TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2023
...once made by President Lincoln: President Lincoln said it first. His statement came at the very end of his first inaugural address:
LINCOLN (3/4/61): I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
"We must not be enemies," Lincoln said. It's also said that he once said this, though we'll guess that he probably didn't:
When an old woman rebuked him for his conciliatory attitude toward the South, which she felt should be “destroyed” after the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln replied, “Madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?
"Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" In 1963, Dr. King attributed this statement to Lincoln, describing it as an example of Lincoln's "redemptive love."
We must not be enemies, Lincoln once said—and it's clear that he did say that. There followed an especially deadly war—a war which carries various names right to the present day.
Lincoln was killed at the end of that war. John Wilkes Booth had passed on the notion that we were secretly friends.
All these years later, David Brooks has written a book which seems to draw on somewhat similar themes. A lengthy essay in Sunday's New York Times was adapted from Brooks' new book—a book which carries this somewhat clunky title:
How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen
Lincoln's statement about being friends was explicitly political. He was warning against a process of otherization between those in the North and those in the South.
On its face, Brooks' lengthy essay in Sunday's Times seemed to lack any such overtly political context. For the most part, his essay offers observations like these:
BROOKS (10/22/23): I have learned something profound along the way. Being openhearted is a prerequisite for being a full, kind and wise human being. But it is not enough. People need social skills. The real process of, say, building a friendship or creating a community involves performing a series of small, concrete actions well: being curious about other people; disagreeing without poisoning relationships; revealing vulnerability at an appropriate pace; being a good listener; knowing how to ask for and offer forgiveness; knowing how to host a gathering where everyone feels embraced; knowing how to see things from another’s point of view.
People want to connect. Above almost any other need, human beings long to have another person look into their faces with love and acceptance. The issue is that we lack practical knowledge about how to give one another the attention we crave. Some days it seems like we have intentionally built a society that gives people little guidance on how to perform the most important activities of life.
I see the results in the social clumsiness I encounter too frequently. I’ll be leaving a party or some gathering and I’ll realize: That whole time, nobody asked me a single question. I estimate that only 30 percent of the people in the world are good question askers. The rest are nice people, but they just don’t ask. I think it’s because they haven’t been taught to and so don’t display basic curiosity about others.
In passages like these, Brooks seems to be talking about the best ways to be "a full, kind and wise human being" in everyday social life—for example, when attending "a party or some gathering."
How can we be fuller, kinder, wiser human beings? In that passage, Brooks offers several basic ideas:
We should learn to be curious about other people. We should learn how to disagree with other people without poisoning our relationships.
We should learn to be good listeners, knowing how to ask for and offer forgiveness. We should know how to see things from another’s point of view.
We should know how to see things from another’s point of view? Atticus Finch gave that same advice, in a book which was once read by middle school students.
In that famous book, Finch's famous advice was offered within an overtly "political" context. Later in Brooks' lengthy column, his meditation goes in a "political" direction too:
BROOKS: Finally, I wanted to learn these skills for reasons of national survival. We evolved to live with small bands of people like ourselves. Now we live in wonderfully diverse societies, but our social skills are inadequate for the divisions that exist. We live in a brutalizing time.
I’ve noticed along the way that some people are much better at seeing people than others are. In any collection of humans, there are diminishers and there are illuminators. Diminishers are so into themselves, they make others feel insignificant. They stereotype and label. If they learn one thing about you, they proceed to make a series of assumptions about who you must be.
Illuminators, on the other hand, have a persistent curiosity about other people. They have been trained or have trained themselves in the craft of understanding others. They know how to ask the right questions at the right times—so that they can see things, at least a bit, from another’s point of view. They shine the brightness of their care on people and make them feel bigger, respected, lit up.
In that passage, learning to be a better person has somehow become a matter of "national survival." We need to stop "diminishing" others, Brooks says. We need to learn how to "see things, at least a bit, from another’s point of view."
"We live in a brutalizing time," Brooks says in that passage. At one time, our ancestors lived among people just "like [them]selves"—but today, our world isn't like that. According to Brooks, "our social skills are inadequate" for the "wonderfully diverse" society in which we live.
As we read this part of Brooks' essay, we thought of what Hillary Clinton recently said. Also, we thought about a different approach taken by her husband.
Full disclosure! Nothing we wrote this week will require you to abandon or change the way you see various others.
That said, Brooks wanted to learn the skills in question "for reasons of national survival." In that passage, it seems to us that he's touching upon a highly significant point.
Coming tomorrow: "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
"Lincoln's statement about being friends was explicitly political. He was warning against a process of otherization between those in the North and those in the South."
ReplyDeleteNo, he wasn't doing that. The North and South were already polarized to the point of secession, not because of otherization but due to disagreements over slavery. The "otherization" was between white and black people, free and slave people -- not the North which wished to discontinue the practice of slavery and the South which wished to preserve it and extend it into the new terroritories to the West of the existing states. Lincoln wished to preserve the Union.He was neither thinking nor talking about otherization in any sense resembling Somerby's current obsession.
What Brooks describes sounds like empathy. It also sounds like respect for differences between people. That is not what Somerby has ever preached here. He has instead insisted that differences should be glossed over in favor of treating everyone as if such differences did not exist, were unimportant. Somerby has called for an end to identity politics (where all sorts of differences are respected) in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach to humanity.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies."
That's a dangerous idea, Bob. If people become friends, they might turn against the powers that be.
Obviously, it can't be allowed. And the best mechanism against it is perpetual hatemongering. And so it goes.
Nice idea, doesn’t always work in practice. It takes two to be friends.
DeleteThe right wing has no "powers that be" in the House.
DeleteTrying to convince the American people that we do not govern ourselves but are under the thumb of corporate entities such as the media (or who?) is the way to suppress votes.
Lincoln was the newly sworn-in “powers that be “.
DeleteI dislike the way complaints against MAGA misbehavior are implied to be hate-mongering by people like Somerby.
DeleteI live in Denver CO and worked as an usher at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. I wasn't there the night Boebert pulled her stunts, but people who behave like she did are not respected or highly regarded because of the way they treat other people.
This example of abuse of power by Boebert is one that anyone who has been to a live show can empathize with. But Republicans who are not Boebert engage in similar behavior all over our nation without pushback. They terrorize bystanders by carrying guns into stores. They attack doctors and nurses who are trying to help them. They try to have books they have never read removed from libraries and schools. They think no one matters but themselves. The MAGA politicians are the worst, but politicians on the right seem to think it doesn't matter what they do.
This is bullying. You don't stop bullying by appeasing the bully. We as a nation need to stand up to these people who bully others. That isn't otherizing them. It is drawing a line and saying we will not tolerate how these people behave toward us and our nation.
I was pleased when Jim Jordan tried to bully his fellow congress members into supporting him, to the point of death threats when they refused (including Ken Buck of Denver) and was strongly resisted, kicked to the curb for it. That is how human relations should work when certain people try to disrespect others, even among Republicans. By standing together, non-MAGA Republicans showed that they do not have to be dominated by Trump-like bullying but can oppose these assholes who have taken over their party.
It gives me hope for the future, much more than Somerby's platitudes and his moaning about how human nature is awful.
Lincoln gave that speech March 4, 1861, the day of his inauguration. Guess what happened on April 12, 1861?
ReplyDeleteAnd guess what Lincoln did on April 15, 1861?
As a reminder, he declared war on the south. The southern army became the enemy, because they opposed the Union and had to be crushed. Lincoln even referred to them as the enemy. An example:
He is speaking and opposing in a letter the idea of a compromise with the rebels:
“In an effort at such compromise we should waste time, which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that would be all.”
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/conkling.htm
My point is that there are times one has to take sides, despite or even because of one’s humane impulses. Even Lincoln’s generous views did not prevent the conflict, and his view of the confederates was not borne of his hatred or “otherizing” of them.
"As we read this part of Brooks' essay, we thought of what Hillary Clinton recently said. Also, we thought about a different approach taken by her husband."
ReplyDeleteHere is the problem with Somerby's praise for Bill and denigration of Hillary. Bill was talking about Pentecostals in rural Arkansas -- farmers and others who were uninvolved in politics. He visited them in order to seek their votes for William Fulbright, Clinton's political mentor. Hillary was talking about extreme right wing MAGA fanatics, people who not only attended Trump rallies but engaged in death threats to political opponents, formed caravans on the highway to obstruct a campaign bus, spread ugly rumors and repeated disinformation about opponents, attacked dissenters and protesters on Trump's behalf, and ultimately broke into the Capitol building in order to overthrow an election. She was referring to the racist and sexist beliefs and bad behavior of a portion of Trump's supporters, and her remark about needing deprogramming referred to the difficulty getting those people to acknowledge the real world in which Trump lost his election and conspiracy theories are fiction not reality.
None of that has anything to do with otherization or with being unwilling to forgive political enemies. It has to do with acknowleding what die-hard Trump supporters are like and trying to figure out how to bring them back into reality. Respecting their differences won't do that.
This is a lot like expecting George Manson to become a normal person by treating him like a kindergarten teacher. And Hillary was not wrong about what she said, nor was Bill Clinton, who was speaking about an entirely different group of people, under different circumstances, and for different purposes. Those differences must be respected too, because they are the facts on the ground, whereas Somerby is selling pie in the sky today. Being nice to bad people doesn't get them to change. And yes, many of those MAGA extremists with their guns and hatred, are not nice people and they are not going to respond to Somerby's "be nice" plan.
Charles Manson
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manson_Family
In the indictment this week, one of
ReplyDeleteTrump’s stooges pleaded guilty
concerning the fake electors. The
Crime was specifically called
“Forgery.” A couple of years ago,
Bob piled endless, really vicious
abuse in Rachel Maddow for using
that word in her reporting in
connection with the treasonous
activities that was the fake
electors scam.
An open hearted, decent man
would certainly apologize for what
Bob did to Rachel Maddow. At the
very least he would admit he was
wrong, as Bob has so often been
in these matters when he looked
at them at all.
Yet Daily Howler readers are well
aware that Bob does not respect his
readers enough to engage in such
self correction. Anymore than David
Brooks can resist going after Biden
on inflation when his drinks are too
expensive at the airport.
Here’s an example of his attack on Maddow:
DeleteWHEN HUMANS SEE OTHERS: When humans see Others, we may tend to see crimes!
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2022/01/when-humans-see-others-when-humans-see.html?m=1
As far as Brooks goes, doesn’t everyone know he used his New York Times expense account to pay for that meal and those drinks, the price of which he could have ascertained ahead of time?
For those of you who keep insisting that Somerby does not defend the right wing, here is a prime example of him doing it.
DeleteSomerby called this crime a figment of Maddow's imagination because she was frightened. And yet people are pleading guilty to committing the crime:
Delete"Jenna Ellis has just become the third former Trump attorney to accept a plea deal in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ RICO case against the ex-president and his 18 co-defendants.
According to Politico’s Kyle Cheney, Ellis will plead guilty to “aiding and abetting false statements/writings.”
Somerby apparently thinks it is otherization when Republicans are convicted of committing crimes, because we wouldn't see these acts as crimes if we had not been thinking of these folks as Others. He perhaps has a point that Republicans don't consider their own machinations to be crimes, but the definition of crime has a reality beyond the identity (Republican or Democrat) of the person commiting it. We don't have acts that are crimes when Democrats do them but not crimes when Republicans do them, or vice versa. So this invocation of otherization to explain away Republican wrong doing is ridiculous on Somerby's part. But perhaps this crime-fighting is how Somerby justifies to himself receiving deep money payments for his work as a propagandist. He must know that he is bending reality and trying to confuse people with this sort of sophistry (see 1/25/22 essay linked by mh above).
mh & anons - I read TDH's 1/25/22 post, the one MH cites. In it, TDH, at length, faults Maddow, harshly you could say, (but not "viciously") for using the word "forgery" to describe the fake electors submittal of bogus electoral votes. He certainly wasn't defending the fake electors actions - he was challenging the use of the word "forgery" by Maddow in her characterization of their behavior. I would add - if the fake electors had signed the name of the real electors, and submitted to the electoral college these votes to make it look like the actual electors were voting for Trump - that would fit the general definition of forgery. If they sign their own names to a document as if they were the actual electors - that sounds more like fraud to me. Fraud or forgery, Like if someone forged your name on a check or a deed, both bad, just an issue of the right word for it. Now Atty Ellis has pleaded guilty to "forgery." I don't know if it is for submitting the fake electoral votes like Maddow was talking about per the 1/25/22 post - or something different. To the above anonymouse - no this doesn't in any way "prove" that TDH "defends the right wing." He just got worked up (maybe too worked up) over the use of the word "forgery" to describe the fake electors' actions. And maybe he (and I) are wrong, that prosecutors can win convictions based on forgery for what the fake electors did and Ellis if part of her guilty plea had to do with the fake electors or something similar. I would add that most people charged with a crime enter into a plea bargain. Sometimes they aren't guilty,or have good defenses - but they don't want to bear the expense of a trial or the risk of being found guilty and getting a more severe punishment.
DeleteAC/MA You admit that Somerby has attacked Maddow over the use of the word forgery. Who does that without an ulterior motive?
DeleteI looked up forgery at the time Somerby made this complaint and found that Maddow was within the definition of the crime. Note that Somerby is also objecting to the accusation that a crime had been committed. That IS a defense of the actions of the people created the fake elector lists and misrepresented them as genuine by submitting them as such.
Somerby gets "too worked up" like this a lot, always over nitpicky trivialities that in no way exonerate the person he is defending. His goal is to confuse readers into thinking that there is no substance to the criminal accusations.
Ellis's entire indictment is about the fake electors. Go back and read it. She entered a guilty plea which makes her guilty of that charge. It means that when Maddow claimed these fake electors were a crime, they were -- the court has convicted three of the people involved based on their own admissions of guilt. When someone confesses to a crime, no matter why, they are considered guilty and do not get to excuse themselves on the basis of expedience. But that wasn't the issue with Somerby's complaint against Maddow, which was more than harsh.
You seem to be working extra hard to exonerate Somerby today. That comes across the same way as Somerby's arguments do. You seem to have a vested interest in defending Somerby, without strong arguments for doing so. I wonder whether you have a partisan motive that matches Somerby's.
You people are utter fucking morons. His complaint wasn't over Maddow "using
Deletethat word in her reporting". Either you are trolls or you're just fucking retarded.
No one pleaded guilty to forgery this week you idiot cunt.
DeleteThe relevant point, 8:19, is that several people were charged with the following:
Delete10. Forgery in the first degree
11. Conspiracy to commit Forgery in the first degree
In other words, Maddow was correct in calling this “forgery.”
Dumbfuck: " Somerby's article wasn't about Maddow being correct in calling this “forgery.”
DeleteSeveral people may have been charged with it but no one has pleaded guilty to it as you stupidly asserted above. And none of that has anything to do with the substance of the blog post in question which you are too stupid to understand.
Deleteaiding creation of fake certificates of electors
DeleteIf you keep calling anyone cunt I will report this blog for violation of blogspot rules.
DeleteTo review:
Delete- no one pleaded guilty to a crime was specifically called “Forgery.” You're fucking wrong about that.
- No one wrote "really vicious abuse" about Rachel Maddow for using that word in her reporting. That is fucking idiotic as usual. You're fucking retarded.
- This fantasy in your head is not an example of Somerby defending the right wing.
- You're dumbfuck troll that make liberals look like fools.
And ..
Delete- Somerby's post stands as completely reasonable and accurate. Maddow was sensationalizing the term and playing her audience for fools in doing so. And not to mention being journalistically irresponsible. You can't see it because you're a stupid fucking moron. So go fuck yourself.
People were actually charged with forgery in Georgia. example: “ On or about the 14th day of December 2020, DAVID JAMES SHAFER, SHAWN MICAH TRESHER STILL, CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, and unindicted co- conspirators Individual 2, Individual 8, Individual 9, Individual 10, Individual ll, Individual 12, Individual l3, Individual l4, Individual 15, Individual 16, Individual l7, Individual l8, and Individual 19, whose identities are known to the Grand Jury, committed the felony offense of FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-1(b), in Fulton _ County, Georgia, by, with the intent to defraud, knowingly making a document titled "CERTIFICATE OF THE VOTES OF THE 2020 ELECTORS FROM GEORGIA," a writing other than a check, in such manner that the writing as made purports to have been made by authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, who did not give such authority, and uttered and delivered said document to the Archivist of the United States. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16—14-3(5)(A)(”
DeleteAnd conspiracy to commit forgery:
“ And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do charge and accuse DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, and MICHAEL A. ROMAN with the offense of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-9-1(b), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of a crime, and together with indicted and unindicted co-conspirators, in the County of Fulton and State of Georgia, on and between the 6th day of December 2020 and the 14th day of December 2020, unlawfully conspired, with the intent to defraud, to knowingly make a document titled "RE: Notice of Filling of Electoral College Vacancy," a writing other than a check, in such manner that the writing as made purports to have been made by the authority of the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia, who did not give such authority, and to utter and deliver said document to the Archivist of the United States and the Office of the Governor "of Georgia;
And the Defendants named in Count l”
It wasn’t sensationalizing. People tried to subvert the election system. It was worth stressing then and now. Maddow was correct.
Here is the indictment:
degree
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
And the fake electors were also charged with forgery in Michigan:
Delete“The nine defendants who appeared virtually in Ingham County District Court on Thursday were arraigned on eight criminal charges, including forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. The top charges carry a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/all-16-michigan-republicans-accused-of-being-fake-electors-for-trump-plead-not-guilty
Oh. People being charged with it now means they pleaded guilty to it this week? Is that how it works in dumbfuck land, dumbfuck?
DeleteDo you understand that by accepting the plea agreement and by agreeing to cooperate and testify for the prosecution, a lot of the original charges were dropped, Troll Boy?
DeleteOh. People accepting a plea agreement and agreeing to cooperate and testify for the prosecution now means they pleaded guilty to "forgery" this week?
DeleteIs that how it works in dumbfuckland, dumbfuck?
Yes, that is exactly what I said, Troll Boy.
DeleteIf the liberal politburo told them 'forgery', then forgery it is. No point arguing.
DeleteIn psychological counseling, there is a form of Rogerian treatment that involves unconditional positive regard and reflective listening, of the type described by Brooks. It works well with many people, but it is a disaster when used with other clients, especially teen boys in juvenile detention facilities.
ReplyDeleteWhen you try to be nice to such boys, they regard the counselor with contempt, as someone who is weak who can be tricked, ignored, derided and otherwise abused. That form of counseling gets nowhere with such kids. Recall the way juvenile delinquents treated the nice teacher in Blackboard Jungle for a vivid example of what happens when you treat such kids with unfailing kindness and try to get them to talk to you openly while you accept them and empathize. It just doesn't work at all and you will be regarded as someone who can be walked over, who has no authority and deserves no respect.
What works better? A specific form of counseling was developed that involves contracting with the youth for good behavior in exchange for privileges and perks. Bad behavior loses privileges. There are no excuses for bad behavior and the counselor insists on being treated respectfully, but also treats the youth respectfully when he behaves well and follows the agreed rules. The youth signs a contract specifying explicit behaviors expected in exchange for specific rewards. This works well because the youth buys into the exchange and knows what kind of behavior is expected. There is no tolerance for backsliding.
The MAGA extremists are the delinquent youth of politics. They know they are breaking rules and being disrespectful but Trump has given them permission to do it. They make hate calls and death threats. They beat people up in parking lots and attack peaceful protesters. They endanger campaign buses on he road and drive trucks through crowds of people. They broke into the Capitol building at Trump's behest, smeared shit on the walls, stole things, and attacked police. Being nice to them in return only encourages bad behavior -- it will not turn them into puppy dogs as Brooks and Somerby suggest.
Holding people accountable for their bad behavior works. You can do this with respect and civility, but it must be done or there will be no mutual respect. Delinquents take advantage of kindness, bit the hands that feed them, laugh at those trying to be respectful or kind to their faces and behind their backs because they consider such people weak and foolish (dupes, suckers as Trump puts it).
The left needs to protect itself against such people, and not put ourselves out there to be abused further by offering kindness in response to bad behavior. Today, the RNC is claiming that Biden is busy walking on the beach instead of rescuing hostages. That kind of lie is bad political behavior. If we make nice when they keep lying, we make fools of ourselves and do nothing to make friends out of enemies. They are obsessed with winning and will only take advantage of overtures without any improvement in their behavior in return.
Politics is about policy choices, leadership of the country, etc, not some sort of interpersonal friendship. We can be civil to each other, but that doesn’t mean I ought to give up my policy goals when I feel that they are beneficial to the country and the other party’s views are detrimental. It also does not mean that I overlook criminal behavior or lies. I would try to persuade others of my views, but agree to disagree if they ask me to abandon them. We expect politicians and political parties to fight for those views. There is no such thing as a world without political factions, because there will presumably always be disagreements about policy.
ReplyDeleteKevin Drum has written posts where he explicitly calls on liberals to moderate or drop their views on what he calls “cultural issues” in order to win votes.
Is this the kind of thinking that would make us friends with Republicans, or, a different question entirely, get them to vote for us in, say, rural Arkansas?
‘It is well within our power to break our two-decade 50-50 deadlock and become routine winners in national politics. All it takes is a moderation of our positions from "pretty far left" to "pretty liberal." That's all. But who's got the courage to say so?’
https://jabberwocking.com/if-you-hate-the-culture-wars-blame-liberals/
Is this the kind of thinking that would make us friends with Republicans, or, a different question entirely, get them to vote for us in, say, rural Arkansas?
DeleteAsk Claire McCaskill how well that turned out for her. She's now warming a chair on MSNBC while Senator Josh Hawley occupies her former seat in the Senate. She never tired of telling us how she knew how to talk to those moderate republicans in MO. LOL
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou spent a summer of love with masks over your faces as your tried to burn down police precincts, a church, and went up against Secret Service at Trump WH.
DeleteYou were trashing downtown DC and other cities during Trump’s inauguration.
We see businesses moving out of cities now because of the looting.
This what you will have and it’s what you’ll encourage, until you look someone other than Bob in the face.
Then you’ll nod because you will have to nod to the people you’ve used as tickets.
They’ll laugh at you. Just as we shake our heads at you now.
Cecelia, was that before or after you attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th?
DeleteIt was after you burned and looted NYC, Minneapolis, LA, and set fire to the mayor of Portland’s condominium.
DeleteWas this before or after you killed nine black people in Charleston?
DeleteAfter which you ran over six people in Milwaukee?
DeleteSomerby, Brooks, and Drum are all right wing.
DeleteLeft wing: egalitarianism and equality
Right wing: hierarchy and dominance
Defined as such both historically (French Revolution) and behaviorally (anthropology).
Drum’s analysis is terrible and inaccurate; for example, in that old post, he quotes someone giving a false analysis of the Hispanic vote that had been already debunked - there was no significant switching of Hispanic votes, in reality, Republicans managed to motivate right wing Hispanic voters that had not engaged in voting before. So Republicans gained votes by motivating voters who previously were not voting. They did not persuade Democratic Hispanics to switch their votes, they employed motivation to get their side to vote.
Pointedly, other than tax cuts for the wealthy, Republicans have no policy agenda; for Republicans, it’s all about culture war, that’s how they motivate their voters.
Persuasion does not play a significant role in electoral politics, motivation does. And, unfortunately, so does voter suppression.
We tried the centrist/appeasement route, with Dems as neoliberals and other “Third Way” nonsense, and it failed miserably.
Dems have woken to the fact that a) you give a Republican an inch and they take a mile, and b) Dem voters are motivated by progressive policies, not centrist appeasement. Since then, Dems have racked up wins in ‘18, ‘20, and ‘22.
Drum is a right wing partisan and ignorant, and his claims are unsupported by evidence and irrelevant.
And Drum won’t even allow you to post anonymously.
DeleteTake it up with Somerby, you piece of shit.
DeleteYou owe Bob a debt of thanks. Who do you hate worse? Bob or Kevin?
DeleteI don't hate either of them. I used to like Bob, and I still like Kevin.
DeleteI used to like both but theey’ve changed over time.
DeleteCecelia,
DeleteYou forgot to blame us for the Bowling Green Massacre.
I'll blame it on laziness, which is definitely a Right-wing trait.
I think the main lesson of our current political times is that laws need to be enforced or they will be broken with impunity.
ReplyDeleteIf Trump had been treated like a normal politician in the earliest days, he might not have gotten so out of control later on.
1. His lies should have been called out immediately by the media and repeatedly debunked each and every time.
2. His derisive tweets about uninvolved people such as Rosie O'Donnell should have been so out-of-bounds that he should have been seen as non-viable in the primaries. The same with his labeling of his Republican opponents with names like "Little Marco". That is unacceptable in a serious politician.
3. He should have been required to provide his tax returns and honest financial statements, FEC reports and divulge his assets early on, as other candidates did. No excuse for him because his businesses were complex (or whatever).
4. His lack of experience should have been considered a liability, as it clearly was, not excused because he was supposedly good at business. Businessmen should be seen as attempting to buy office, without having paid any dues or earned a shot at higher office due to prior service.
5. Scandals that would have been fatal for other politicians should have been fatal for him, including his affairs, the grab'em by the pussy tape, the Steele dossier accusations. His collusion with Wikileaks in hacking Podesta's emails should have ended Trump's career. The media's disrespect for Clinton enabled Trump's misbehavior.
6. Trump should have been held to staying by his own podium during the debate, not stalking around the stage. Similarly, Trump's refusal to have his entourage and himself covid-tested before the debate with Biden should have ended the debate right then.
These are only a few of the ways in which rules were waived for Trump to the detriment of our election process. He should have been held to the same standards and traditions and norms as all other politicians have followed. When the rules were broken for him, it opened the door to the crimes that followed. We are responsible for letting him do things no other president would have attempted, because we bought into the idea of his specialness.
Somerby's essay today is not going to fix that. It will worsen the right's corruption and tolerance of liars and cheats in their own ranks. We can help them by holding ALL politicians accountable, beginning immediately. That way it will be more clear to the right wing that everyone needs to take being a politicians seriously so that we can effectively govern our nation.
Brooks and Somerby's suggetions won't accomplish that. It is a huge mistake and a major step in the wrong direction.
Schools have attempted to teach social skills and have implemented curricula intended to develop social and emotional learning. This has been going for decades and is backed by research showing both the effectiveness of suc teaching and its important. Current Republicans are dead set against this kind of instruction in schools, as part of the culture war.
ReplyDeleteIs Brooks aware of this? He sounds like he doesn't know what has been going on in our schools. Neither does Somerby.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23584837/social-emotional-learning-conservative-culture-war-in-schools
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/26/1124082878/how-social-emotional-learning-became-a-frontline-in-the-battle-against-crt
https://www.thecut.com/2022/04/conservative-backlash-social-emotional-learning.htmlhttps://www.edweek.org/leadership/social-emotional-learning-persists-despite-political-backlash/2023/07
"NATIONAL SURVIVAL: David Brooks advances a point..."
ReplyDeleteI think our national survival depends more on not allowing Trump to sell nuclear submarine secrets than on David Brooks teaching social skills to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Somerby reaching new heights in strawmanning while hitting rock bottom - again - fluffing the mind-dulling David Brooks.
ReplyDeleteKillings in the U.S. are dropping at a historic rate. Will anyone notice? https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2023-10-20/killings-in-the-u-s-are-dropping-at-an-historic-rate-will-anyone-notice-essential-politics
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, will David in Cal notice?
These comments are all trolls, some of them longer, some of them better thought out than others, but all fundamentally trolls.
ReplyDelete-normal person, not letting the door hit me on the way out
Troll definition (internet):
Delete"a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content. Internet trolls. In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word "troll" to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities."
1. How are the comments above disruptive of community here?
2. How are the comments inflammatory, off-topic, irrelevant or offensive?
Nearly every comment above is responsive to Somerby's essay and expressing some opinion.
Your comment is the first one today to attack the other commenters, which is a hallmark of troll behavior.
I suspect that no one will miss you here.
Hurry or you’ll miss lunch at the Crybaby Institute.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:56pm, it’s David Brooks.
DeleteWho would need trolls?
I am a troll, and I’m not going anywhere.
DeleteI’m Mao, but I prefer to comment anonymously.
DeleteAnonmous7:16pm, who’s surprised at that.
DeleteLincoln also famously said that Blacks deserved to be free, but were inferior to Whites.
ReplyDeleteHere is what Somerby sarcastically said about those fake electors in Michigan:
ReplyDelete“Or maybe those fake electors! (The ones the Michigan Attorney General doesn't seem willing to charge.)”
TOP RHODES SCHOLAR MUGS AND CLOWNS: The stars all knew how to open their shows!
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2022
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2022/01/top-rhodes-scholar-mugs-and-clowns.html?m=1
They have been charged.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/michigan-fake-electors/index.html