The ways we help Trump survive: Earlier, we suggested that the New York Times' treatment of Stuyvesant High helps explain why Donald J. Trump may win re-election next year.
For another example, consider the very first remark as the staff of New York magazine discusses why Elizabeth Warren hasn't caught on in the polls.
For ourselves, we don't know why Candidate Warren hasn't caught on in the polls. For ourselves, we tend to think that she's strong on policy, but we're also inclined to think that she's a terrible politician in several major ways.
Is that why she isn't catching on (as yet)? We have no way of knowing.
That said, the question was thrown to the magazine's staff: "Why do you think she hasn’t really caught on yet?"
Below, you see the very first sentence of the very first response. In our view, this is another example of the ways in which our professional liberals help Donald J. Trump survive:
QUESTION (4/4/19): Why do you think Elizabeth Warren hasn’t really caught on yet?Note the assumptions there:
FIRST SENTENCE OF FIRST RESPONSE: It seems to me a preemptive panic about electability, mostly because of her screwup out of the gate of not getting buy-in from Native American leaders on how to handle Trump’s slurs, and not finding a good way to talk about affirmative action.
Warren's problem in the area of ancestry doesn't involve her false claim, over many years, to be "American Indian" by race, which she plainly isn't.
It doesn't result from the way it inevitably seems that she may have been trying to gain a career advantage by making this bogus claim. (We don't know if she actually was seeking advantage, but the appearance is blindingly obvious.)
Beyond that, her problem in this area doesn't involve her ridiculous reaction to the DNA test which showed that, by any sensible measure, she has virtually zero Native American ancestry at all. (She showed no sign of understanding that that's what the test seemed to show.)
Warren's problem in this area doesn't involve these awkward matters. By the rules of our tribal game, the problem here, by definition, can only involve "Trump's slurs."
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. That said, our tribe is human, all too human—all too human all the way down.
And now for the rest of the dogma: Here's the fuller initial statement. Note the highlighted second sentence:
STAFF MEMBER: It seems to me a preemptive panic about electability, mostly because of her screwup out of the gate of not getting buy-in from Native American leaders on how to handle Trump’s slurs, and not finding a good way to talk about affirmative action. (She pissed a lot of progressives off with protesting that she never benefited from affirmative action, with the implication that there’s something inherently wrong with that.) But on the undulating curve of shifting expectations, it feels like something is turning—the backlash to the backlash.According to this achingly pure professional liberal, Warren "pissed a lot of progressives off with protesting that she never benefited from affirmative action, with the implication that there’s something inherently wrong with that."
According to this statement, it didn't piss progressives off that she may have been trying to benefit from affirmative action in a fraudulent manner. Instead, it pissed them off because—oh for God's sake, never mind!
Our tribe is often amazingly weak at knowing how things appear to others. Tucker Carlson jumps for joy whenever he comes across statements like this, which he does every day of the week.