SATURDAY: We've been thinking about a certain "fair lady!"

SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 2025

One way we Blues have lost votes: In the face of our failing nation's ongoing "American carnage," we've been thinking—and thinking and thinking—about a certain old song.

We refer to the old American song, Lady of Carlisle. For the record, this old American song got its start in the British Isles.

We've also been thinking of the mysterious female character in that song—the "fair lady" who is said to have behaved in this peculiar way reported below.

Two brave soldiers have approached her, seeking her hand in marriage. This fair lady responds to them in this antique way:

Lady of Carlisle 

[...]

[Verse 4]
Then up spoke this fair young lady
Saying "I can be but one man's bride
.
But if you'll come back tomorrow morning
On this case we will decide."
[Verse 5]
She ordered her a span of horses
A span of horses at her command
And down the road these three did travel
'Til they come to the lions' den.
[Verse 6]
There she stopped and there she halted
These two soldiers stood gazin' 'round
And for the space of half an hour
That young lady lay speechless on the ground.
[Verse 7]
And when she did recover
Threw her fan down in the lions' den
Saying "Which of you to gain a lady
Will return her fan again?"

So behaved this fair young lady in this antique song. After lapsing into a trance, she defines a dangerous courtship test. 

(For the resolution of that test, see below.)

We first heard the song, as performed by the late Mike Seeger (Pete Seeger's younger half-brother), when we were mere juniors in high school. We heard the song when we purchased the Folkways album, The New Lost City Ramblers Vol. 3, the same album which contained the old (fully) American song, The Baltimore Fire.

In part, we've been thinking about the Lady of Carlisle because of A Complete Unknown, the new film which treats Bob Dylan's arrival, as an extremely young man, on the Greenwich Village folk music scene in 1961.

We haven't seen it yet. We had plans to do so this week, but a vicious attack of the labyrinthitis brought those plans to an end. 

Personally, we have a hard time believing that A Complete Unknown could possibly be good. (We're prepared to be surprised.) But there's one scene which surely won't be included in the film—that's the scene where the extremely young Dylan decided that he was going to have to start writing his own songs.

Dylan's describes the moment in his 2004 memoir, Chronicles Volume One. The moment involves Mike Seeger, who—though a young man himself at the time—was already a widely admired part of the burgeoning American traditional music scene.

Dylan describes the experience which led him to conclude that he had to become a song writer. He says he saw Seeger performing traditional songs in various high-end loft parties in Greenwich Village, and he says he concluded that he would never be able to perform such songs as well as Seeger could. 

For the record, Dylan's debut album for Columbia was built upon his own remarkable performance abilities. But in his memoir, Dylan goes on and on, at substantial length, about the greatness he saw in Seeger's performances. 

He says he knew that he'd never be able to perform those old American songs well as Mike Seeger already could: 

"The thought occurred to me that maybe I'd have to write my own folk songs, the ones that Mike didn't know," Dylan writes (page 71). "That was a startling thought."

Has there ever been a greater tribune from one performer to another? A year or two later, Seeger—then 30 years old—recorded Lady of Carlisle on NLCR Volume 3. 

(You may not hear what Dylan heard. But you can hear that performance here.)

Has there ever been a greater tribute? In part, we've been thinking about Seeger's performance of Lady of Carlisle because of all the recent talk about the young Dylan's emergence.

That said, we've also been thinking about this antique song because of its ancient sexual politics. Also, because it may help illustrate one of the three million ways those of us in Blue America may have lost votes in last year's election—may have helped earn our way out.

We always admired Mike Seeger as a performer. We did so for various reasons, many of which Dylan describes in the effusive praise for Seeger presented in his memoir. 

That said, we also admired Seeger for what we'd call his sexual politics as a singer—specifically, for the way he would sing the women's parts in the old story-songs he would sing.

He always sang the women's parts with full respect. He would adopt no silly falsetto. No parodic performance occurred.

On Lady of Carlisle, you can hear him sing the part of that "fair young lady" with complete and total respect. We've always admired Seeger for that form of sexual politics.

We've been thinking about that old song because of the talk about Dylan. We've also been thinking about Lady of Carlisle because of what we read when the New York Times interviewed a dozen men—four of them Democrats—who voted for Candidate Trump this past year.

(For more about those interviews, see Thursday afternoon's report.) 

The antique song, Lady of Carlisle, involve an antique form of gender politics. We ourselves wouldn't favor that form of courtship or gender relations, but—for better or worse—that antique form of sexual politics is deeply bred in the bone. 

To our ear, a longing for that form of politics is stated at various times in the interviews with those twelve men. We ourselves don't share the feelings to which these voters give voice, but many other people do.

Those ancient behaviors are bred in the bone! But over here in Blue America, many elements of our coalition have aggressively jumped far ahead in matters of this kind.

(At the present time, this would also involve the way trans issues are sometimes treated by Blues.)

We Blues! We can sometimes seem to be very sure of our own moral greatness. We name-call those who haven't arrived at the same point of moral greatness that we ourselves have often only recently reached. 

Along the way, we may be shedding votes. All too often, this is the business we Blues have chosen as we've earned our way out.

We've never favored the sexual politics lurking in that old song. That said, the longings in question are often deeply bred in the bone, for men and women alike.

Those of us in Blue America are playing with fire when we name-call such people. That said, we're often inclined to assert our moral greatness. All too often, this may be accompanied by a lack of perfect political smarts.

For inquiring minds only: What's the historical background to that old British/American song? (Where in the world do those lions come from?) You can start reading here.

To hear Mike Seeger sing the part of that fair lady, you can just click this. According to Dylan's account, when Dylan heard Seeger singing this way, Dylan judged that he himself would have to be moving on. 

He would have to write his own songs, the ones Mike didn't yet know.

The western world's oldest story: Late in life, Seeger recorded Black Jack David for his 2007 Smithsonian Folkways album, Early Southern Guitar Sounds.

This antique song tells (a much later version of) the western world's oldest story. It's the story which triggers the Iliad, the story in which a dissatisfied (and married) "fair young lady" runs off with a more thrilling man.

So it went at the dawn of the West! Helen abandoned a prince of Achaea, running off with Paris, the son of Troy's King Priam. There followed ten years of savage war as "war fighters" died in the dust outside Troy's sacred walls, seeking to avenge this insult to the tribe.

In our view, that was terrible sexual politics. It's also the starting point for western literature. 

You can hear Seeger's performance of Black Jack David simply by clicking this. He performs the song with Alexia Smith, his own wife, in an act of impressive self-confidence.  

He died two years later, at age 77. For his New York Times obituary, you can just click here. In a stunning tribute, Bob Dylan said he decided he'd have to write his own songs after seeing Mike Seeger perform.

Winning the courtship test: That fair young lady devised a dangerous courtship test for her pair of suitors. 

One of the suitors takes a hike. The other decides the lady is worth it. Here's the way the story plays out:
[Verse 10]
Down in the lions' den he boldly entered
The lions being both wild and fierce
He marched around and in among them
Safely returned her fan again.

[Verse 11]
And when she saw her true lover comin'
Seeing no harm had been done to him
She threw herself against his bosom
Saying "Here is the prize that you have won."
That's an ancient form of gender relations. Being ancient, it's bred in the bone.

FRIDAY: What kind of AG will Bondi be?

FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2025

Dana Perino's complaint:  What kind of attorney general will Pam Bondi be?

We can't tell you that.

That said, we were amused by one part of the caterwauling on last afternoon's The Five concerning Bondi's confirmation hearing. The caterwauling came from Dana Perino, who may not exactly know how old the future AG is. 

As you can see by clicking here, Perino said that Bondi's selection helps show that Republicans don't actually hate women. 

We'll assume that Republicans don't "hate women." Somewhat oddly, Perino then added this:

PERINO (1/16/25): It also is jarring, I think, for the senators to finally have a different generation to deal with, right? The age difference of the senators and the nominee is quite stark and noticeable, and the energy level is right there.

We were slightly puzzled. One minute earlier, viewers had been shown the usual (tightly edited) video clips of Bondi seeming to score points against three (3) Democratic senators. Here are the names and ages of the solons in question:

Adam Schiff (D-CA): 64 years old
Alex Padilla (D-CA): 51 yeas old
Mazie Hirono (D-HI): 77 years old

Those were their names and their ages. But just how old is the nominee? With great skill, we now give you your answer:

Pam Bondi: 59 years old

Bondi is eight years older than the one California solon. She's only five years younger than the other. 

It's true that Hirono is a bit older—and Perino was quite insulting about Hirono's questioning style, presumably delighting viewers as she staged her complaint. 

Hirono is slow and basically dumb, Perino pleasingly said. But as reported by Ruth Marcus, here's one exchange Hirono's failing "energy level" somehow managed to produce:

Attorney general nominee Pam Bondi: Qualified but questionable

The best thing about Pam Bondi is that she’s not Matt Gaetz, President-elect Donald Trump’s initial pick for attorney general, who blew up with supersonic speed. The second-best thing is that she’s not Kash Patel, Trump’s outlandishly irresponsible choice to head the FBI, who, based on Senate Republicans’ supine performance, looks likely to squeak through.

Bondi’s not-Gaetzness offers some comfort—but not much, judging by her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. 

[...]

Did she agree with Trump’s characterization of the Jan. 6, 2021, defendants as “hostages” and “patriots,” asked Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono.

Bondi: “I am not familiar with that statement, senator.”

Hirono: “I just familiarized you with that statement. Do you agree with it?”

Bondi: “I’m not familiar with it, senator.”

In her column, Marcus cited Bondi's absurd refusal to say who won the 2020 election. Later, Marcus transcribed the exchange shown above—an exchange in which Hirono asked Bondi about Trump's past statements concerning those “hostages” and “patriots."

Question:

Does anyone on the face of the earth really believe that Bondi "is not familiar with that statement?" Somehow, the slow and somnolent Hawaii solon managed to pry that obvious misstatement from the nominee, despite the solon's advanced age.

Perino almost seemed to be playing the fool—but then, doing so is the norm on that particular program. For ourselves, we recall Bondi from her years as a frequent guest on Fox News Channel programs before she became Florida's attorney general in 2010.

Bondi is 59 years old. She's technically capable in a way some others are not. 

We can't necessarily swear that she's compulsively honest. Next time, she should possibly show a bit more respect for the truth when questioned by one of her elders—by someone of Hirono's vast age. 

Dana Perino is 52. She may have a way to go too. She performed some piffle for Fox News viewers, disappeared Bondi's BS.

FLYWEIGHTS: The nominee uses a lot of hair product!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 2025

The governor also uses: Let the word go forth to the nations:

Peter Hegseth, the Trump nominee, uses a ton of hair product!

Stating the obvious, it's his perfect right to do so. At this site, we're inclined to think it's a slightly odd look. But then again, who really cares?

Earlier this very week, on Tuesday's edition of The Five, we (once again) got to find out. 

Judge Jeanine, the program's vaunted resident loudmouth, was (once again) back in her seat at the end of the table—and she was prepared to sound off. 

As the day and the week would unfold, Jesse and Greg would engage in the towel-snapping bro-boy behavior with which they punctuate the pseudo-discussions on this defiantly stupid TV show. The gang of four would leap to over-talk Jessica Tarlov if she started to make a strong point.

Those practices would prevail. But at long last, after holiday breaks, the resident loudmouth was back in her chair. 

Following on David Brooks' recent point, no modern nation can expect to survive in the face of dumbness this dumb. We're speaking about the disastrous Los Angeles fires, and about the use of hair product. 

The resident dumbbells on this low-IQ show had dumbed down discussion of those fires since Wednesday of the previous week. But on this particular day, the resident loudmouth was back.

She was introducing the TV show's second segment. Eager to showcase her state of mind, the dumbest of all offered this:

JUDGE JEANINE (1/14/25): The danger in California is far from over. L. A. firefighters continue to be on high alert as extreme winds continue to turbo-charge the monstrous wildfires that have already killed 24 people.

And as brave firefighters battle to put out the flames, desperate Gavin Newsom is busy picking a fight with Elon Musk. He's posted twice on social media about the world's richest man, accusing the billionaire of spreading, quote, lies about the state's response. He also says that Musk is, quote, encouraging looting.

But California voters are tired of Greasy's failed leadership. Newsom is facing a growing recall attempt to knock him out of office.

Her intro continued from there.

As she started, the judge had been reading from prompter. Then she inserted one of her favorite nicknames into the dumbness to come.

Governor Newsom (D-Cal.) is routinely referred to as "Newscum" by the astoundingly childish President Donald J. Trump. When this resident loudmouth swings into action, he's also referred to as "Greasy."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Even as 24 people are dead, this stupid program's misused viewers are encouraged to enjoy all the fun. 

Briefly, let's be fair! In one respect, this example of stupidified conduct was built on a factual base:

Governor Newsom does use a lot of hair product! He may use as much as (future) Secretary Hegseth, though it would probably be a close race.

Newsom and Hegseth both use a ton of hair product, but only one gets dismissed as "Greasy" on this gruesome TV show. Indeed, here's the way this loudmouth "judge" had discussed the greatness of the other greaseball in that same program's first segment:

JUDGE JEANINE (1/14/25): I'm so proud of him. I really am. Look, he's going to bring the warrior culture back and he sat there and knowing that there were a lot of things that they were going to come at him with. And he was cool, calm, steady and prepared. 

And he was willing to admit what a lot of Democrats who want to take the moral high ground cannot admit, and that is, "I made mistakes. And I've made amends to my God and to my wife. And I'm good. And I'm better for it."...

And I love that he comes from the military mindset. I love that he loves the warriors as much as he does. And he is a guy who is not beholding to any of the defense contractors or any of the big companies. He's not a part of that.

This is a kid who believes in America. He believes in the fact that we need the strongest, most lethal fighting force of men, and women to the extent that they are in a position to be able to fight as well. And he's all-American. And I justI'm so proud of him. I mean, I was almost moved to tears.

And I love that he hates DEI. It has no place in the military...

The judge briefly continued from there, expressing her admiration for the all-American "kid" who will soon, for better or worse, be secretary of defense. 

Stating the obvious, the judge was every right to her views about Nominee Hegseth. Also, she has every right to her views about DEI, whatever she might mean by that. 

Continuing right along, she has every right to her views about Governor Newsom. But only one of those two fellows was derided as "Greasy" on Tuesday evening's gong-show. This whole channel works like that.

The baldly disordered Donald J. Trump loves the use of insulting nicknames in the profoundly childish pseudo-discussions he likes to bring forth on the land. Judge Jeanine isn't far behind in the steady dumbnification she brings to our failing discourse.

Newsom is "Greasy;" Hegseth isn't. Even as brave firefighters struggle o extinguish the flames, viewers of this corporate propaganda channel are encouraged to enjoy all the fun: 

The boys engage in their towel-snapping. Occasionally, they enjoy some apparent misogyny. The ladies of Fox all look away while the two bros enjoy this fun. When Tarlov's comments get too sharp, the others leap to overtalk her. 

This is the way this imitation of life operates on a daily basis. Currently, it's the most-watched TV show in all of "cable news."

Stating the obvious, Judge Jeanine is entitled to her views about the two public figures in question. On this occasion, one had almost moved her to tears. The other had brought out the 5-year-old child within her loudmouth persona.

The judge is entitled to her views; imaginably, some of her views may be accurate! But every viewer of this defiantly stupid TV show knew who was talking about when she aimed her jibe at "Greasy." This low-IQ conduct is thoroughly general over the IQ-draining programs of the Fox News Channel.

This flyweight behavior is general! At the start of yesterday afternoon's The Five, resident "silly boy" Jesse Watters introduced the program's opening segment. The segment involved a pseudo-discussion of President Biden's "farewell address." 

Sure enough! Right from the jump, at 5 o'clock sharp, Watters referred to Biden as "Dark Brandon." One minute later, Biden was referred to as "Old Yeller" as a thoroughly stupidified pseudo-discussion was born.

These is who, and this is what, these corporate messengers are. Later, it was on to the inevitable "Shifty Schiff" as the pitiful Katy Pavlich moderated the program's second segment

Mocking nicknames are general over Fox News as the net's children hold forth.

And then, five hours later, the inevitable deluge, on Gutfeld! To see the inevitable suggestion that President Biden had pooped in his pants as he gave that farewell address, you can just click here, though we'll warn you what brain cells will die whenever you watch this program.

(That inevitable suggestion arrived at 10:02 p.m. The program's 60-year-old host had already offered this analysis of the address: "Biden said, quote, Americans are being buried under misinformation. As opposed to Joe, who will soon be buried under six feet of fresh dirt.")

So it goes on the Fox News Channel. No modern nation can survive the firestorm of prehuman conduct which prevails at that site.

Full disclosure! Not so long ago, we didn't realize that human beings could ever be this dumb. We wouldn't have known that people can be paid to behave in these ways.

For today, we're going to skip saying the names of all the people who performed on these shows. But democracy dies in the clutches of such employees.

Starting next week, we'll start to tell you more about who these lunkheads are. We'll even start to tell you about their bosses.

For today, we'll leave it at this:

Pete Hegseth uses a lot of product. So does Gavin Newsom!

Only one get derided as "Greasy." The other moves the Fox News Channel's resident loudmouth almost to the point of tears.

Can a modern nation survive this assault on human intelligence? Can democracy die in dumbness?

As we noted yesterday, David Brooks says he's not sure. We would be inclined to suspect that this war has already been lost. 

Under modern arrangements, this infestation of flyweights is remarkably widespread. Given the very large profits involved, we're not sure that there's a way back.

Each fellow uses a lot of product. Let the insults begin!

THURSDAY: The New York Times speaks with the Donald Trump 12!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2025

How we Blues (may have) lost one vote: As part of its ongoing series of focus group sessions, the New York Times has spoken with twelve men who voted for Candidate Trump. The report appears beneath this headline:

‘Where’s Our Place in Society?’: 12 Men Who Backed Trump Grapple With America

The twelve men all voted for Trump. Four of the twelve say they're Democrats. One says he's an Independent.  

How did the Democratic Party lose those four or five votes? There's no surefire way to know, but we were interested by this exchange with Rich, age 54, a Latino Democrat from the state of New York who works in construction:

RICH: Years ago, I would listen to a different left-leaning podcast. And then I felt lied to.

MODERATOR: Is there something they lied about, do you think, Rich?

RICH: Russia. And I felt like they lied to me about the lacrosse kids with Duke. They just were so emphatic that they were guilty. I just checked out. They lost me. 

Years ago, I was a big Ed Koch fan, and I remember going to see him. And he said to me and my group: If you agree with me 80 percent, vote for me. If you agree with me 100 percent, go see a therapist. And I kind of live my life that way when I listen to news.

So the colloquy went. This voter says he felt lied to about the Duke lacrosse case, but he also cited Russia. 

Earlier, he had said this:

RICH: I like Tucker Carlson. And I like Joe Rogan. I just feel they’re genuine, authentic, and they come across like they’re saying what they really feel and not putting their finger in the air and deciding where the political winds are going. I like who they interview.

MODERATOR: Is there an interview you liked that comes to mind?

RICH: Recently Tucker interviewed the Russian right-hand man of Putin, and I found it interesting. I’m open to his point of view.

Based on his full set of statements, we'll guess that Rich may be a Democrat who's on his way to being a Republican. That's his perfect right, of course—and then again, maybe not!

It's also true that a political party—or a political movement—isn't trying to win every voter. This is a very important point.

At any given point in time, many voters will be out of reach. You're trying to win the most persuadable voters. In this case, that may not be Rich.

That said:

We were surprised to see him cite the Duke lacrosse case. You rarely see that incident mentioned these days. As the leading authority on the matter reports, it takes us all the way back to 2006.

Many segments of Blue America aggressively prejudged that incident in line with preferred Storyline. Many parts of Blue America behaved in ways which were quite unwise—and after the prejudgments about that case blew up, many of us did the same darn thing eight years later with respect to the UVa fraternity case.

Over here in Blue America, we've sometimes worked to earn our way out. In some cases, a person sees us doing these things and a Trump voter gets his wings.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. For whatever reason or reasons, Rich didn't.

Final question: What exactly does Rich think about Putin's right-hand man—about his "point of view?" We wish the New York Times had asked. What would this voter have said?

FLYWEIGHTS: American carnage, eight years on!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2025

What they're permitted to say: Eight years ago, he gave his first speech as the American president. 

The speech had a slightly unusual theme. That theme was "American carnage."

Fun fact—and at this point, is there any other kind:

In President Carter's "malaise speech." he never said the word "malaise." In this later president's "American carnage" speech, he said "carnage" only once:

TRUMP (1/20/17): ...January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now.

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

For the record, the forgotten men and women of our country hadn't exactly "come by the tens of millions" on that particular day.

Perhaps that wasn't what the new president meant. There followed a deeply disordered, baldly idiotic dispute about how many people had come to the inauguration.

That baldly idiotic dispute was a harbinger of what was to come. You could call it a harbinger of the carnage which has unfolded in the past eight years.

In the passage posted above, you can see the only use of the word "carnage" that day. Given the nature of the occasion, it was widely viewed, rightly or wrongly, as an odd choice of words.

That said, the new president was saying that he would attack poverty in our inner cities, along with an education system which was leaving kids deprived of knowledge.

Beyond that, he would attack the existence crime and gangs and drugs, but also the loss of the manufacturing base which left rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the American landscape.

Language choices to the side, those were familiar objectives. Eight years later, David Brooks has now described what he sees when he looks across that same landscape.

His column was written in reaction to yesterday's Hegseth hearing. He wasn't impressed by what he saw. By the end of his column, we'd have to say that he's coming around to our own long-expressed point of view.

For the record, we disagree with Brooks' statement concerning what "we" deserve. In fact, we don't even know who he means by "we" in that declaration—but we agree with the way he concludes:

We Deserve Pete Hegseth

[...]

If you are holding hearings for a prospective secretary of defense, you would think you might want to ask him about these urgent issues...If you’re a Democrat trying to sink a nomination, you would think you’d want to ask substantive questions on life-or-death issues like these in order to expose the nominee’s ignorance and unpreparedness.

But did this happen at the Pete Hegseth hearings in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee this week? If you thought those kinds of questions would dominate the hearings, you must be living under the illusion that we live in a serious country.

We do not. We live in a soap opera country. We live in a social media/cable TV country. In our culture you don’t want to focus on boring policy questions; you want to engage in the kind of endless culture war that gets voters riled up. You don’t want to focus on topics that would require study; you focus on images and easy-to-understand issues that generate instant visceral reactions. You don’t win this game by engaging in serious thought; you win by mere attitudinizing—by striking a pose. Your job is not to advance an argument that might help the country; your job is to go viral.

Pete Hegseth is of course the living, breathing embodiment of this culture. The world is on fire and what’s his obsession? Wokeness in the military. I went through high school trying to bluff my way through class after doing none of the reading, and in Hegseth, I recognize a master of the craft. During the hearings Hegseth repeatedly said he was going to defend the meritocracy. In what kind of meritocracy is being a Fox TV host preparation for being secretary of defense? Maybe in the one Caligula fancied when he contemplated making his horse a consul.

[...]

All of this has been corrupted by the war for short attention spans. In the 19th century we had the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Today it would be the Lincoln-Douglas TikTok wars followed by “Three Takeaways From the Lincoln-Douglas Debates” followed by a panel of pundits (like me) analyzing whether Stephen Douglas helped himself with swing voters in DuPage County.

Can this kind of country prevail in a global conflict of systems? Maybe, but maybe not.

Given the broken state of our culture, can our failing nation expect to prosper—to function, to "prevail?"

We've long said the answer is no. After watching the Hegseth hearing, David Brooks has given voice to a similar point of view.

("I finished watching the hearings sick to my stomach," he says at one point in his column.)

Back in November, the incoming president said he would nominate the baldly ludicrous Matt Gaetz to be the attorney general. At that time, the ridiculous Gaetz was widely compared to Caligula's famous horse.

Before long, Gaetz was thrown under the bus. In his column, Brooks transfers the bridle to the hotheaded Hegseth, whose nomination for secretary of defense will almost surely be going through. 

Then again, there is the more "qualified" Pam Bondi, who yesterday offered this mandated non-answer during her own Senate hearing:

DURBIN (1/15/25): Are you prepared to say today, under oath and without reservation, that President Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?

BONDI: Ranking member Durbin, President Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly sworn in and he is the president of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024.

Posing as a flyweight, that's what Bondi said. What you see there is part of the carnage the powers that be have chosen.

To wit:

Under current tribal arrangements, a person like Bondi has been given permission to say that Biden was in fact "sworn in."

Such people are permitted to say that there was "a transition of power." They're even permitted to say that Joe Biden is the president of the United States. Indeed, they allowed to say it two times!

They aren't permitted, to this very day, to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election or to say that Donald Trump lost. They aren't permitted to make that blindingly obvious statement—to give a direct, responsive answer to a question of the type this tribal spear-chucker was asked.

(As a matter of loyalty, they may feel obliged to throw in an irrelevant assessment of the 2024 election—the one they weren't asked to assess. Bondi said her owner won that election "overwhelmingly." That strikes us as a stretch, but it's a breath of fresh air compared to her North Korean-adjacent avoidance of the question she was actually asked.)

Bondi's refusal to answer Senator Durbin's is part of the carnage with which we've all been left in the wake of the past eight tears. 

Back in 2017, an incoming president spoke of "American carnage." Then, at the end of his term, he saddled us American citizens with an astounding amount of same.

We refer to the undisguised lunacy which followed the November 2020 election—the transparently lunatic claims from the Trump camp, followed by the transparently lunatic conduct of January 6, 2021.

The videotape of that day's violent conduct is never shown to Red America by the Fox News Channel. For ourselves, we flash on the fall of Troy, as described by Professor Knox, as we think about that day's carnage:

PROFESSOR KNOX (1990): The whole poem [known as the Iliad] has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome...And the death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city. 

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history....

So went the carnage when sacred Troy fell. That said, it seems to us that the lunacies of the past eight years have come from more than one quarter.

Our incoming president has engaged in outright lunacy again and again and again and again, and then he's done so some more. In another form of American carnage, our brightest and best—the "highly educated" men and women of Blue America's major news orgs—have never been willing or able to describe these waves of disordered behavior for what they apparently are.

Having said that, let us add this:

After President Biden did in fact win that election, variations on carnage continued. The new president adopted unexplainable policies at the southern border—policies he never tried to explain. Nor did he ever try to explain the economic difficulties which—all across the developed world—were following the dislocation brough on by the Covid disaster.

For reasons which went unexplained, the new president kept declining to explain. In the face of what seemed to be growing evidence, tribunes of our own Blue America kept saying that nothing was wrong with his capability or with his frequently non-existent behavior.

They kept saying he was sharp as a tack. They even said that the southern border was locked up tight as a drum. 

(Midway through his fourth year in office, he finally took executive actions to tighten up the border. What had he waited so long? Did anyone ever explain?)

Shortly after last November's election, the Atlantic's Tim Alberta—he had long been NeverTrump—explained what was wrong with this conduct, which almost surely helped produce our current state of American carnage:

ALBERTA (11/8/24): As someone who has spilled a lot of ink on Donald Trump's lies over the past decade—

GOLDBERG: A couple of books worth.

ALBERTA: —a couple of books worth, I just want to say this when we talk about propaganda. Arguably, the three most determinative things in this election were propaganda from the Democratic Party. 

Number one: "Joe Biden is fine and totally fit to be president for another four years." He wasn't. 

Number two: "The border is closed. It's under control. There's nobody coming in."  That was not true. 

And number three: "Hey, don't worry about inflation. Prices are fine. Bidenomics! Everything's great. You guys don't know what you're talking about. Actually, the economy is in great shape." 

This is propaganda to millions of Americans who said, "None of that is true, and therefore, I don't trust you."  They might not trust Trump, but they don't trust Democrats either.

This helps explain why we lost, he said. In our view, he was describing behavior which bordered on the semi-crazy. 

In our view, the behavior Alberta described was less lunatic than the behavior from TrumpWorld which followed that disordered person's loss in 2020, but it was disordered conduct too. Joined by other lunacies here within our own Blue America, that disordered behavior helps explain the carnage we now face.

David Brooks seems to have come around to our own general point of view. He has stated what is blindingly obvious—it isn't clear that our failing nation can survive the waves of carnage of the past eight years.

We've been advancing that point of view for roughly a decade now. We largely agree with the conclusion Brooks draws at the end of his new column:

We live in a soap opera [flyweight] country...Can this kind of country prevail in a global conflict of systems? Maybe, but maybe not.

For ourselves, we'll go with most likely not. But even as Brooks' column appeared, the clown cars just kept rolling along at the Fox News Channel, and the clown cars were filled with flyweights.

Inevitably, the clown car "judge" had employed her favorite nickname for the governor of one of our failing nation's most important states.

She had referred to him by a nickname; instead of using his actual name, she named him simply as "Greasy." Can a large modern nation expect to prevail with clowns like this in the saddle, around the clock, at one of its most influential "news" orgs?

Bondi can't say that Biden won. On the Fox News Channel, a silly clown like Judge Jeanine is hailed for her greatness when she plays the inveterate loudmouth, day after day after day.

At the Times, they avert their gaze from this round-the-clock carnage. In his new column, Brooks has broken rank.

Tomorrow: What the flyweight said