We scan The Atlantic's idea of deep thought!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024 

The sound of zero hands clapping: Are we the humans actually capable of conducting a serious discourse? Are we built for such work?

As we noted along the way, it isn't clear that the answer is yes. This brings us to new essay for The Atlantic by Arthur Brooks.

No one with any serious "training," analytical or comedic, could have resisted its principal headline. That principal headline says this:

Three Ways to Become a Deeper Thinker

Three ways to become a deeper thinker? Who could have passed that up?

Starting in 1991, Saturday Night Live put Jack Handey in charge of that program's Deep Thoughts. In fairness, Handey was and is a humorist; Brooks is serious all the way down.

Are we wired for this sort of work? Dual headline include, the Brooks essay starts like this:

Three Ways to Become a Deeper Thinker
You don’t have to become a Buddhist monk to realize the value of contemplating hard questions without clear answers.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

You may have encountered this cryptic question at some point. It is a koan, or riddle, devised by the 18th-century Zen Buddhist master Hakuin Ekaku. Such paradoxical questions have been used for centuries to train young monks, who were instructed to meditate on and debate them. This was intended to be taxing work that could induce maddening frustration—but there was a method to it too. The novitiates were not meant to articulate tidy answers; they were supposed to acquire, through mental struggle, a deeper understanding of the question itself—for this was the path to enlightenment.

That's the way the essay starts, beneath that dual headline.

It's possible that there's some cultural tradition within which that "cryptic / paradoxical question" might be seen as making some kind of sense, or perhaps as serving some mind of purpose. 

Here within the western world, things may not work that way. Here within the western world, when we talk about "clapping your hands," we're talking about something that's done with two hands.

It isn't obvious what you'd mean if you spoke about clapping your hand [singular]—if you spoke about "clapping" just one hand. Of course, a person could always explain what he meant by some such locution, but absent some such explanation, there would be no obvious way to know what the person might have meant, and it wouldn't make any obvious sense to try to figure it out.

This silly piddle from Zenmaster Arthur came on a glorious day. Even as post-election intellectual chaos controls the discourse on every front, we decided today to return to a more fundamental question:

Does Kurt Gödel's "incompleteness theorem" actually make any sense?

We took Stephen Budiansky's bio of Godel with us to the medical joint, which doubles as an excellent reading room. This is the volume in question:

Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel. W.W. Norton & Company, 2021.

Gödel's theorem is regarded as a major masterwork. Gödel himself is routinely described as "the greatest logician since Aristotle."

Is it possible that Gödel's master theorem doesn't make any sense? We dipped into Budiansky's book for the first time in several years, and we were surprised by our initial reaction:

Counterintuitive as it might seem, we'll guess that the answer ain't yes.

(Can anything linked to "Russell's paradox" actually make any sense?)

The Atlantic chose to publish the Arthur Brook piece. Regarding the question we've been asking about the way we humans are built, that decision, all by itself, along may allow us to rest our case.


BAYOUS: The reasons go on and on and on!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024

The problem is frequently Us: Even if only apocryphally, Diogenes wandered through classical Athens, looking for one honest man (sic).

We Blues have been in a similar pickle in the wake of the recent election. 

Why in the world would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump? Again and again and again and again, we've gone looking for even one acceptable reason. 

Why did anyone vote for Trump? Once again, we think you should consider what Thom Hartmann recently said.

Hartmann is a good, decent person. Last Sunday, on C-Span's Washington Journal, he offered this assessment:

MODERATOR (11/17/24): I'll go back to something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that, since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the party that supports racial minorities, according to your assessment. But also, I want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. 

The Democrats have not won the vote among white Americans since 1964. Overwhelmingly over the years, white voters have voted Republican, and Democrats have lost support among white voters even since Barack Obama in 2008. And what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics?

HARTMANN: Well, I think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still extant among white people in America, you know. And certainly, the Trump presidency, and even his successful campaign in 2016, frankly shocked me.

[...]

I don't have an explanation beyond for this very clear racial division which has existed since 1964, beyond just the shocking reality that at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist.

To watch the video of Hartmann's full remarks, you can just click here. The exchange we've excerpted, including Hartmann's fuller remarks, starts at the eight-minute mark.

Just for the record, Thom Hartmann is a good, decent person. That said, who is Thom Hartmann?

The dude has had a substantial career. The leading authority on his life offers such excerpts as these:

Thom Hartmann 

Thomas Carl Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio personality, author, businessman, and progressive political commentator. Hartmann has been hosting a nationally syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, since 2003 and hosted a nightly television show, The Big Picture, between 2010 and 2017.

[...]

Hartmann's national program, on the air since 2003 and now in the noon to 3 pm. ET daypart, was chosen by Air America to replace Al Franken on most Air America affiliates in 2007. From 2008 to 2011, Talkers Magazine rated Hartmann the most popular liberal talk show host in America, rising from number 10 among all talk show hosts in 2008 to number 8 in 2011 and 2015. According to his then-syndicator Dial Global, more people listened to Hartmann's show on more stations than any other progressive talk show in America. The Thom Hartmann Program is estimated by industry magazine Talkers to have 7 million unique listeners per week.

We can't vouch for the perfect, up-to-date accuracy of some of those statements, but Hartmann has been a very successful, highly influential progressive figure. 

To see his program's current website, you can just click this. Hartmann is a good, decent person, and he's still going strong.

Have we mentioned the fact that Hartmann is a good, decent person? That said, we'd have to leaven that assessment in the following way:

In our view, his C-Span statement lies on the borderline of insane.  We've never seen the famous film, but just as Destry is said to have ridden again, so did the unfortunate "basket of deplorables" comment when this good, decent person spoke, except his claim was much stronger.

Almost surely, Hartmann's statement on C-Span can be parsed in various ways. As with members of all human groups, many of us in Blue America are highly skilled at this practice. 

Like President Biden's unfortunate statement about "garbage," Hartmann's statement can probably be explained, or perhaps explained away. Even so, we're forced to suggest that, on its face, the statement seems to say this:

If someone voted for Candidate Trump, that person must be deeply racist.

These Trump Voters Today! In this circumstance, calling them "racist" wasn't enough. They had to be deeply racist!

We've decided to end our series this week with this one statement by Hartmann. We're going to suggest that his statement is just this side of completely insane—and yes, he's a good and decent, highly accomplished person.

Why may people have voted for Trump? Warning! More than 77 million people did, so there may be more than one answer.

That said, we humans are wired to seek simply solutions to our epistemic dilemmas. This human impulse is bred in the bone, over there in Red America but also over here, among Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Like Hartmann, we voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. The thought of voting for Candidate Trump never crossed our mind.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. That said, we've spent a good chunk of our life trying to learn how to avoid making crazy statements.

Alas! Starting at least in the 1960s, we Blues began convincing ourselves that We are the highly moral, highly intelligent people. 

Wasn't it pretty to think so?  Given the ways our species is built, this flattering portrait isn't accurate and it never was. 

Why might "normal, decent" people have decided to cast their votes for Candidate Trump? We'll start listing a passel of blindingly obvious possible reasons in Monday morning's report.

The possible reasons go on and on and on. Like members of all human tribes, those of us in Blue America may not be able to see this.

We've met the enemy, Pogo said. Will we Blues ever ride again?

A controversial term: A bayou can be a type of backwater. Roy Orbison to the side, an array of "Blue Bayous" exist in the world, not all of them welcoming, helpful or pleasant.


Why did some "normal" people vote for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

Bret and Gail opine: We were struck by what Gail Collins said midway through this week's Conversation with Bret Stephens.

As their colloquy began, the pair swapped comments regarding the horrors of Hegseth and Gaetz and  Gabbard and Bobby. Eventually, Stephens switched gears—and Collins' statement surprised us:

Avengers, Assemble

[...]

Bret: Switching gears, Gail—Joe Biden is kinda slinking out of office. With the election behind us, how would you rate his presidency?

Gail: I’m so torn on that one, Bret. In the future people may well look back on his administration’s achievements—from expanding health care access to the fight against global warming—and give him a high grade.

But at this particular, painful moment, I can’t forgive him for hanging on to his office so long that it became impossible for the Democrats to hold primary elections to find a successor.

How about you?

Collins seems to feel that Biden's refusal to step aside made it impossible for Trump to be defeated. We were surprised by what she said, less so by Stephens' assessment:

Bret (continuing directly): On a ranking of presidents, I’d have to place him alongside Franklin Pierce or John Tyler: inconsequential in a generally bad way.

[...]

Through hubris, Biden destroyed his single greatest accomplishment, which was the defeat of Donald Trump. Through diffidence, he failed to achieve what might have been the most impressive goal of his term, which would have been Russia’s battlefield defeat in Ukraine, thanks to rapid and overwhelming U.S. assistance. Through inattention, he allowed a preventable immigration crisis to unfold, along with a huge spike in inflation that was the predicted result of his reckless overspending. Through imprudence, he permitted the Justice Department to prosecute his predecessor in a way that did more to resurrect Trump’s political fortunes than it did to bury them. Through self-delusion, and the dishonesty or silence of his close confidants, he covered up the extent of his mental decline. Through political malpractice, he anointed Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee instead of encouraging a more open process that could have yielded a better candidate.

I bet you think I’m being way too harsh.

Gail: Well, um, yeah.

Bret: But don’t worry. After another four years of Trump, we’ll all look back at Biden as Abraham Lincoln II. 

Our summary: Stephens is heavily negative on Biden, thinks Trump is massively worse. 

In our view, that list of horribles Stephens presents is food for us Blues to chew on. Almost surely, lurking there are some of the factors which help explain Candidate Trump's 1.6-point win. 

Many of us in Blue America seem to have no ability to comprehend this fact. Trump voters are bigots and racists and deliberately dumb. Having offered this sweeping assessment of the Others, we achieve a full stop.

Among us humans, tribal delusion has always worked that way. It's part of the way we humans are built. It can't be anything we might have done. 

Eventually, Stephens said this:

Bret (continuing directly): Question is: Will the Democrats have learned the lessons of this election so they can win in ’28?

Gail: Well, if the lesson is to point out when a president’s too old, there’s certainly a whole new opportunity.

Bret: Touché. Although the problem with Trump isn’t senility. It’s … sinisterility.

Gail: We’ll be spending the next couple of years fighting Trump and giving points to the governors and legislators who are doing the best job of pushing back against his worst excesses.

Bret: Paging Ritchie Torres, Seth Moulton, John Fetterman, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and any other Democrat capable of understanding why normal, decent people still voted for Trump.

Say what? According to Stephens, some people who are "normal and decent" did in fact vote for Trump! Some normal people had decent reasons which led them to cast that vote.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but we agree with that assessment. And according to Stephens, there are at least four Democratic office holders who understand this point.

Diogenes is widely said to have looked for one honest man. In our view, we Blues should possibly make a better effort to shine some light on the reasons why some normal, decent people may have decided to vote for Trump.

In our view, the reasons go on and on and on. But so does Blue denial.

BAYOUS: Why would anyone have voted for Trump?

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2024

The possible reasons go on and on: Just for the record, the madness has always been general. The madness is bred in the bone.

We actually aren't "the rational animal"—and that's even true Over Here, within our own Blue America.

Irrational conduct belongs to us too! Such conduct has been widely observed as we Blues have tried to answer this question:

Why in the world would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump?

For the record, we ourselves didn't vote for Trump. We voted for Candidate Harris. 

A whole lot of people did vote for Trump. Here's where the total currently stands, according to The Cook Political Report:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,898,763 (49.87%)
Candidate Harris: 74,391,431 (48.25%)

Eventually, the record will show that more than 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump. 

Most likely, that will be slightly less than half the electorate. But it's still a lot of people, spread across the vast expanse of the planet's fourth largest nation

A lot of people voted for Trump—but why in the world did they do that? Here's what happened when Thom Hartmann, a good, decent person, answered a version of that question on C-Span's Washington Journal.

The moderator posted a graphic. Her question then went like this:

MODERATOR (11/17/24): I'll go back to something you mentioned earlier. You mentioned that, since the 1960s, the Democrats have been the party that supports racial minorities, according to your assessment. But also, I want to look at this chart here about the distribution of white voters in particular. 

The Democrats have not won the vote among white Americans since 1964. Overwhelmingly over the years, white voters have voted Republican, and Democrats have lost support among white voters even since Barack Obama in 2008. And what do you think that means for the future of the party and the party's dynamics?

To see this full exchange, you can click this link. After that, you should skip ahead to the eight-minute mark.

That was the moderator's question. For the record, the chart showed Candidate Obama receiving 43% of the white vote in 2008, with Candidate Biden receiving 42% of the white vote in 2020.

As the chart's fine print disclosed, those numbers were estimates, based on (imprecise) exit polls. According to this year's exit polls, Candidate Harris received 41% of the white vote—and yes, allowing for possible errors in these estimates, that's a drop from the percentage Obama received in 2008.

Indeed, according to this year's exit polls, white voters favored Candidate Trump over Candidate Harris, 57%-41%. We wouldn't call that margin "overwhelming," which may not be what the moderator meant. But that's where the numbers stand, such as the numbers are.

As the Republican candidate always does, Candidate Trump did win a clear majority of the white vote this year. For the record, he also won a fair amount of non-white votes—and more than 77 million individuals voted for him nationwide.

Again, why in the world did people do that? Hartmann gave a lengthy answer to the moderator's question. Below, you see where the answer began, and you can also see where it ended:

HARTMANN (continuing directly): Well, I think what that reflects is the deep racism that is still extant among white people in America, you know. And certainly, the Trump presidency, and even his successful campaign in 2016, frankly shocked me.

[...]

I don't have an explanation beyond for this very clear racial division which has existed since 1964, beyond just the shocking reality that at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? As you can see, Hartmann started by talking about "white America." By the end of his statement, he was talking about "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that."

By the end of his reply, he seemed to be talking about Trump voters in general, not just those who are white. But he seemed to have only one explanation for what happened this year:

It isn't just that Trump's many voters apparently had to be racist. This candidate's voters are deeply racist, this good, decent person now said. 

He offered no other possible reason for all those millions of votes. According to Hartmann, "at least half of America, and arguably a little more than that, is just deeply racist."

Thom Hartmann's a good, decent person. Still, we'd say that his answer to that question comes to us straight outta the illogic which has always been bred in the bone. 

Also, straight outta the tribal madness which has always dogged the earth.

It comes to us from Salem Village. It comes to us from the plains outside the towering walls of Troy.  It comes to us from the place where tribal Storyline takes control and sensible assessment ends. 

In our view, it's an amazingly unintelligent statement—and we'd say a recent statement by Michael Moore is perhaps a second cousin to what Hartmann said.

Moore's statement was made in a Substack essay. When Mediaite reported Moore's statement, their report carried this headlineMichael Moore Rages at Americans For ‘Evil Deeds’ Over Trump Victory: ‘We Are NOT a Good People.’

That's how it seemed to Mediaite. Headline included, here's how Moore's essay begins

Hey, If You Can Kill 20 Million Native Americans, Enslave 12 Million Africans, and Let Biden Fund the Slaughter of 40,000 Women, Children and Elderly...

If you stop and think about it, we’ve come up with a lot of doozies in our history. Like the genocide of 20 million Native Americans. Or the enslavement of 12 million kidnapped Africans. Or us invading Vietnam and killing 4 million Asian people for no reason at all. 

We are not a good people. We have a non-stop cavalcade, a sordid laundry list of evil deeds that led us directly to last week...

Briefly, let's be fair. If you read Moore's full essay, or if you simply look at his headline, you'll see him inferentially suggesting possible reasons for Trump's win—possible reasons which go beyond the alleged "deep racism" of "at least half of America." 

For example, some voters may have been affected by the way President Biden allegedly funded the slaughter of thousands of women and children. That might have affected somebody's vote, with "deep racism" left to the side.

At any rate:

We are not a good people, Moore declared, basing his logic on events which took place when no one who voted in this election was actually alive. We Blues! We'd call that statement a logical mess, but also a political disaster—a type of political disaster we Blues sometimes seem to enjoy. 

We'd also call it profoundly unwise. But then, what else is new?

Then again, as we noted yesterday, there was Roxane Gay in last Sunday's New York Times. From the highest platform in Blue America, this is what she said:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

Roxane Gay is a good, decent person. In her world, Trump voters can't simply be wrong in their overall assessment. They can't be wrong on balance.

In her world, Trump voters have chosen to be mistaken and wrong. Inevitably, we return to Hartmann's claim:

Those 77 million Trump voters have chosen to embrace bigotry.

Major thought leaders in Blue America reason in such sweeping ways a great deal of the time. Almost surely, these familiar screeds help explain why some people voted for Trump.

Why did people vote for Candidate Trump? We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves, but the reasons which cut the other way go on and on and on and on, and then they continue from there.

Quite routinely, we Blues seem unable to grasp this fact. That says something very important about Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Exactly as it ever was, the Others are evil—we aren't!

Tomorrow: Why might people have voted for Trump? A return to our starter list


Professional wrestlers and D-list comedians...

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

...and hints of Caligula's horse: It's hard to get one's head around the inanity and the moral squalor surrounding the culture today.

It's true—Greg Gutfeld is still working his primetime beat on the Fox News Channel. That said, it isn't entirely clear what century this strange man thinks he's in.

Last night, he opened his program with a series of six (6!) jokes about (imagined) sexual misconduct by—who else?—Bill Clinton. 

These priapic politicians today! There was no mention of Matt Gaetz or of Pete Hegseth. Gutfeld was entertaining the rubes with the greatest hits from the long-ago 1990s.

Question: 

Has this 60-year-old termagant ever done a joke which turns on the sexual (mis)conduct of a fellow named Donald J. Trump? We can't say that he ever has! These are the wages of human inanity, but also of the modern "journalistic" practice known as "segregation by viewpoint."

As always, Gutfeld opened with a few minutes of jokes. After that, he delivered his opening issue-based monologue. 

Last night, the handful of opening jokes was finished at 10:02. His monologue dealt with the horrific defeat the Democrats suffered this month. 

Inevitably, this was the very first statement of his issue-based discussion:

GUTFELD (11/19/24): It's been fourteen days since the Democrats had to face the truth—they stink worse than the Capitol's men's room after Jerry Nadler's lunch of curry clam soup.

AUDIENCE: Whooaaa!

The misogyny and the fat jokes never stop on this primetime "cable news" program. On many nights, body parts and bodily waste will seem to be all this little guy knows.

Largely as a matter of choice, this seems to be all this idiot has. At some point, we'll make ourselves go into more detail, but we hope you'll excuse us today.

For the record, Gutfeld's squalor-based inanity has been a very big seller on the Fox News Channel. What Trump is currently doing may turn out to be much more consequential, but it's all a part of the cultural inanity which has been gripping our failing society for the past quite a few years.

Trump may end up as a Caligula—but with the New York Times averting its gaze, people like Gutfeld have spent years showing the way.

This idiocy goes on every night. Along with everyone else in Blue America, the Times keeps averting its gaze.

Full disclosure: The Internet Archive hasn't returned to full, round-the-clock taping of "cable news" programs.  For that reason, we can't link you to last night's Gutfeld! show.

BAYOUS: Blue observers, we must heal ourselves!

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024

The disorder is also in Us: This morning, Ed Luce takes his place on the pile.

There he is, in the Financial Times, beating up on a famous madman and on the horse he rode out on. His column begins as shown:

Trump’s demolition of the US state

It is time to study Caligula. That most notorious of Roman emperors killed what was left of the republic and centralised authority in himself. Donald Trump does not need to make his horse a senator; it will be enough to keep appointing charlatans to America’s great offices of state.

Rome was not destroyed by outsiders. Its demolition was the work of barbarians from within.

The question of whether Trump consciously wants to destroy the US federal government is irrelevant. You measure a leader by his actions not by his heart. To judge from what Trump has done within a fortnight of winning the presidency, his path is destruction.

Other than a handful of moderate Republican senators, who may or may not have the guts to reject some of his nominees, there is little standing in his way.

As is often done, Luce says "senator" instead of "consul" when he discusses the horse, but the point he makes is the same. As he continues, he compares a string of Trump's recent nominees—specifically, Hegseth and Gaetz and Gabbard and Kennedy—to the Roman emperor's favorite extremely fast steed.

Along the way, he even trashes Musk and Ramaswamy, the crackpot co-heads of the new alleged strongman's Department of Government Efficiency. After that, he returns to the horse:

DOGE will be the advisory equivalent of X, Musk’s social media platform, which is algorithmically rigged to churn out disinformation.

Serious paring of US bureaucracy requires knowledge of what it is for. Musk and Ramaswamy routinely betray sweeping ignorance of their subject matter.

Americans might come to wish that Trump had nominated a horse to head the US Department of Health and Human Services. Instead, he has chosen Robert F Kennedy jnr, whose goal is to reverse the public science of the past couple of centuries.

So it goes, as an ancient Roman madman returns to the scene of the discourse.

Will the new version of President Trump turn out to be Caligula all over again? At this point, we can't necessarily tell you that, but we can't say that he won't.

Below, we'll offer praise for our own work–but first, we'll remind you of something we noted in Monday's report:

When the leading authority thumbnails Caligula, a banished word quickly appears:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August 12 – 24 January 41), better known by his nickname Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius was made emperor. Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father's soldiers affectionately nicknamed him "Caligula" ("Little boot").

Germanicus died in Antioch in 19, and Agrippina returned with her six children to Rome, where she became entangled in a bitter feud with Emperor Tiberius, who was Germanicus' biological uncle and adoptive father. The conflict eventually led to the destruction of her family, with Caligula as the sole male survivor. In 26, Tiberius withdrew from public life to the island of Capri, and in 31, Caligula joined him there. Tiberius died in 37 and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter; an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated his Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul...

The horse appears in paragraph 3, but so does the banished word.

Did Caligula actually plan to make his horse a consul? As the lengthy profile continues, we're told that it's quite possible that he didn't. 

That said, we highlight the key word "insane." We're not experts on the history, but that passage, and what follows, suggests that a certain concept was already part of human discourse when the earliest pseudo-histories of Caligula appeared.

Was the emperor Caligula some version of "insane?" We can't answer your question, but we'll once again tell you this:

Under modern rules of the road, such questions can't even be asked about our flailing nation's incoming possible strongman. Within the upper-end American press, everyone except George Conway has signed on to a basic group agreement:

Issues of  medical / mental / psychological / psychiatric disorder must be disappeared in the case of our own "living God."

This agreement is widespread within our own Blue America. We offer that as a possible hint at a wider problem—a wider problem which we denizens of Blue America may not be able to see.

Is our society coming undone, as once happened with Rome? Everything is possible! To our credit, we were the first to float such a possibility—and we did it more than a decade ago, well before the Age of Trump, when we started recalling this murky prophecy by a long-forgotten star of the Blue American 1960s, the classicist Norman O. Brown:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and expand with the progressive publication of their secret; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

Professor Brown came to very hot in the 1960s, but what in the world was he talking about when he made that murky statement as part of this Phi Beta Kappa address?

All in all, we have no clear idea. Nor do we have any idea why that statement began to float up into our head more than a decade ago, when we started posting it as part in the work of this helpful site.

Initially, we believe we assumed that the murky statement must have come from one of the books which made Brown so hot, back when Vietnam was still raging. At the time, we read or attempted to read those books, just like everyone else. The books in question are these:

The books which made Brown hot:
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press (1959). 
Love's Body. New York: Random House (1966).

We read those books back in the day, just like everyone did. We have no idea how that obscure formulation from that obscure Phi Beta Kappa address ever made its way into our head.

We'll guess that the gods must have placed it there! At any rate, there was Professor Brown, suggesting that our own society had begun a process which he said would have it "ending in exhaustion." 

Today, a possible modern Caligula is possibly trying to put a team of steeds in power. As he does, those of us in Blue America—the former "elf" Conway excepted—have agreed to accept a rule which forbids us from discussing the possible source of this conduct.

(Not that it would likely help if we did conduct that discussion.)

Those of us in Blue America have long been self-assured. Dating back to those same 1960s, we Blues have been certain that we're the smart and honest and principled ones, and that The Others just aren't. 

(As happenstance had it, we were physically present when this unhelpful attitude began displaying itself.)

We Blues! We've signaled this belief a thousand different ways. We've rarely noticed this behavior.

Over there, The Others have. 

We've long been sure that we're the smart / good / insightful ones, and that The Others just aren't. Half of them have been said to be deplorable, irredeemable. In October, our own tribe's sitting president almost seemed to say that all of The Others are "garbage."

(That may not be what the gentleman meant. On its face, it sounded like what he had said.)

As noted, we Blues are vaccinated against seeing such things. As an example of what we mean, we'll cite the recent portrait of The Others—that is to say, of "Mr. Trump's voters"—which appears below, one-word headline included.

This portrait was written by a good, decent person. Her lengthy essay appeared in print editions of this past Sunday's New York Times:

Enough

[...]

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

These are adults, so let us treat them like adults. Let us acknowledge that they want to believe nonsense and conjecture. They want to believe anything that affirms their worldview. They want to celebrate a leader who allows them to nurture their basest beliefs about others. The biggest challenge of our lifetime will be figuring out how to combat the American willingness to embrace flagrant misinformation and bigotry.

The Others don't "share the same reality as ours." Also, it seems that The Others are all just alike—all 76.6 million of them (and counting).

We Blues! We're very dumb about these things—and given the way our species is built, we're rarely able to see this fact about ourselves.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. Something like 77 million people voted for Candidate Trump.

There's a very long list of reasons why someone may have made that decision. The author of that essay in Blue America's leading newspaper seems to be completely unable to come to terms with that fact.

We started to list some possible reasons last week, working from a statement on Washington Week by the strongly anti-Trump Tim Alberta. In the days and weeks ahead, we'll be adding to that list.

In truth, the list goes on and on and on. After that, it goes on some more.

We voted for Candidate Harris ourselves. But that list is actually real, and the essay in the New York times is itself a work of tribal "delusion."

According to Luce, Rome was destroyed by the work of insiders—more specifically, by the lunatic conduct of a certain mad emperor.

According to Luce, the same thing may be happening here. We can't flatly say that's wrong, but tribal delusion is bred in the bone and the syndrome can even be found Over Here. 

What the heck is in a word?

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

Ezra sticks with "unhinged:" Ezra Klein has published a fascinating interview with Anne Applebaum. Before the actual transcript is offered, his overview starts like this:

Trump Kicks Down the Guardrails

Think back two months. Imagine it’s September. You’re reading the Substack of some resistance-era liberal. They’re ranting about the dangers of the Orange Man coming back. “Imagine what a second term is going to be like,” they write. “You’re going to have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services secretary. Tulsi Gabbard is going to lead the intelligence services. Matt Gaetz is going to be the attorney general. Maybe Donald Trump is going to make a ‘Fox & Friends’ host secretary of defense.”

I think most people reading that would have said: Oh, come on! Donald Trump might be a menace. He is a menace. But that’s a parody of what a Trump-hating liberal imagines a Trump administration is going to be. Let’s be real about this.

But here we are in the real, and that is not what a Trump-hating liberal imagines a Trump administration is going to be. This is what Donald Trump imagines a Trump administration is going to be. It is what he is trying to make it be.

One of the challenging things about covering Donald Trump is that it is hard to talk about him without sounding unhinged—and that is because he acts in ways that are by any reasonable standard unhinged.

According to Ezra, Trump "acts in ways that are by any reasonable standard unhinged." 

Why would someone act in such ways? Is there some other type of word or words a straight-talking journalist might consider employing in some discussion of what Trump seems to be like—of what his peculiar behavior may perhaps seem to suggest?

As we've noted again and again, they've all agreed not to say what they think. These are the well-educated public voices of our flailing Blue America. These are our tribunes in action.

As became obvious in an earlier column, Ezra seems to have agreed to play by a certain rule. That said: as we noted above, his lengthy interview with Applebaum is compelling and disturbing.

"Let's be real about this," his one character says. Those words strike us as words to live by, though they may quite frequently be honored in the breach.

Is it "wrong" to play by that rule? We've reported, you get to decide. 

Eyes Wide Shut keeps coming to mind!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

Silver screen gives us the world: Is the United States on its way out?

We can't swear that it isn't! No one knows where this is going—where the apparent madness could end up.

For ourselves, we keep thinking about Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999). In particular, we think about the scene in the mansion out on Long Island, where a secret society is seen to be conducting a ritualistic orgy.

For what it's worth, we recall the ritualized orgy as being built around throwback practices involving the ancient, prehistoric rights of male dominance. We haven't yet rewatched the film, but as we recall it, the secret lurking within that scene is this:

At some point, certain types of powerful people will insist on reinstating the dominance of ancient impulses and ancient practices. 

We can't help thinking that we may have reached some such time here in this country—a time when Blue America's insistence on the headlong pursuit of certain types of social change have convinced a certain assembly of powerful elements that the time has finally come to stop putting up with such arrangements.

The western world began on the plains outside Troy. Among other problems of the present age, the primitive sexual politics of that era seems to be found all through the annals of the Trump appointments.

The western world came to life in an age of unhinged kings like Agamemnon stealing young women from neighboring villages and from other warriors as they fight to get Helen back for their tribal group. This is where we humans started. In the sometimes comically awful sexual histories of the Trump nominees, it begins to seem that we may be headed back there.

The lack of discernment within our own Blue America is making it very hard to resist this onslaught. In our view, the incoming president has nominated a toy chest full of broken toys to serve him during his upcoming term. Over here in Blue America, we barely know how to describe these remarkable events, let alone how to resist them.

We Blues! As we've sometimes noted in the past, we're silly and clueless and nobody likes us! Despite that unmistakable fact, the landslide inflicted upon us last week now looks like this, CNN reporting:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,657,498 (49.9%)
Candidate Harris: 74,064,106 (48.3%)

Thanks to the erratic behavior of the greatest president in modern history, the losing candidate didn't even know she was running until late July—and no, she didn't run "a flawless campaign," as we hear some Blue Americans saying.

Under the circumstances, that victory margin strikes us as remarkably slender. Will it be enough to bring our society down, such as it ever was?

Eyes Wide Shut and (Hitchcock's) Notorious and Gladiator oh my! We think of them as major films which seem to hint at where we actually are.

BAYOUS: Caligula named his favorite horse!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024

We Blues can be clueless too: If only apocryphally, the emperor Caligula made his favorite horse a Roman consul—possibly, even a priest.

On the rare occasion, we moderns tend to be wacky too. In what some see as a modern equivalent, Donald J. Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz to come out of retirement and serve as attorney general.

Gaetz retired at age 42—did so just last week! Some have said Gaetz is a crazy choice. In fairness to Trump, let's be fair:

In a point of departure from Caligula's horse, it isn't like Gaetz is unqualified for the high office in question. Starting at the age of 24, he enjoyed a two-year legal career—and before that, he attended law school! 

Also, he has said he'd be willing to come out of retirement to serve as attorney general. 

In our view, Gaetz doesn't quite qualify as the equal of Caligula's horse. Also, Donald Trump isn't Caligula yet—but there's no way to know where his current path is going to take the country and the world

In our view, Trump is a vastly disordered person. In our view, he has nominated a playroom full of broken toys to serve him during his new term. We've long recommended pity for the child, but we've also recommended stripping power from the disordered man.

That said, this:

Many other people disagree with our overall view. The votes are still being counted, but at least 76 million of our fellow citizens voted for Trump this year!

In our view, the incoming president has assembled a playroom full of broken toys to serve him during his tenure. Gaetz has been joined by such improbable figures as Kennedy, Gabbard and Hegseth, with Musk, Vance and Carlson also part of the mix. 

These are highly unusual figures—but then, those of us in Blue America can be less than fully insightful on the rare occasion too. Consider the attempt at discussion which broke out yesterday on the ABC program, The View.

As a framework, we return to the ancient parable about the blind men and the elephant. As we noted last week, the parable teaches us this:

Blind men and an elephant

The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other.  In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. 

The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.

Do we humans have a tendency to reason that way? It seems to us that we actually do—and that even seems to be true over here, in Blue America, where the adults are all above average!

Yesterday, it broke that way among the (anti-Trump) panelists on The View. Thanks to Mediaite, you can watch the videotape of their attempt at discussion simply by clicking this.

It started with (the anti-Trump) Whoopi Goldberg citing (the anti-Trump) Bill Maher. This was the start of an exchange in which a set of anti-Trumpers groped different parts of the 76 million people (or more) who voted for Candidate Trump.

At the start of the attempt at discussion, Goldberg played a heavily edited tape of something Maher had said on last Friday's Real Time. For better or worse, this is the way we the anti-Trumpers of The View kicked off their attempt at discussion:

GOLDBERG (11/18/24): Welcome back. The Wall Street Journal claims that the shift to the right in this election reveals that Americans view themselves as belonging to a particular economic class more than their race and gender. And Bill Maher said it's not the only thing Democrats got wrong. Take a look:

MAHER (videotape): Someone must tell the usual suspects on the far left that the saying is, "When you’re in a hole, stop digging." ... You just lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person. ... What a shocker that the people who see everything through the lens of race and sex see their election loss as the result of racism and sexism. Yes, if only we weren't so irredeemably unenlightened, we would have elected a black president by now. Oh what—we [already] did? ...  Asked if racism is built into our society, white progressives agreed with that—at higher levels than black and Hispanic people! ... They don't want your pity. And black people can't afford to indulger rich white peoples' need to endlessly flagellate themselves. They just want prices to go down and good jobs and the police when you call them.

GOLDBERG: If he's right, then why didn't people vote for the former prosecutor who actually had policy plans to help the working class? I mean—

[APPLAUSE]

Sad! But that's the way the attempt at discussion began, with the audience applauding an insinuation which didn't make any obvious sense. 

As you can see if you watch the videotape, the attempt at discussion went downhill from there. In the course of the attempt at discission, two (anti-Trump) panelists, Sunny Hostin and Alyssah Farah Griffin, took turns feeling different parts of the contemporary elephant known as "the Trump voters."

Alas! As the attempt at discussion unfolded, Hostin seemed to be saying that the elephant in question was racist and sexist, full stop. In turn, Griffin seemed to be saying that the elephant in question only wanted "a good life and ability to pay for their family.”

That seemed to be what Maher had said about the elephant in question, or at least about the part of the elephant known as "black people." In fairness, Maher's lengthy monologue had been so heavily edited that we won't attempt to characterize it here.

Regarding the attempt at discussion which occurred on The View, we'll start by answering Goldberg's question. Our answer would start like this:

QUESTION: Why didn't people vote for the former prosecutor who actually had policy plans to help the working class? 

INITIAL ANSWER: At least 74 million people did! 

Moving on to Hostin and Griffin, we'd sadly offer this:

The elephant in question here—the elephant known as "Trump voters"—is actually more than 76 million different people. 

Those people aren't all the same person. If you asked them why they voted for Trump, they wouldn't all say the same thing.

Almost surely, those people voted for Trump for an array of different reasons. Almost surely, their understandings, attitudes, frameworks and outlooks simply aren't all the same.

Trump voters aren't all just the same person! On its face, it's the simplest, most obvious point in the world:

Candidate Trump's 76 million voters aren't all exactly alike!

But this blindingly obvious fact is strongly inclined to disappear when we, the admittedly brilliant denizens of Blue America, start attempting to discuss this very basic question. All in all, we humans just aren't "the rational animal," not even over here.

With that, we return to Goldberg's question. Stripped down in the following way, it's a very important question:

Why didn't (more) people vote for Candidate Harris?

Why didn't (more) people vote for Harris? Last week, we started making a list of possible reasons. 

Given decades of conduct here within our own Blue America, the list of such possible reasons goes on and on and on. But sad:

Given the way our brains are wired, we Blues are often completely unable to comprehend that fact. The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but we Blues simply aren't the kinds of creatures we keep insisting we are. 

Why didn't more people vote for Harris? Why did so many people vote for Candidate Trump?

The list of possible reasons goes on and on. Tomorrow morning, bright and early, we'll start to add to last week's list.

In our view, Donald J. Trump has come remarkably close to nominating Caligula's horse! That said:

We denizens of Blue America aren't always amazingly sharp ourselves!

Tomorrow: Why did people vote for Trump? Unfortunately, the list of possible reasons goes on and on and on.

The sexual politics of Donald Trump's world...

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18. 2024

...comes to us from prehistory: The sexual politics of Donald Trump's world comes to us straight from prehistory.

It starts with Trump himself, then moves on from there. Based on reporting, we're talking about Gaetz and Hegseth and Musk oh my! After that, you can throw in the apparent history of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

Trump and Hegseth and Gaetz oh my, but also Musk and Kennedy! Based on reporting, the sexual politics of Donald Trump's cadre comes to us straight outta Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. 

Then too, there's the endless, undisguised apparent misogyny of the Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! program. It's astounding that this garbage can gets opened in primetime every night and nobody says a word.

We'll speak about this in coming days, throwing in what the friends were saying on Sunday morning's Fox & Friends Weekend about the modern-day UFC gladiator named Jon Jones. But this is the sexual culture of human prehistory demanding a reinstatement. These impulses seem to be bred in the bone, in a way which doesn't want to relent.

The sexual politics come from the day when the Achaeans laid siege to Troy ten years, demanding to get Helen back. And then, just like that, along came Bill Maher and William Shatner, saying on a Club Random podcast that Candidate Trump "won big."

We agree with one major thing Bill said, but we can't say we agree with that. You can see the videotape of this excerpt at Mediaite, mistranscribed to a fairly substantial extent:

MAHER: You know, I feel like, for some people, it’s very reminiscent of 2016. I certainly was much more apoplectic then. Perhaps I should be again.

SHATNER: Did you see it coming?

MAHER: No, I picked her. I stuck with my prediction right to the end. I thought she was going to win. I thought America generally moves forward and that they had enough of Trump. You know, just, just drama. And I mean, I won’t go into—

First of all, Bill, it’s depressing to me mostly because I don’t want to do it again because I’m bored. The worst thing you can do to me is bore me. I’ve done all the jokes. I’ve—I did all of them first. 

I did "Trump the con man" editorial. I did "Trump the Mafia boss." I did it all, before anybody. I’m the one who said he wasn’t going to concede when nobody was on that page.

I’ve been there, done that. I don’t want this series. I’ve seen this series. I want a new show with new characters.

So that bugs me the most, is that there’s nothing left to say, you know? I’ve said it all. You can’t get me to think more than I already do that Trump shouldn’t be president. But he is!

SHATNER: Well, what we now have to think about is how to mitigate some of the—what some of us think are the worst things. Like.

MAHER: Well, I think first off—first is, "Congratulations! You not only won—you won big."

SHATNER: He won big.

MAHER: That’s—everybody should get props just for success despite the, you know, the vulgarities and the, you know—

SHATNER: Maybe because of the vulgarities.

MAHER: Maybe because. But also my mantra: "Losers, look in the mirror."

SHATNER: Well, I think—I think that’s what everybody has to do.

We strongly agree with Bill's suggestion that we Blues should "look in the mirror." Like any other aggregation, we in Blue America can directly change the way we ourselves do business. We can't automatically change anyone else! Not even by calling them names!

On the other hand, there they go again! Did Candidate Trump really "win big" this year? For ourselves, we'd be reluctant to offer that as our lone, unexplained assessment of what happened.

It's certainly true that Candidate Trump won—but how "big" was his win? Over at the Cook Report, his share of the nationwide vote has now dropped a smidge below 50 percent, and votes continue to be counted and recorded California.

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,520,189 (49.96%)
Candidate Harris: 73,893,571 (48.24%)

It's true! Plainly, Candidate Trump did win—but his victory margin now stands at 1.7 points and dropping. That how "big" his victory was against an accidental candidate who was forced to organize and start her campaign with a bit more than three months to go.

How "big" was the gentleman's win? Here's what figure filbert Harry Enten said on CNN this morning:

ENTEN (11/18/24): Yeah, the case is that Trump’s mandate isn’t all that. Look, if you look historically speaking, Donald Trump is now under 50 percent in the national popular vote—barely under 50 percent, but he is under 50 percent. 

I want to take a look and compare it. Compare his popular vote victory to those, historically speaking, over the last 200 years. His popular vote victory ranks 44th out of 51.

Plainly, the gentleman won. But why do people keep insisting that he "won big," full stop?

We're big fans of Brother Maher—have been for many years. We don't think people understand how hard it is to do what he's done for all these many years.

That said, we'll offer one last thought about Bill's comments to Shatner. The comment in question is this:

I thought [Harris] was going to win. I thought America generally moves forward and that they had enough of Trump.

To fellow denizens of Blue America, we'll offer this one suggestion, and yes it deals with pronouns:

When we speak about America or about Americans, it's probably better politics to say the word "us," not "them."

An ancient revolt is coming from below. In the face of this onrushing revolt, we agree with Bill:

We Blues do need to look in the mirror and figure out where, improbable as it seems, even We Blues may perhaps have gone a tiny bit wrong.

BAYOUS: Was something wrong with Caligula's horse?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18. 2024

Could something be lacking in Us? Was something wrong with the emperor Caligula? Was there anything wrong with his horse?

The famous strongman and his famous steed have been mentioned in recent days, most often by commentators in Blue America. Uniformly, a connection has been drawn to Donald J. Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general.

Caligula has been back in the news! But just who was this famous man, and what was the story with his horse? The leading authority on his life and times starts its lengthy account as shown:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August 12 - 24 January 41), better known by his nickname Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius was made emperor...

Germanicus died in Antioch in 19, and Agrippina returned with her six children to Rome, where she became entangled in a bitter feud with Emperor Tiberius, who was Germanicus' biological uncle and adoptive father. The conflict eventually led to the destruction of her family, with Caligula as the sole male survivor. In 26, Tiberius withdrew from public life to the island of Capri, and in 31, Caligula joined him there. Tiberius died in 37 and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter; an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated his Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul. Most modern commentaries seek to explain Caligula's position, personality and historical context. Many of the allegations against him are dismissed by some historians as misunderstandings, exaggeration, mockery or malicious fantasy.

The word "insane" is already present in the third paragraph of this lengthy report. By modern convention, we're allowed to introduce such concepts into political analyses, but only after thousands of years have passed.

The matter of Caligula's horse is also mentioned in paragraph 3. That said, did Caligula really plan to make his horse a "consul" (a very high-ranking figure)?

Beyond that, was this emperor "insane?" Also, what would that claim even mean?

We can't necessarily answer every question. Concerning the emperor's horse, the authority starts by telling us this:

Public profile

Caligula shared many of the popular passions and enthusiasms of the lower classes and young aristocrats: public spectacles, particularly gladiator contests, chariot and horse racing, the theatre and gambling, but all on a scale with which the nobility could not match. He trained with professional gladiators and staged exceptionally lavish gladiator games, being granted exemption by the senate from the sumptuary laws that limited the number of gladiators to be kept in Rome. He was openly and vocally partisan in his uninhibited support or disapproval of particular charioteers, racing teams, gladiators and actors, shouting encouragement or scorn, sometimes singing along with paid performers or declaiming the actors' lines, and generally behaving as "one of the crowd." 
In gladiator contests, he supported the parmularius type, who fought using small, round shields. In chariot races, he supported the Greens, and personally drove his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Speedy") as a member of the Green faction. Most of Rome's aristocracy would have found this an unprecedented, unacceptable indignity for any of their number, let alone their emperor.

It sounds like the emperor was a "populist." Rightly or wrongly, broad comparisons to a certain contemporary figure are already coming to mind.

At any rate, Incitatus ("Speedy") is said to have been the emperor's favorite horse. Quite a bit later, Incitatus gets his own sub-section of this profile, and we return to the scene of the recent comparisons:

Incitatus

[The historians] Suetonius and Dio outline Caligula's supposed proposal to promote his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Swift"), to consul, and later, a priest of his own cult. This could have been an extended joke, created by Caligula himself in mockery of the senate. A persistent, popular belief that Caligula actually promoted his horse to consul has become "a byword for the promotion of incompetents," especially in political life. It may have been one of Caligula's many oblique, malicious or darkly humorous insults, mostly directed at the senatorial class...Suetonius, possibly failing to get the joke, presents it as further proof of Caligula's insanity, adding circumstantial details more usually expected of the senatorial nobility, including palaces, servants and golden goblets, and invitations to banquets.

It may have been a type of joke! For the record, Incitatus has his own Wikipedia page, and that page tells us this:

Incitatus

Incitatus (meaning "swift" or "at full gallop") was the favorite horse of Roman Emperor Caligula (r. 37–41 AD). According to legend, Caligula planned to make the horse a consul, although ancient sources are clear that this did not occur. Supposedly, Incitatus had 18 servants for himself, he lived in a marble stable, walked in a harness decorated with rare and special stones/jewels, and dressed in purple (the color of royalty) and ate from an ivory manger.

According to Suetonius, in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars (121 AD), Caligula planned to make Incitatus a consul, and the horse would "invite" dignitaries to dine with him in a house outfitted with servants there to entertain such events. Suetonius also wrote that the horse had a stable of marble, with an ivory manger, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones.

Cassius Dio (165–235 AD) indicated that the horse was attended by servants and was fed oats mixed with gold flake, and that Caligula made the horse a priest.

The accuracy of the received history is generally questioned. Historians such as Anthony A. Barrett suggest that later Roman chroniclers such as Suetonius and Dio Cassius were influenced by the political situation of their own times, when it may have been useful to the current emperors to discredit the earlier Julio-Claudian emperors. Also, the lurid nature of the story added spice to their narratives and won them additional readers.

Then as now, it seems that we the people may have preferred lurid tales, responding to them as to a type of spice. At any rate, modern historians apparently suggest that there was no nomination of the emperor's horse, nor did he become a priest.

Let's return to the profile of Caligula, and to the question of insanity. The leading authority tells us this about the emperor's "mental condition"

Mental condition

There is no reliable evidence of Caligula's mental state at any time in his life. Had he been thought truly insane, his misdeeds would not have been thought his fault: Winterling points out that in Roman law, the insane were not legally responsible for their actions, no matter how extreme. Responsibility for their control and restraint fell on those around them. 

In the course of their narratives, all the primary and contemporary sources give reasons to discredit and ultimately condemn Caligula, for offences against proprieties of class, religion or his role as emperor. "Thus, his acts should be seen from other angles, and the search for 'mad Caligula' abandoned" (Barbara Sidwell). Barrett suggests that from a very early age, with the loss of his father, then of his mother and what remained of his family, Caligula was preoccupied with his own survival. Given near limitless powers to use as he saw fit, he used them to feed his sense of self-importance, "practically devoid of any sense of moral responsibility, a man for whom the tenure of the principate was little more than an opportunity to exercise power" (Barrett). Caligula "clearly had a highly developed sense of the absurd, resulting in a form of humor that was often cruel, sadistic and malicious, and which made its impact essentially by cleverly scoring points over those who were in no position to respond in kind" (Barrett).

Philo saw Caligula's illness of 37 as a form of nervous collapse, a response to the extreme stresses and strains of Imperial rule, for which Caligula was temperamentally ill-equipped. Philo, Josephus and Seneca see Caligula's apparent "insanity" as an underlying personality trait accentuated through self-indulgence and the unlimited exercise of power. Seneca acknowledges that Caligula's promotion to emperor seemed to make him more arrogant, angry and insulting. Several modern sources suggest underlying medical conditions as explanations for some aspects of his behavior and appearance. They include mania, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, encephalitis, meningitis, and epilepsy, the so-called "falling sickness." 

Sidwell seems to believe that Caligula wasn't "insane." On the other hand, the behaviors described in that passage seem to suggest the presence of the types of (serious) "personality disorders" which constitute a major part of this branch of contemporary medical science.

As we noted again last week, something like 5.5% of adult men can be diagnosed as "sociopaths," if you believe in such science. We offer this additional point:

If the authority can be credited, the concept of "insanity" already existed at the time in question. That said, people judged to be insane were not regarded as possessing moral agency:

("Had [Caligula] been thought truly insane, his misdeeds would not have been thought his fault.")

Was "something wrong" with Caligula? Was he somehow "mentally ill?" Or was he simply a type of populist with an unusual sense of humor? 

We can't help you with that! But in the past week, this apocryphal story about the emperor has been cited by some of Blue America's leading pundits, with at least one of Donald J. Trump's recent nominees cast in the role of the horse.

Is Matt Gaetz a reincarnation of Caligula's horse? How about such nominees as Hegseth, Gabbard and Kennedy Jr.?

Can Musk be shoehorned into this picture? Also, is it possible that Donald J. Trump is psychologically challenged ("mentally ill") in some diagnosable way? Or does he simply have a certain sense of humor? 

Regarding the first possibility, public discussion will likely begin at some point around the year 4000. In the present day, Blue America's pundit class will continue to stumble about, looking for acceptable ways to discuss a situation which seems to be truly remarkable from the Blue point of view.

The incoming president has made some unexpected nominations. In the case of Gaetz, the nominee seems to be so absurdly ill-suited that he has been compared to Speedy, the earlier emperor's horse.

Along the way, it's been said that Caligula was insane. Or perhaps he simply became "increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted," leading him to indulge his great fondness for the gladiator games.

On Saturday night, the winning candidate in this year's election appeared at Madison Square Gaden again—this time, at a jampacked UFC mixed martial arts event. As part of the fealty shown to the populist, a nearly naked gladiator leaped over the top of the UFC cage to offer a tribute to Trump and to his group of high-profile companions.

Professional "wrestlers" are back in vogue on our "cable news" TV shows. So are D-list comedians. 

That's happening in Red America, where a revolt seems to be underway. Over here in Blue America, the limits of human discernment have been on display for many years, often in ways that we the Blues may not be equipped to see or understand.

May their first child be a masculine child! It's a famous sentiment voiced in the famous film, The Godfather

Over there in Red America, gender politics straight outta the Iliad are suddenly back in vogue at the top of the winning candidate's inner circle. We'll have more about this striking state of affairs in the days and weeks ahead.

Indeed, madness is back in a hundred ways within our failing discourse. Because there's no obvious American precedent for what is currently happening, Blue America's pundits are having a hard time finding ways to describe it.

We'd say it's straight outta Eyes Wide Shut, but also straight outta Gladiator. That said, how about us in Blue America? What's going on with Us?

More specifically, how did we ever lose to this guy? What might we have done, along the way, to bring this apparently dangerous situation to pass?

This situation is very strange. It seems to us that we need to expand the ways in which we try to comprehend the current situation.

In our view, the current situation in Red America seems to have arrived straight outta Eyes Wide Shut, though also straight outta Caligula. 

That said, where do we Blues come from? Could it be that major shortcomings also exist Over Here? 

Tomorrow: We add to our list of (Blue) bayous


SATURDAY: Demise of the two percent revolution!

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2024

Plus, more text from Mary Trump: Was the recent election a "rout?" Was it "not even close?"

Was it "a wipeout," the language we heard on this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, language which came from Mark Penn?

Is it true that "Democrats Were Crushed?" That's language from the headline someone placed on this Ed Kilgore essay—language we encountered today on a rebroadcast of an earlier Morning Joe segment.

You're asking important questions! In our view, before we traffic in Storyline, it's important for us to retain our hold on some basic facts. 

With that in mind, and as the vote count slowly turns, here's the current state of the nationwide vote in the most recent White House election, CNN reporting:

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024
Candidate Trump: 76,453,640 (50.0%)
Candidate Harris: 73,755,129 (48.2%)

There was no seven percent resolution this year. By now, this year's ballyhooed two percent decimation has even ceased to exist. 

As the nationwide vote count continues, the winning candidate's victory margin is down to something like 1.8 points. Also, with something approaching a million votes still unrecorded in California, his portion of the total vote is on the verge of dropping below 50 percent.

Candidate Trump did win the election, but did he produce a wipeout, a rout? Language like this is exciting and fun, but did some such event take place?

We'd be slow to say something like that. Also, consider this:

Candidate Trump had been running for more than nine years. Candidate Harris got to run for a bit more than three months. 

Adjusting for length of opportunity, we'd be extremely reluctant to adopt the soul-stirring language in which she is said to have lost in a rout. That said, Storyline is a powerful god, and this great god routinely prevails.

As to why the winning candidate won this year's election at all, we'll be returning to that question on Monday. Readers will be asked to take The Blue America Challenge:

Are we able to imagine the possibility that those of us in Blue America may, in some amazingly tiny ways, possibly have managed to earn our way out?

Did we ourselves make mistakes? The notion seems absurd on its face, but we plan to examine it anyway, just to be extra safe.

This morning, we've continued to offer some basic numbers. Also, we thought we should probably offer you a bit more text from that best-selling book.

We refer to Mary Trump's 2020 best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man. 

As we've noted (again) in the past two days, Mary Trump flatly described her paternal grandfather, Fred Trump, as "a sociopath," though she didn't exactly go that far in describing her uncle, the incoming president.

Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist. That doesn't mean that her various assessments are automatically accurate. Still, her assessments remain, even after the mainstream press corps has agreed that they must never be reported, evaluated or discussed. 

In the last two days, we've shown you some of Mary Trump's basic assessments concerning her aforementioned uncle. Today, we thought we'd post an additional passage concerning "sociopathy," which may or may not exist.

Does sociopathy really exist? If so, what does the term really mean? And what should we think about the moral agency of a person who can be diagnosed in some such way?

Our high-end press corps has agreed that such questions must be disappeared. But just for the record, we'll offer one more passage from Mary Trump's widely bowdlerized book.

This passage concerns her paternal grandparents, Fred and Mary Trump. In this passage, she ends up describing the reported prevalence of sociopathy in much the way we (once again) did on Thursday:

MARY TRUMP (pages 23-24): Mary and Fred were problematic parents from the very beginning. My grandmother rarely spoke to me about her own parents or childhood, so I can only speculate, but she was the youngest of ten children...and she grew up in an unhospitable environment [on an island off the coast of Scotland] in the early 1910s. Whether her own needs weren't sufficiently met when she was a child or for some other reason, she was the kind of mother who used her children to comfort herself rather than comforting them...

[,,,]

Whereas Mary was needy, Fred seemed to have no emotional needs at all. In fact, he was a high-functioning sociopath. Although uncommon, sociopathy is not rare, afflicting as much as 3 percent of the population. Seventy-five percent of those diagnosed are men. Symptoms of sociopathy include a lack of empathy, a facility for lying, an indifference to right and wrong, abusive behavior, and a lack of interest in the rights of others. Having a sociopath as a parent, especially if there is no one else around to mitigate the effects, all but guarantees severe disruption in how children understand themselves, regulate their emotions, and engage with the world.

Some of what Mary Trump writes in that passage is described as speculation. Much of what she writes in her book seems to have come from direct observation, or from conversations with Maryanne Trump Barry, Donald Trump's older sister.

Her statements about the reported prevalence of sociopathy have an objective basis, as we (again) noted on Thursday. She puts the overall prevalence of the condition at "as much as 3 percent," with a substantially higher prevalence in the case of men.

Matters like this can't be discussed within the current rules of our political journalism. Despite the flattering way we highly educated Americans tend to regard ourselves, our public discourse is too immature to permit such discussion.

That said, interesting questions arise as Mary Trump describes this condition. Are sociopaths "afflicted by" this condition, as her language has it?  If so, how should we regard the moral agency of such people as they proceed through the world, behaving in the destructive ways Mary Trump describes?

No such discussions will complicate our political discourse! Our journalists went to the finest schools, but they aren't prepared to handle such topics. As one twentieth-century anthropologist memorably stated:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit. 

EARNED OUR WAY OUT: A playroom full of broken toys!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2024

How did we lose to this guy? In our view, the most interesting piece of journalism today is an editorial in the New York Post.

The Murdoch empire is divided today. Is the candidate who won the election filling his playroom with toys? Writing from the heart of th Murdoch empire, the editors start by saying this:

Putting RFK Jr. in charge of health breaks the first rule of medicine

The overriding rule of medicine is: First, do no harm.

We’re certain installing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head Health and Human Services breaks this rule.

Under the circumstances, the editors are taking a highly surprising position. A bit later, the editors pull no punches:

We sat down with RFK Jr. back in May 2023, when he was still challenging President Biden for the Democratic nomination.

As we noted then, he’s an independent thinker who sees through a lot of bull, an incisive critic of some of Biden’s worst policies, who saw that “the Democratic Party lost its way most acutely in reaction to” Donald Trump’s first election.

But the insights we were impressed with had nothing to do with health.

When it came to that topic his views were a head-scratching spaghetti of what we can only call warped conspiracy theories, and not just on vaccines.

[...]

In fact, we came out thinking he’s nuts on a lot of fronts.

When they met with Kennedy Jr., the editors—these editors from the Mursdoch empire—"came out thinking he's nuts." The editors even took a shot at Kennedy's appeal to a "gullible conspiracy-hungry crowd."

Is this nominee "nuts?" Depending on what is meant by such a claim, we can't swear that he isn't—and in one province of Red America, the editors have now basically said that he is. 

That's what the editors have said. But over in a separate province, the pitiful children on Fox & Friends were offering the usual prattle this very morning. 

Reading off their sheets and their full-screen graphic, two of the friends offered this. It was now 6:10 a.m., and the Fox friends were reciting

AINSLEY (11/15/24): Look at his resume. Very impressive.

[...]

LAWRENCE: So this guy really has an agenda and he's been endorsed by the president-elect. He says he wants to combat the chronic disease epidemic, eliminate toxins from food, water and air. Supports sustainable—I'm sorry, farming and reducing chemical usage. Preserve and restore natural ecosystems. and ensure regulatory agencies act—

AINSLEY: Who's not for that?

Who's not for that, the one friend said. None of the friends mentioned any of the points of concern which have members of their own Red American empire declaring the nominee "nuts."

On Fox & Friends, the children were at play. You can watch their fuller pseudo-discussion simply by clicking here.

This is part of the childish, embarrassing mess we describe as our "national discourse." This part of that embarrassing mess operates under the sway of the organizational structure called "segregation by viewpoint," in which every participant in a pseudo-discussion will automatically agree, on every point, with everyone else on the set. 

On Fox & Friends, the children all agree with each other. They're paid to recite the company line every step of the way.

Elsewhere, the editors have gone rogue. But that's a very rare occurrence within our childish national discourse as our floundering, flailing nation continues to slide towards the sea.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the candidate who won in a rout continues to say their names. By now, the list of major nominees includes such names as these:

Major nominees:
Pete Hegseth
Matt Gaetz
Tulsi Gabbard
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Tucker Carlson is a close ally; JD Vance will serve in the role of vice president. This morning, as the editors at the Post rose to complain, the Stepfords on the Fox News Channel continued to read from their sheets.

The American people are pretty sharp? On balance, no—we basically aren't, though that doesn't make us bad people.

On balance, though, we simply aren't enormously sharp! And that's true over here in Blue America, not just among the Reds.

For ourselves, we're going to pull back to regroup, before we continue to explore a basic question next week. We'll restate that question below, but first, we'll post this material once again, as we did yesterday morning:

MARY TRUMP (pages 12-13): None of the Trump siblings emerged unscathed from my grandfather's sociopathy and my grandmother's illnesses, both physical and psychological, but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest. In order to get a complete picture of Donald, his psychopathologies, and the meaning of his dysfunctional behavior, we need a thorough family history.

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as "malignant narcissism" and "narcissistic personality disorder" in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label only gets us so far.

[...]

[Clinical] experiences showed me time and again that diagnosis doesn't exist in a vacuum. Does Donald have other symptoms we aren't aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe forms is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for. 

Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist. She offered those assessments early in her 2020 best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough.

This Trump's a clinical psychologist. That doesn't necessarily mean that her assessments are accurate, correct or right.

Also this:

What exactly does it mean to say that someone's a "sociopath?" Does it mean anything at all?

We will guess that it probably does. But we'll suggest, once again, that you understand this basic fact about our faltering nation and our imitation of discourse:

Our public discourse is too immature to permit an exploration of any such claim. Indeed, our discourse is highly immature, in various ways, pretty much all the way down.

At this site, it almost seems to us that a disordered man is currently filling his playroom with an array of broken toys. Over at the New York Post, the editors spoke with one of those toys and came out thinking he's "nuts."

That said, our public discourse is too immature to allow for any such discussion. For today, we'll restate one more observation, and then we'll restate the question to which we'll return next week:

With Gabbard now added to the mix, a certain observation still obtains: 

Many of the incoming president's nominees and allies seem to have had highly unusual childhood experiences. 

In the case of Vance, the sane person in his vastly disordered family was the grandmother who once doused her sleeping husband with lighter fluid and then set him on fire. 

She was the stable family member. We've suggested that you should pity the child. 

At any rate, a certain pattern seems to be forming. It may build out from Mary Trump's assessments, but that's a matter of judgment.

We can't help seeing a certain pattern. The question to which we'll return next week is this:

How in the world did we lose to this guy? Is there something we in Blue America did, over the course of the past sixty years, which has played some significant role in bringing his gladness to pass?

How did we ever lose to this guy, even if by just a couple of points? It strikes us as an obvious question. We'll return to that question next week.


Love hurts, but Storyline can destroy!

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2024

Let's take one more look at the record: Love hurts—or at least, that's what songwriter Boudleaux Bryant alleged in his hit song of that name.

First, the Everly Brothers recorded it. Years later, along came Emmylou Harris and Gram Parsons. As a result, people have believed Bryant's irresponsible claim for a great many years.

That said, if love can occasionally hurt, Storyline can destroy. This year, pundits are tending to adopt the claim that Candidate Trump won in a rout—that this year's presidential election "wasn't even close."

They're doing so, even today, as the winning candidate's nationwide victory margin is about to dip below two points—as his share of the nationwide popular vote threatens to drop below 50 percent. 

Just so you'll know:

In the three Blue Wall states, it was even closer! If Candidate Harris had won these three states, she'd be on her way to four years as a pinata locked inside the White House.

Statewide vote, Pennsylvania, 2024
Candidate Trump: 3,526,621 (50.4%)
Candidate Harris: 3,396,037 (48.6%)
Statewide vote, Michigan, 2024
Candidate Trump: 2,812,957 (49.7%)
Candidate Harris: 2,733,389 (48.3%)
Statewide vote, Wisconsin, 2024
Candidate Trump: 1,697,769 (49.6%)
Candidate Harris: 1,668,082 (48.8%)

It isn't that Trump didn't win those states, because of course he did. Also, he did win the nationwide popular vote—almost surely, by less than two points.

That said, it seems to us that those state elections were close—that those margins were rather narrow. Trump won Wisconsin by less than one point. Can we at least say Wisconsin was close?)

We're puzzled by the widespread suggestions that Candidate Trump won in some sort of a rout. And by the way, Candidate Trump had been running for years. Candidate Harris didn't even know she was running until late July of this year.

Many pundits are finding ways to treat this outcome as something it pretty much wasn't. In fairness, many pundits only feel happy and safe when they're part of a group recitation, preferably one that is wrong.

We don't know why we the people are inclined to behave in such ways. But we think you should make the occasional attempt to shove Storyline down the stairs.

This may not matter anymore. As a rough beast slouches toward the deep state, it may be too late for that.

But did the candidate win in a rout? We humans seem to be wired to make strange claims, and it's also become a big business.