five "sets" of such documents were recovered on August 8. Best estimate at present:

At least 44 such documents have been recovered, though the number may well be closer to 60. For whatever reason, the precise number still seems to be unknown.

A point of instant confusion: 

On page 12 of the newly-released DOJ document the Justice Department says this about the August 8 search:

During the August 8 search, investigators found "over one hundred unique documents with classified markings—that is, more than twice the amount produced on June 3, 2022, in response to the grand jury subpoena."

We've already seen some journalists report this presentation in ways which are misleading, confusing or jumbled. In fairness, it's hard to report such matters on the fly.

Here's what is and isn't said in the newly-released document:

On August 8, the FBI found more than twice as many documents as were handed over by Trump's lawyers on June 3. The FBI did not find more than twice as many documents as had been handed over in January and June combined.

A few last apparent points:

None of this means that there aren't additional classified documents somewhere at Mar-a-Lago. None of this means that additional classified documents aren't present at other of Donald Trump's residences.

Beyond that, is it possible that other classified documents have been given or sold to other parties? As far as we know, that has to be rated as possible. Also this:

Presumably, any of these documents could have been Xeroxed. 

The National Archives has recovered well over 300 documents with classified markings. At least 44 were marked Top Secret, though the number may well be substantially higher than that. 

Copies of those documents could of course exist. As far as we know, there's no way at the present time that any such thing can be known.

EXPLANATION: The Liar's Paradox and Kurt Godel!

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2022

Our discussion resumes tomorrow: Last week, a trip off-campus let us revisit a life-long favorite topic.

We revisited a favorite question. We pondered the various ways explanation can go (badly) wrong, even at the very highest academic levels.

During our trip, we revisited one of our favorite recent passages. We refer to the passage in which readers are told that, if you're driving your car on a highway, the trees along the side of the highway will "appear to be moving."

Historically, peculiar formulations of that type have led on to questions like these:

Is there such a thing as empty space?
Is there a difference between space and matter?
How many angels can dance...?

See yesterday morning's report.

As the later Wittgenstein tried to explain, with little success, such peculiar formulations have dogged the history of high-end academic philosophy. Tomorrow, we'll return to our favorite formulation of the current century—Professor Goldstein's formulation concerning "The Liar's Paradox" and its connection to the work of "the greatest logician since Aristotle."

These peculiar formulations are part of the natural history of our species. Tomorrow, we'll continue our discussion—our discussion of the way explanations can go very bad, and have always gone very bad, at the very highest levels of academic discourse.

(Were college freshmen right all along? We'll let others decide.)

We're postponing that discussion for one day due to last night's revelations concerning Donald J. Trump. Later today, we'll post the new numbers which have emerged about the number of documents taken—and we'll comment again on the branch of twentieth-century science our journalists refuse to discuss.

Explanation has always gone bad, even at the very highest levels of discourse. Borrowing from Wittgenstein, bad explanation at the highest levels is "as much a part of our natural history as walking, eating, drinking, playing."

Wittgenstein was hopelessly jumbled too. Here on this leafy, student-free campus, we're working to straighten things out.

Later today: The number of documents taken

Tomorrow: Top paragraph of the current century

Friday: Where does the number 2 live?

How many documents did Donald Trump take?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2022

Scarborough defines total down: How many top-secret documents did Donald J. Trump take to Mar-a-Lago?

In the end, the precise number may not matter all that much. Within our failing information systems, almost nothing does. 

But as we watched the first few minutes of Monday's Morning Joe, we saw Joe Scarborough seeming to define the number down. Here's part of what he said:

SCARBOROUGH (8/29/22): You look at what we're talking about here. As Mika said, 184 classified markings on documents.

Twenty-five documents marked "Top Secret"—25! Sixty-seven marked "Confidential." Ninety-two marked "Secret."

And yet, there always seems to be this process of defining deviancy down for Donald Trump, regardless of whether it's his dealings in the 2016 campaign with Russia, dealings that—actually, a Republican committee said it caused grave counterintelligence risks. Or whether you take these documents—

You know, there are a lot of Republican senators and members of Congress—I know this as a former member of Congress that, if we had mishandled documents, if we'd taken one document, one top-secret document, let alone 25, or ten documents with classified markings, the FBI would be at our house the next day. 

And all of these senators and all of these members of Congress who are suggesting, or newspaper editorialists who are suggesting it is much ado about nothing, they'd all be in jail. They would all be in jail.

That was Joe Scarborough, four minutes into Monday's program. From his remarks, a viewer would have thought that Donald J. Trump had taken 25 top-secret documents with him to Mar-a-Lago.

(To see a similar oration from yesterday's show, you should click here, then move ahead to the 3-minute mark. We believe this oration came at the start of the 7 A.M. hour.)

Almost surely, the specific number of top-secret documents doesn't really matter. Within our rapidly failing systems, almost nothing does.

That said, what is the actual number? Did Donald J. Trump take twenty-five (25) top-secret documents to Mar-a-Lago? 

That's what Scarborough seemed to be saying. In fact, the actual number of top-secret documents seems to be substantially larger than that. 

Scarborough was taking his numbers from the Justice Department affidavit which was released last Friday. But that affidavit only listed the numbers of classified documents which were returned to the National Archives in January 2022. 

According to widely accepted reporting, some additional number of top-secret documents were handed over to Justice Department officials in a subsequent personal meeting on June 3, 2022. 

Beyond that, five "sets" of top-secret documents were recovered in the search of Mar-a-Lago earlier this month. (As far as we know, the total number of top-secret documents in those five sets has never been revealed.)

In short, the total number of top-secret documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago seems to be well more than 25. But Joe and Mika never noted this basic fact as they took text off the teleprompter following what may have been a long, lazy summer weekend.

Over the weekend, we saw many broadcasters who seemed to present the numbers from the DOJ affidavit as it they represented the total number of classified documents in question. We'd seen this done so many times that we were especially struck when we saw Scarborough seem to do it, even as he savaged Trump.

Again, the numbers Scarborough listed were just the numbers from the first batch of recovered materials. Two more tranches of classified documents have been recovered from Mar-a-Lago—first in June, then in August—as this past year has dragged by.

How many top-secret documents did Trump really take? As far as we know, an accurate number isn't available yet—but the number isn't 25. Plainly, the total number is larger than that. Journalists should know enough to articulate that basic fact.

As you can see from the text above, Scarborough complained about the way various people "define deviancy down" when it comes to Trump. He himself was "defining documents down" as he lazily worked from the copy which had appeared on his prompter.

How many top-secret documents did Trump take to Mar-a-Lago? The number seems to be substantially larger than 25, unless you're watching the highest end of American journalism at work. 

Storyline is easy and fun. But as we've noted in the past, statistics can be very hard.

EXPLANATION: "Is there such a thing as empty space?"

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2022

Wittgenstein ignored: Explanations, or attempts at same, can go sideways fast.

This remains true at the very top of the academic pile. Consider an early passage in Brian Greene's 2004 book, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality.

(In 2011, the book was turned into a four-part PBS series.)

As of 2004, anyone with an ounce of "philosophical" training might have shifted uncomfortably in her seat as she considered the title of Greene's book. The notion that Greene was planning to discuss as amorphous a concept as "the texture of reality" should perhaps have set red warning lights flashing.

Greene is a highly-regarded physicist. Without any question, Brian Greene knows a ton—a major boatload—of physics and math.

That said, physicists and mathematicians can go badly wrong when they wander outside the boundaries defined by their areas of expertise. And so it goes, it seems to us, early in Greene's highly-regarded book, when he starts a section he puckishly calls "Space Jam" with this muddle-adjacent passage:

GREENE (page 29): Einstein once said that if someone uses words like "red," "hard," or "disappointed," we all basically know what is meant. But as for the word "space," whose relation with psychological experience is less direct, there exists a far-reaching uncertainty of interpretation. This uncertainty reaches far back: the struggle to come to terms with the meaning of space is an ancient one. Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and many of their followers through the ages wrestled in one way or another with the meaning of "space." Is there a difference between space and matter? Does space have an existence independent of the presence of material objects? Is there such a thing as empty space? Are space and matter mutually exclusive? Is space finite or infinite?

"Is there such a thing as empty space?" So begins several pages of muddle-adjacent material. 

 In fairness, Greene is mainly speaking, at this point, about various questions which were posed by (very) ancient "philosophers." That said, Greene—he's an extremely learned physicist—is quickly introducing linguistic and conceptual muddles pretty much of his own.

What does Greene tell us as he starts? Paraphrasing something Einstein is said to have said, he sets out to discuss "the relation with psychological experience" of "the word 'space.' "

According to Greene, that word's "relation with psychological experience" is "less direct" than the  "relation with psychological experience" of such words as "red" and "hard." 

Already, the formulation is rather murky, but the obedient reader will likely decide to read on. 

Greene, after all, is a major public intellectual and a high-ranking theoretical physicist. Respect for intellectual authority may lead readers to assume that Greene won't already, on page 29, leading us far away from Clarity Road and onto uncharted ground.

Alas! The serious reader shouldn't make such assumptions. When they start explaining or musing about their work, our mathematicians and physicists are quite often, and sometimes quite quickly, perhaps in over their heads.

All too often, they'll offer the kinds of muddled musings the later Wittgenstein tried to diagnose. In the case of this early passage in Greene's book, the reader is soon asked to fight his way through this:

GREENE (page 30): Such philosophical and religious musings on space can be compelling and provocative; yet, as in Einstein's cautionary remark above, they lack critical sharpness of description. But there is a fundamental and precisely framed question that emerges from such discourse: should we ascribe an independent reality to space, as we do for other, more ordinary material objects like the book you are now holding, or should we think of space as merely a language for describing relationships between ordinary material objects? 

The great German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, who was Newton's contemporary, firmly believed that space does not exist in any conventional sense. Talk of space, he claimed, is nothing more than an easy and convenient way of encoding where things are relative to one another. Without the objects in space, Leibniz declared, space itself has no independent meaning of existence...

Let's be perfectly clear. Leibniz believed that space does exist; it's just that it doesn't exist "in any conventional sense!" 

That's what Leibniz is said to have believed. As for Greene himself, he regards the following as "a precisely framed question:"

Should we ascribe an independent reality to space? Or should we think of space as merely a language for describing relationships between ordinary material objects? 

If that is our idea of precision, is it possible that, as of page 30, we've already wandered off the road into a world of hurt?

Full disclosure! Down through the ages, college freshmen had always suspected that much of what passed for academic philosophy was a big barrel of incomprehensible nonsense.  In the middle of the last century, along came the later Wittgenstein, perhaps and possibly seeming to say that those skeptical college freshmen had actually been right all along! 

Is there such a thing as empty space? The inquiring minds of the great philosophers had always wanted to know!

Also, does "space" exist? According to Leibniz, yes, it does—but not in any conventional sense!

Confronted with material like this, courteous readers continue along, convinced that they're in good hands. At this site, we'd ask this question:

Brian Greene knows tons of physics—but is it possible that, in ancillary "philosophical" discussions, he (along with many others) may be in over his head?

In several surveys of philosophy professors, Wittgenstein has been chosen as the most important philosopher of the 20th century. That said, he was highly inarticulate himself—and go figure! The basic thrust of his ministry has been almost wholly ignored.

Things fall apart, Yeats said. So does the art of explanation, in a wide array of realms.

Tomorrow: Revisiting Goldstein's paragraph—a paragraph we adore

Full disclosure: In the fall of our junior year, we failed Kant. Or could it be that Kant failed us? We've never been totally sure.

At any rate, because we were handed that failing grade, we had to take a summer school "make-up" course. We took a course called "Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz" while working on summer dorm crew.

Wittily borrowing from Jonson's description of Shakespeare, we've always said that we learned little Spinoza and even less Leibniz. Descartes, of course, got something quite right. 

Just barely, we stumbled through. Someone went to Nam in our place.

Statistics can be extremely hard!

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2022

Counting those (top-secret) documents: Joe Biden has cancelled some college debt. In this fairly recent report, two Forbes reporters described a related phenomenon:

MCGURRAN AND HAHN (3/28/22): In 1980, the price to attend a four-year college full-time was $10,231 annually—including tuition, fees, room and board, and adjusted for inflation—according to the National Center for Education Statistics. By 2019-20, the total price increased to $28,775. That’s a 180% increase.

In what follows, we'll assume the accuracy of those basic statistics concerning annual cost. The key takeaway is this:

Even after adjusting for inflation, the cost of attending college soared over those forty years. This is the kind of topic you won't see discussed on MSNBC, where the only known topic is this:

Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail Jail Jail Jail Jail!

For the record, discussing statistics is often extremely hard, even for our top journalists. In the example from Forbes, consider this possible problem:

Even after adjusting for inflation, the cost of college almost tripled over those forty years! But the Forbes reporters chose to describe that as "a 180% increase."

Their statement is accurate—but the cost had almost tripled! Had we been their editor, we would have replaced their (accurate) account—their "180% increase"—with the other (accurate) account of that state of affairs.

On MSNBC, you'll never see anyone reporting the way those costs have risen, or asking why they've risen so much. The channel's hosts have only one topic, and it's entertaining: 

Trump Trump Trump Trump Prison!

The current news about Trump is important, of course—but it isn't the nation's only significant topic. That said, you're routinely denied information about the topic of college costs as you get fed that one pleasing topic:

Trump Trump Trump Trump Jail.

The news about Trump is important. This morning, it occurred to us that some of our leading journalists are having a hard time with a basic statistical question. That question goes like this:

How many top-secret documents did Trump take to Mar-a-Lago?

That's a very basic question. It seems to us that a misleading account is being widely offered in the wake of last Friday's release of the DOJ affidavit.

It seems to us that this misleading account tends to understate the actual number. Statistics are often extremely hard, especially for those at the top.

Tomorrow: How many such items in all?