TEABAGGED: Berkeley goes to the Bayou State!


Part 3—More of Lincoln's nonsense:
Let's be honest just for once. By the standards of us fiery liberals, Lincoln just didn't get it.

On March 4, 1865, he delivered his second inaugural address. A conflagration was nearing its end. By the standards of We Who Know Much Better, he delivered one of the most clueless speeches in all of human history.

Lincoln had just won a war, or so such matters get scored. He should have gloried in the pride of his strength, if we might borrow from Homer.

Instead, he gave a short and ridiculous speech. He was soon offering this:
LINCOLN (3/4/65): Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
Say what? "But let us judge not, that we be not judged?"

By fiery modern standards, Lincoln was badly off course. But as he continued, his cluelessness surpassed all understanding:
LINCOLN: The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
Say what? God had given this terrible war to both North and South?

Lincoln, the "victor" in a war, was saying that the terrible war had been "woe due to those by whom offense came?" Woe which had been delivered by God to each of the two warring sides?

Is that what the backwoods bumpkin was saying? We'd say it actually was:
LINCOLN (continuing directly): Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Did Lincoln mean it would be righteous and just for the others to lose their wealth and shed their blood? The Others, and nobody else?

To our ear, he didn't seem to mean that. Indeed, even as he finished, he seemed to suggest that we humans see through a glass darkly (our italics):

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

"With malice toward none?" Not even toward The Others, the bad people Over There?

"With firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right?" Does that suggest that we, the victors, could imaginably be limited or wrong in some of the things we see? Can that be what Lincoln meant?

Fortunately, the modern liberal has learned to reject such radical constructs. We know that God and/or evolution has given Us to see the right, full and complete freaking stop.

Our leading sages have spent the past week reasserting this divine truth. It's a true belief to which all tribes have clung, extending back into prehistory.

We modern liberals have come to see that Lincoln was pitifully clueless. We know the same thing about Dr. King, who, at age 26, refused to hate the Montgomery city fathers who, he believed, had helped create the atmosphere which led to the firebombing of his home, with his wife and baby inside.

"Even their ministers" had taught them their values, Dr. King said in Stride Toward Freedom. Dr. King was describing the thought process by which he rejected "corroding anger" and reaffirmed "the love ethic of Jesus," an ethic he'd come to fully embrace partly through study of Gandhi.

Crazy old man! As modern progressives, we have come to understand how clueless King's attitude was.

Within the past year, a third clueless wonder has appeared upon the American scene. We refer to Arlie Russell Hoschschild, whose current book is a finalist for a National Book Award—in the non-fiction category, no less!

Professor Hochschild's book is called Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. In his review of the book for the New York Times, Jason DeParle described Hochschild as "a distinguished Berkeley sociologist" and "a woman of the left."

DeParle describes Strangers in Their Own Land as "a smart, respectful and compelling book." He also describes the foolishness which now links Hochschild to historical figures like Lincoln and Dr. King.

The book is "a generous but disconcerting look at the Tea Party," DeParle says.

Good lord! Hochschild's book is a study of attitudes among some Tea Party adherents in Louisiana. In a mid-October book event taped by C-Span, Hochschild described the way the project began:
HOCHSCHILD (10/15/16): Five years ago, I sensed, like so many of us did, a split between left and right that was getting more extreme. Each side was hardening. And that we lived in kind of enclaves, so that I would talk to my husband and best friend, we'd chatter away, and we'd agree, and then I would open the newspaper and say, "Oh my gosh, look! There are two truths here. There's—I'm not living in the whole world." Or I'd look at television and feel the same.

And I knew that, actually, other Americans were in the same situation, that we live in media enclaves, in technological enclaves and in geographic enclaves. Berkeley, California, teaching sociology—I was in a super enclave!

Hochschild explained what came next. "So I thought, I want to get out of my enclave, take my political and moral alarm system off and permit myself to get very curious about the lives of people who lived in an enclave as far away and as distant from my own as I could."

Fellow liberals, please! Why would we want to do that?

Hochschild went to Louisiana. She says she chose the Bayou State because only 14 percent of white Louisianans had voted for Obama in 2008. (In California, the corresponding figure was over 50 percent, she noted.)

More specifically, she said she sought out "older whites, maybe especially religious older whites, in Louisiana. So our voyage starts there, with a question," she mysteriously said.

By now, the modern liberal has already turned this lunacy off. Hochschild has already referred to "two truths." In this way, she has produced a clear offense against our modern RightThink.

You might even say she was walking the path Lincoln had walked in that speech. She wanted to "turn her alarm systems off?"

Why would she want to do that?

Already, Hochschild had crossed the line. Having acknowledged that obvious fact, we're going to make a confession.

For ourselves, we've always been suckers for those who want to cross over those lines. For those who, possibly drawn by a certain "love ethic," refuse to loathe The Others, even after their behavior has possibly led to the firebombing of their own homes or the such.

History remembers those people—the Lincolns, the Kings, the Mandelas. For ourselves, we've watched Hochschild's C-Span tape with that puzzling fact in mind.

Hochschild journeyed to Calcasieu Parish to speak with Tea Party adherents. The people she met weren't Trump voters yet; her project predated that episode.

Her voyage started "with a question." By October 15, it had led to that book event which, for us, was highlighted by the first question Hochschild was asked.

The question came from a young woman who said she was a nurse. "So first, I wanted to thank you for bringing some empathy to this election cycle," this young woman said, right around the 25-minute mark on that tape.

Oh, what the heck! Here's what the young woman asked. For what it's worth, we'll guess that she voted for Clinton:
QUESTIONER (10/15/16): So first, I wanted to thank you for bringing some empathy to this election cycle. I've been so disheartened, being sensitive to all the tone of derision that has really permeated, especially among the left—"How could these people think this way?" And there's so much "othering," which is just furthering the process in the first place.


QUESTIONER: But I think there's a lot of misperception of this election as the endgame. And it's not a—you know, it's just an event. So how do we think beyond the election? Because if Trump gets elected, the left is going to feel hurt and alienated. If Hillary gets elected, it just continues this "strangers in their own land" paradox. How do we continue the empathy after the election?
"There's been so much othering?" Are youngsters permitted to say that?

In response to the young woman's question, Hochschild described her attempt to climb "the empathy wall" in the wilds of the Bayou State. She described drinking sweet teas with a woman who had told her that she loved Rush Limbaugh.

"What's the appeal of Rush Limbaugh?" Hochschild asked her, over sweet teas. The answer took several forms.

We haven't read Hochschild's book; we think her tape is fascinating. We were most struck by what that young woman said after Hochschild replied to her question.

"I would just add, I'm a nurse," that young woman said. "And I would say that it's just incredible what happens when people feel heard."

Hochschild was describing an approach to people in an enclave which differed from hers. We thought of a different reaction to those people, one we observed on the TV machine in April 2009.

We thought about those dueling approaches to those people in Tea Party land. We also thought about this:

We thought about how completely we got ourselves teabagged just last Tuesday night.

Tomorrow: Two attitudes toward Those People


  1. I think Bob makes a good point, but I will say this: Despite what liberal pundits on TV may say, I and my liberal friends don't condemn conservatives; we don't belittle a lack of a college education, nor do we automatically accuse someone of racism for their tough-on-immigration stance or a rational opposition to Obama's policies. But we have suffered through years of being called "traitors", "communists/marxists", "elitists", and contemptuous of the "real America"...but not just by right-wing pundits and politicians. I hear this stuff almost daily from average citizens in the majority conservative area where I live. Unfair, mean-spirited attacks on Obama and Clinton are a daily occurrence as well. It does make it difficult for liberals to react with compassion and understanding...despair is the more apt description, of my reaction at least.

    1. I agree with everything you wrote. Bob appeals (correctly, I think) to "the better angels of our nature," from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. But we're human beings, too, and while I aspire to the empathy shown by the author and the questioner (who was remarkably wise for her age), it's a difficult thing to accomplish.

    2. I am one of those people who said, “I’ll never call a psychic or a magician or whatever” to help me with my problems – least of all my love problems, but I reached the point where I knew I needed some guidance, and I’m so glad I found this man called dr.ajeghe. When I nearly lost David in one of our stupid,fights (he broke up with me), I thought I had lost everything.i cry all day and think that he will never come back to me again.i read so many testimony about Dr. ajeghe love spell,how he help to bring back ex lover back.I quickly email him.and also get back my husband with his love spell. And when I was at my most desperate,he didn’t take advantage of me. You performed a very good service for a person in true need. I don’t know how you did it, or how this magic works, but all I know is, IT WORKS!! David my husband and I are happily back together, and I’ll always be grateful to dr.ajeghe email him for any kinds of help is very capable and reliable for help ajeghespelltemple@gmail.com or WhatsApp him +2349069171173

  2. I think Bob has some of this wrong. First of all there is no god, are no gods. Also you can judge and hate all you want, actions speak louder than words, our humanity comes from acting against our urges, doing kind acts for those we hate or judge poorly.

    1. If there is no God with the nature Lincoln ascribes to his, arguments for and against slavery are equally rational and amount to nothing more than matters of opinion, whether pro or con.

    2. The characters in the bible had slaves. The bible accepted the institution of slavery. The Isis crowd very much believes in God. Whether or not slavery is wrong doesn't depend on the existence of or the belief in an imaginary construct.

    3. There is no "wrong" that amounts to anything more than one human's opinion at a moment in time, unless there is something supernatural that designates what is right and wrong.

      In the material world, for primates, might makes right if might advances one group over another, even through mass slaughter or slavery.

    4. huh? Humans have developed societies based on laws. Laws are not supernatural. There are many things in the Bible that we as a society consider wrong and so we do not heed them. Not a minor point, the Bible is not supernatural, indeed nothing is supernatural. Morality does exist and it is not supernatural. It's not wrong for you to voice your opinions, they just happen to be wrong and there is no god that can change that, just you, by thinking, naturally.

  3. This is all very well, but the Bible condones slavery. Framing the war as God's punishment for engaging in slavery is specious. It perhaps represents Lincoln's attempt to manipulate the public into accepting the reconciliation necessary after war, not the nobility of spirit Somerby seems to find in Lincoln, but pragmatism and skilled communication.

    The attributes of the Tea Party are irrelevant now that the election is over. What matters now are the attributes of Trump and his administration. I doubt there is any congruence between the two.

    I do not intend to turn the other cheek over the wounds that will be inflicted upon us by Trump. These are caused by the foolishness of the Tea Party and other Trump voters. It doesn't matter whether they are like us or not. They are responsible for what happens next. Fully responsible, along with the many Democrats who stayed home.

  4. In all the time Somerby has been lauding Malala and King for not loathing those who have harmed them, he has never mentioned bill and Hillary Clinton. I believe they are better modern examples of the refusal to hate the Other than any of the more remote figures Somerby has identified. It bothers me a lot that Somerby cannot seem to recognize this quality in them.

    Had he seen the Malala in Hillary perhaps he wouldn't have loved Bernie so much and contributed to our current predicament with his tepid, grudging support for our nation's best hope.

    1. Aside from that "Deplorable and irredeemable racists, sexist, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes" thing.

    2. Weak tea given the years of persecution they endured.

    3. Weren't their hundreds of millions of dollars earned as public servants enough compensation?

  5. Lincoln, since you mentioned him, should have let the south go. Slavery would have died a natural death, and the north would have thrived without the dead weight of the ignorant yahoos.

    1. As a corollary, the smartest thing the south could have done would have been freeing all the slaves in 1860 (or before), removing any pretext for a war. Someone would have had to get the cotton in, and there would have been plenty of cheap labor available.

    2. When the slaves were freed at the end of the war, there was not plenty of cheap labor because they didn't want to keep working for their previous owners. They had few skills or literacy and congregated in camps expecting to be fed and clothed. Many expected to be given land and livestock. The reality was not that there was cheap labor available. It was that there was a large intransigent dependent population with no means to support itself and no willingness to work for former owners. It is hard to see how this would have been any different if they had been freed before instead of after the war.

    3. Anonymous, you are completely clueless. There's still time to get that GED. Go for it.

    4. An estimated million of former slaves died after the war because there was no plan to help them after the Civil War was over.


  6. My husband is back and am so Excited My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email: happylovespell2@gmail.com call +2348133873774 about his service and web site: http://happyspelltemple.webs.com