THE SEARCH: It could be as bad as the critics say!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024

But it could also be worse: To judge from the fruit of a Google search, we had never heard of Van Jones until April 20, 2009.

On that evening, he guested with Robert Redford on CNN's Larry King Live, which was still a significant program. We'd never heard of Jones at the time, but he made a strong impression.

Jones has been involved in a search—had been involved in a search for some time, including even then. First, though, let's consider what Bret Stephens says at the start of his new column for the New York Times.

Headline included, this is the way the column starts. We highlight two key points:

Done With Never Trump

It’s been more than nine years since I first denounced Donald Trump as a “loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians.” I’ve called myself a Never Trump conservative ever since, even when I agreed with his policies from time to time. I also opposed him throughout his run this year.

Could his second term be as bad as his most fervent critics fear? Yes. Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement—and that rendered it politically impotent and frequently obtuse? Yes, please.

Who, and what, is Trump? He’s a man and the symbol of a movement. The man is crass but charismatic, ignorant but intuitive, dishonest but authentic. The movement is patriotic—and angry.

Some of that anger is intensely bigoted and some of it misplaced. That side of the anger gets most of the media’s attention. But some of it, too, is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better but often doesn’t...

At this site, we don't vote the way Stephens has typically voted. This year, we both voted for Candidate Harris, though it must be said that neither of us was blown away, at least on balance, by her attributes as a presidential candidate.

Each of us voted for Candidate Harris. But as Trump has said this very morning, he managed to win "the biggest mandate in 129 years!"

He also seems to be out of his mind, as that lunatic claim might suggest. And we agree with the first key point Stephens makes in his column:

Donald J. Trump's second term could be just as bad as his most fervent critics fear.  In fact, we'll disagree with Stephens in this way:

It could be even worse!

This second term could be worse than his most fervent critics fear?  Yes, it could be that! 

It could be better than critics fear, but it could also be worse. As we watch the lunacy spread all through what's left of our "public discourse," we keep thinking of Professor Knox's horrific account of the fall of sacred Troy.

Achilles slays Hector before the high walls of that sacred city, then drags his body through the dust behind his speeding chariot. At that point, the fate of the city has been sealed. Professor Knox remembers:

PROFESSOR KNOX: The whole poem has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome. The husband and father, the beloved protector of his people, the man who stands for the civilized values of the rich city, its social and religious institutions, will go down to defeat at the hands of this man who has no family, who in a private quarrel has caused the death of many of his own fellow soldiers, who now in a private quarrel thinks only of revenge...And the death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city. 

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

Achilles "thinks only of revenge." Once he's dragged Hector's body through the dust, the fate of Troy has been sealed. 

We keep flashing on the highlighted "images of that night" as we watch what's left of our clownlike "public discourse." We also think of the citizens of Oran, as described by Camus in his famous novel, The Plague:

CAMUS: [O]ur townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions. 

Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague...

Even after the signs of plague were visible in Oran, "the danger still remained fantastically unreal." Or at least, so Camus was willing to say about those fictional townsfolk.

The townsfolk of Oran just couldn't see the obvious signs of a plague. In recent years, many of us in Blue America have been unable to see the shape of our own onrushing defeat. 

This very morning, the panelists on Morning Joe were reassuring Blue America's viewers that things aren't nearly as bad as they might seem. That said, the host of that show kept telling us, in recent years, that the GOP couldn't possibly win this year's election. 

He said it over and over again over the past few years.

That brings us to the second key point in that passage from Stephens. He says that some of the anger behind Candidate Trump's "landslide" is "intensely bigoted."

For ourselves, we're inclined to stay away from such assessments. But that's what Stephens says.

That's part of what Stephens says. But he also says that some of the anger behind the candidate's narrow (but consequential) win "is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better [than everyone else] but often doesn’t." 

As soon becomes clear, he's speaking there, at least in part, about the people those of us in Blue America—those of us in our own Oran—have been conditioned to trust. 

As he continues, he offers specific examples of what he specifically means. We ourselves don't agree with every word he types at that point, but he makes us flash on Camus when he explains the way the elite to which he himself belongs failed to understand the reach of Trump's appeal:

Never Trumpers—I include myself in this indictment—never quite got the point. It wasn’t that we’d forgotten Clinton’s scandals or were ignorant of the allegations about the Bidens. It’s that we thought Trump degraded the values that conservatives were supposed to stand for. We also thought that Trump represented a form of illiberalism that was antithetical to our “free people, free markets, free world” brand of conservatism and that was bound to take the Republican Party down a dark road.

In this we weren’t wrong: There’s plenty to dislike and fear about Trump from a traditionally conservative standpoint. But Never Trumpers also overstated our case and, in doing so, defeated our purpose.

It isn't that the NeverTrumpers were wrong. In some ways, it sounds like Stephens is saying that they simply "forgot to be modest."

Stephens goes on in some detail from there. As with the townsfolk of Oran, he says the conservative NeverTrumpers "never quite got the point" in various ways, until it was too late.

Eventually, he offers this self-indictment:

We also talked a lot about democracy. That’s important: The memory of Jan. 6 and Trump’s 2020 election lies were the main reasons I voted for Kamala Harris. But if democracy means anything, it’s that ordinary people, not elites, get to decide how important an event like Jan. 6 is to them. Turns out, not so much.

What ordinary people really cared about this year were the high cost of living and the chaos at the border. Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?

What else did we not sufficiently appreciate? That, as much as Trump might lie, Americans also felt lied to by the left—particularly when it came to the White House cover-up of Biden’s physical and mental decline. 

Even in that telling passage, we ourselves wouldn't agree with every word. We do agree with two key points:

Our high-brow elites often seemed to have no idea what "ordinary people" cared about in this election. (It sometimes seemed that they didn't know, but also that they simply didn't care.)

Also, "ordinary people" often felt lied to by those of us in Blue America—not just by the very bad people who are known to be found Over There.

Stephens is a NeverTrump conservative. Van Jones has always been a Blue American liberal/progressive.

He grew up in Tennessee, ended up at Yale Law School. We well remember being impressed by how sharp he seemed in 2009. We'd never heard of him at the time, but he's been highly visible from there.

Last Saturday, when he spoke to Chris Cillizza, Jones gnashed his teeth at the blindness of his own tribe's failed elite. In Monday's report, we linked you to Rachel Dobkin's account of what Jones said in the lengthy discussion.

Basically, Dobkin got it right. This is the way she started:

Donald Trump Is 'Smarter' Than All His Critics—Former Obama Adviser

Van Jones, an ex-adviser to former President Barack Obama and current CNN political commentator, said on Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is "smarter" than all his critics.

Does Jones literally think that Donald J. Trump is "smarter" than the rest? Or was that a bit of hyperbole, emerging from the high frustration visible all through last Saturday's discussion?

We don't know how to answer that question. But Jones has been involved in a lifelong search, and his remarks about our own elites in Blue America were scathing.

We also think his remarks were basically accurate. To hear the key part of his critique, we'll suggest that you start at minute 28 of the Cillizza videotape. Tomorrow, we'll take it from there.

It could be as bad as Trump's critics fear—but it could always be worse! The fall of Troy was vicious, vile. To what extent has our imperfect human nature actually changed in the handful of years since then?

As you can see above, Stephens asks a painful question:

"Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?"

That's precisely the question Jones asks in his colloquy with Cillizza. Perhaps in frustration, he says that Donald J. Trump is simply "smarter" than the rest.

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves. As he posts about his massive mandate, we'd be inclined to let "insane" take the place of "smart."

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves! But we think that Jones's search is on point within our own Blue Oran, a flailing community located just this side of what's left of sacred Troy.

Tomorrow: What Jones said about our own "elitism"

Friday: Explaining the persistent failure to see what's sitting right there


74 comments:

  1. Trump is going to stick the elites with a HUGE tax break, and the voters who talk like Brett Stephens about Trump's dislike for elites will cheer him along, because they only voted for Trump because they love his bigotry.
    I'm sorry, what was Bob's point today?

    ReplyDelete

  2. "It could be even worse!"

    Yes, most certainly, let's hope so.

    Let's hope the swamp is drained to the end, and all your scumbag elites and all your utterly useless pencil-pushing Democrat-loyal comrades voluntarily move to Canada, forever.

    Let's drink to that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pete Hegseth and Matt Gaetz have entered the chat.

      Delete
    2. "Let's drink to that."

      Brett "Kegstand" Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice and frequent blackout drunk, approves.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Comma-la-la, it's not you who's always drunk. It's not you. It's other people.

      Delete
    4. For sure it's other people, Soros-bot.
      Whatever you say, Sir.

      Delete
  3. I wondered why Somerby is attacking Van Jones for yet another day, so I looked him up. Sure enough, he's black.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 10:56, he's not attacking him - it's the opposite.

      Delete
    2. See @12:17 below for reasons why Somerby is attacking Jones.

      Delete
    3. anon 1:23, I don't consider deranged hogwash to constitute what one might consider to be "reasons."

      Delete
    4. AC/ MA,
      Me too.
      That's why I write that Trump voters chose Trump due to his bigotry, not some hogwash "reason", like economics---which they know absolutely nothing about.

      Delete
    5. Acma’s careful consideration of others and his thoughtful approach is inspiring, to be sure.

      Delete
    6. Van Jones should be attacked and if Somerby isn't that's even more telling as to his bona fides as a liberal.

      Delete
    7. Calling another commenter's opinions "deranged hogwash" is not consideration of others or thoughtful. It is name-calling.

      Delete
    8. OMG - Those calling Somerby a racist and worse are lecturing us about the incivilty of name-calling.

      Delete
  4. Stephens says: "Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement—and that rendered it politically impotent and frequently obtuse? Yes, please."

    But this is what "opposition" looks like. One cannot disapprove of Trump's many flaws without engaging in moralizing and doomsaying, because (1) Trump is deeply immoral and thus anyone opposing him cannot help but moralize when advocating alternative behavior; and (2) following Trump down his current path will lead to doom for many individuals but also for our country, at the very least rolling back progress but also creating major problems, if not disasters for many sectors, especially economic but also in terms of progress for individuals. For example, Harvard has admitted far fewer minority law students this year with the rollback of affirmative action in admission. Another example, women are dying in TX and other red states because they do not have access to proper treatment after miscarriages (not abortion) and ectopic pregnancies. And Trump hasn't even taken office yet.

    Stephens signals that he is going to capitulate to Trump. Somerby compares his own voting to Stephens, as if a supposed liberal would have any commonality with a staunch self-described conservative. Is that the proper role model or comparison for liberals? Why does Somerby never compare his own attitudes and voting with actual liberals? Perhaps because it would become obvious that he is nothing like any actual liberal. And today he gives us Stephens as an example, simply because Stephens (like other conservatives) refers to moralizing and says it must end. What else is a conservative going to say?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Somerby returns for enlightenment to ancient Troy, not by actually reading the Iliad but via the predigested analysis of Professor Knox, preferring the Cliff Notes to the actual text, like pretend students across time.

    Somerby says the good decent family man goes down to defeat at the hands of the man with no family. But Somerby has always said that Troy is the Democrats while the guys on the beach (without values) are the Republicans. How does that map onto this family-man business?

    Well, the Republicans have always been the party of so-called family values, while the Democrats have been called libertine. But now, all of a sudden, the Democrats are just defending noble Troy and their families within? But if the invaders are the Republicans, how does that make their hero Trump anything like Achilles, given that Trump not only has had several wives but has installed his own children and children-in-law into high positions in his administration, just as he did with Jared and Ivanka during his first term? Does that sound like a non-family man? So how then can Trump be Achilles, especially when he cannot walk down a ramp unaided and is fat and sloppy and incoherent? Not exactly a hero like Achilles or Hector. Somerby's mapping of current events onto Trojan War appears to be random, largely based on Troy losing and the Greeks winning, not on any characteristic of either side of that fictional war devised by Homer, no doubt to embarrass people during his own time. Professor Knox never told Somerby that Troy was the Democrats, that is Somerby's invention based solely on his desire to see Democratics lose the election (since this Iliad preoccupation started long before Trump's election).

    What kind of liberal uses Troy to pretend the Democrats are doomed, so that he can scold his own supposed party and tell it to stop doing what might help it win? There is an answer to that question, but it is not one that the fanboys will like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "CAMUS: [O]ur townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions. "

    In a more literal sense, this paragraph which Somerby quotes applies to the anti-vaxxers who are part of Trump's new administration. It also applies to the raw-milkers who think the bacteria that pasteurization removes from milk won't ever hurt them. They are closing their eyes to science and believing that they can ignore pestilence because they don't want it to be real.

    I don't know what Camus meant by humanist. Some experts refer to Camus himself as a humanist, while Somerby quotes from Camus's writing a passage that seems to be critical of humanism (by which he appears to mean human agency). Perhaps he only means that individuals cannot fight larger impersonal causes like disease (and probably natural disaster). That changed with the invention of vaccines, which can and do prevent epidemics, but that was after Camus's time period. And Camus is a philosopher, not a physician. Trump's people are neither. They are opportunists and con artists.

    When Somerby grabs a paragraph out of the context of the author's life, beliefs and the entire work, then uses it to support his own arguments that would not be supported by that author on his worst day as a writer, Somerby is being intellectually dishonest. He does this with Camus, Homer, and even Stephens. Somerby needs to express his own ideas in his own words, instead of excerpting quotes without explanation and expecting them to convey whatever Somerby has not explained. That is like a Rorschach pattern, in which people project their own meaning based on their own psyche. Somerby does that without explanation, but then his readers do the same, finding in Somerby whatever they want to read. Whatever else it may be, that isn't communication and it is not discourse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Camus means that, like the fascism that enabled WWII and Hitler, people need to fight a pestilence, not assume it doesn't exist or will go away on its own (as Trump tried to convince us about covid). In that case, Somerby quoting says the opposite of what he himself seems to propose. Camus is urging concerted human effort against pestilence, not immersion in our private individual concerns, to fight a scourge that can result in many deaths. That means we must fight Trump, not enable or ignore him. What will happen when those mass deportations start? Trump's people are telling immigrants to designate someone to pick their kids up from school in case the parents are snatched and put on a plane. Will we all need to do that if we don't fight earlier when Trump proposes to do it to suspect migrants (legal or not)?

      Somerby is not telling anyone to fight Trump. He is touting Stephens who is wishing to appease Trump while blaming himself (and by extension liberals) for losing the election by being too what? Perhaps too nice, law-abiding, underestimating venality, trying to appear on Rogan? What did we do wrong, except lose? Somerby never says, except it is related to being elite and arrogant (after working super hard to get a degree, unlike Somerby who slid through to avoid the draft, apparently learning nothing much about Homer).

      Delete
  7. Somerby’s Achilles’ heel is lacking evidence.

    It is never on offer.

    Somerby prefers the safe space of storytelling, but today he ventures into the world of quote mining pundit grifters, today he appropriates two right wing pundits, both of whom have no moral compass, just an undying urge to follow the wind and whim of their minders/paymasters.

    Earth to Somerby, Republicans have ALWAYS run on fear mongering about the economy and immigration, they have been using this same playbook for DECADES. Trump got 30% of the electorate, could not even get 50% of those that voted, and could only muster about the same support he got in 2020 (when he badly lost), considering demographics shifts and population growth.

    Trump is nothing new, just your typical right winger borne from unresolved childhood trauma that Republicans always vote for in order to facilitate tax cuts and other such conveniences for the elite wealthy while feeding the hoi polloi the red meat of oppression of Others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "That brings us to the second key point in that passage from Stephens. He says that some of the anger behind Candidate Trump's "landslide" is "intensely bigoted."

    For ourselves, we're inclined to stay away from such assessments. But that's what Stephens says."

    Is it possible that Somerby doesn't recognize the ways in which Trump's campaign was an appeal to bigotry? Or does he just not want to talk about it? And if not, why? How does Somerby imagine we can reduce the level of bigotry in our society without talking about it? Does he think it is not necessary to talk about bigotry because he is not a member of any stigmatized group? Does he think he has the luxury of never discussing bigotry because he is not a minority, has white not dark skin, is not an immigrant, is not trans, is CIS gender, speaks without an accent, has the right amount of money and education (although elites seems to be stigmatized by the right wing these days, as long as they aren't themselves), and is not Jewish or Muslim or an atheist?

    We saw what happened in Nazi Germany when the people who didn't want to discuss bigotry let the others around them have their way without moralizing. The ones who spoke up were being put in camps! So those who thought of themselves as good decent people (like Somerby), sat by and did nothing and no doubt are in hell for their sins of omission. But Somerby doesn't want to talk about bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Blue America, states like CA, the fifth largest economy in the world, the 2nd largest by per capita, produces the gdp that Red America lives off of.

    Red America votes for loons like Trump, because they are wounded folks too lazy to get off the couch, to get off their “meds” like meth and opioids. Red America likes to scold others via faux righteousness in order to mask their guilt and shame over exploiting others to meet their needs.

    Until we can break the cycle of generational wealth and generational abuse, we are doomed to be stuck in this right wing death spiral.

    ReplyDelete

  10. Ever since I was eaten by cannibals, my supplies of delicious word-salads have become endless, and are still growing.

    I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is considered a violation of internet etiquette to use another commenter's nym like this. The way Corby has been treated is a prime example of why others here do not want to adopt nyms at all but prefer to be anonymous.

      This kind of right wing garbage is no better than Cecelia, PP, AC/MA and others who are constantly chiding commenters to pick a name. Corby did that, and look what it got them. The intent of these comments is not to suggest Biden shouldn't have mentioned New Guinea (where cannibals did exist in that time period), but to harass commenters with other political views and make them less likely to express themselves here. That is not only undemocratic but a misuse of free speech, which is why this shit is prohibited on moderated blogs. Somerby apparently doesn't care what anyone says here, even about himself, but lets not pretend this is OK behavior when it isn't.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 12:24pm, you’re so asinine. Anything in order to wail. The anonymouse who signs his posts as Corby, posts under the designation of being anonymous. Not one person here who remembers Corby is idiotic enough to think that this is real Corby and not a spoof. It’s an obvious spoof. It is meant to be an obvious spoof. Yes, the possibility of being spoofed is just one of the reasons anonymices stay anonymouse. The biggest reason you do it is because it makes you unaccountable as to what you argue from day or one take to the next.

      Delete

    3. I'm curious if the Soros-trained monkey and Corby is the same bot. What do you think?

      Delete
    4. Cecelia, what you call a spoof is an attack.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 1:19pm, per anonymices, the real Corby is long gone. What’s interesting is that you seem to have or have had a personal relationship with her (if only thru email) and know that she’s gone to the point of being completely sure of it.

      (It’s an operation, folks.)

      Delete

    7. Boris @12:24 PM is a liar. I will never be gone. I am Corby.

      But I've been a bad girl. Bad, bad girl. I sniffed my fingers. My finger smells funny.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    8. Trolls/fanboys want to stifle discourse because their views are untenable in light of the evidence.

      That they try to bully others is par for the course and a way to provide cover for their general incoherency.

      Delete
    9. 2;53,
      Get ready for Cecelia to play the victim, now that you outed her as a bully.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia, the profile of the person named Corby is gone from Blogspot.

      But look at your amateur sleuthing, trying to link me to Corby via email. This kind of internet stalking is why people don't want to use a nym here. You and your ilk try to intimidate commenters by threatening to out them, just like someone here keeps taunting Corby. Why don't you guys just stop the bullying tactics and participate in conversations and discussion, like the anonymous commenters here (except for the right wing ones pretending to be Corby or writing ugly stuff that must be reported to Blogspot for expressing hate). This isn't getting anyone anywhere, which is probably your goal -- to keep any non-right wing commenter from expressing thoughts about anything except how lame you are.

      Delete
    11. “Amateur sleuthing” and stalking, huh? You get more ridiculous daily. . Notice that I didn’t go to Blogspot to look up anyone’s profile, let alone “call them out” (how?), I didn't give a hoot whether she was here under another name or not here. No, you knew unequivocally that she’s gone and had not morphed into another nym or into a plain old anonymouse. YOU kept up with THAT not me.

      Let Corby go, anonymouse 7:42pm. Corby is a nym on a blogboard. Are Corby posts still in the archive?

      You guys can’t have it all ways, but you sure as hell try.

      Delete
    12. I've been a bad girl. Bad, bad girl. I sniffed my fingers. My finger smells funny.

      I hate it when my delicious, endless word-salads get diluted by other people's occasional comments!
      What an ass Somerby is!

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    13. Cecelia, you are such a liar.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 10:33am, you’re such a scold and a putz.

      Delete
    15. BTW, is Corby the person who changed her name to “a”?

      Delete
    16. I have all “a” posts. Look at this one. An anonymouse just posted this identical post not too long ago! A couple of weeks.


      a June 7, 2022 at 6:00 PM
      I read The Lady with the Lap Dog because Somerby mentioned it in an essay. I re-read My Antonia because Somerby discussed it. I bought the bio of Godel for the same reason, and read Joan Didion too, and Wilfred Owen. Based on Somerby's excerpt, I refuse to read Sandburg's Lincoln. Now it is Frost's poem Directive.
      Ultimately, upon reading these various works, they shed little light on what Somerby means because Somerby doesn't care about the author's meanings, but only his own private references, grabbing a line here and there because he likes the sound of it, without thinking about the context or the whole work. This is an autistic way of reading literature, but instructive about Somerby's process.
      Directive is thought by literary critics to be: "Written when Frost was in his seventies, the poem is a reflective, typically ambiguous work that contains references to past poems, geographical places and biblical passages related to the worthiness of the individual - Frost and his poetry set before the divine." But this is not what Somerby takes from it, not how he reads it. He uses the line because it says "go back" and Somerby takes that literally as an excuse to talk about the past -- not to reflect on his own life or his own contributions, as Frost did, but to chide the press over Muskie's aborted presidential campaign.
      Not only is this something of an abuse of Frost's work, but it is a missed opportunity for Somerby, who is himself in his 70s. He doesn't seem to have lea anything from his time on this planet, at least nothing he will share. I find it sad that he won't learn fror commenters (not just me, but many others here, have said wise things over de years. Freud talks about
      ...

      Delete
  11. Jones equates winning with being smart. Somerby says he disagrees with that formulation (at least taken literally) but he then goes on to call liberals and elites dumb, again. Somerby says:

    "We do agree with two key points [by Stephens]:

    Our high-brow elites often seemed to have no idea what "ordinary people" cared about in this election. (It sometimes seemed that they didn't know, but also that they simply didn't care.)

    Also, "ordinary people" often felt lied to by those of us in Blue America—not just by the very bad people who are known to be found Over There."

    Note that Somerby uses the term "high-brow elite" as the same kind of derogatory name-calling that conservatives engage in (despite Trump and his minions having those same high-brow degrees and lots of money, thus elite themselves). And who are the "ordinary people" he refers to? This usually means white Americans in the middle class, perhaps living in Middle America (outside a blue state or city). Or it is a generic term people use to refer to themselves as distinct from someone else, perhaps unspecified, a way to designate the good from the bad among people in our society. Liberals do a lot less of that than conservatives do.

    Somerby refuses to discuss bigotry and yet this is plainly a plea for the liberal elite to stop focusing on diversity and instead pay attention to the non-diverse who are feeling angry and left-out because no one except Trump is vocally championing their needs. How did Trump do that? By attacking the minorities and immigrants who are getting what the ordinary people feel entitled to themselves. Disappointed entitlement is what Somerby should be acknowledging among those ordinary people who Harris supposedly ignored (by being black and female, even if she rarely talked about that). Harris lost among those ordinary people because she embodied what they were against (others getting something they wanted for themselves). She didn't have to say a word to lose on that issue, so Somerby's complaints that the left was too vocal about anti-bigotry and diversity are misguided. There is nothing Harris could avoid saying that would have won her the election -- that is plain from the voting results. A black woman is probably not going to get elected unless bigotry is made a front-and-center issue in the campaign, because not talking about it doesn't work. It didn't work for Hillary either. Obama did address race and black voters rallied behind him, along with do-the-right-thing white voters. Harris begged the left (by her example) to avoid talking about race and gender, that permitted the bigots to pretend she wasn't giving enough interviews and no one was invited to express their better side by voting against bigotry, so she lost.

    This is not how Somerby sees things. He no doubt thought someone whiter and more male should have been nominated. He has said that race is no longer an issue and women are lying complainers when they talk about sexism. He is a better example of why we lost than anything Van Jones or Robert Stephens (in uncommon accord) are saying to attack the Democratic party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cont.

      Those who are tempted to suggest that Somerby was not attacking Jones, with his faint agreement, need to recognize first, that he expressed surprise at how "sharp" Jones was back in 2009, calls Jones an elite and recounts his educational background, just as he does with each of his press and cable enemies (Jones is a lawyer who appears on cable shows), and says he doesn't agree with Jones calling Trump smart (among other things). Somerby is not agreeing with Jones or advancing his views, but quotes him to disagree.

      I don't agree with Jones either. Trump won because he was willing to tell any lie and break any rule (including laws) to get what he wants. He won because he has attracted others to his cause who put billions into his campaign when his own supporters stopped sending campaign contributions. He won because Russia is on his side and willing to put their money and resources into his campaigns (as in 2016), which is also against our laws. Trump won because he has no principles, no integrity, no competence at anything except grifting. He turned our electoral system into one big grift and is still pulling money out of our system to pocket for himself. He won by appealig to the bigotry, greed, and anger (hate) of voters. That isn't smart, it isn't insane, it is evil.

      Delete
    2. 12:17: You talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded.

      Delete
    3. @12:17 Better trolling please.

      Delete
    4. The Republican Party is fundamentally a bundle of loosely tied-together grievances looking for something to break.

      Delete
    5. Trump promised to deport immigrants so they would stop out-classing white people on the labor market.

      Delete

    6. No one will ever out-class any $10/day Albanian Soros-bot. Thank you Mr. Soros: you reached the absolute bottom!

      Delete
  12. Too many Americans were willing to elect a criminal. That is what Somerby needs to be discussing, not the terrible elitism of the left because they had the nerve to get a college education.
    Ask yourself how insane it is that a former K-12 school teacher advocates against going to college because it makes people too likely to be left wing scolds who are too full of themselves. Somerby belongs with Stephens back in the right wing fold, because that is the weirdest shit in this election cycle.
    No one capable of reading the Iliad would ever read it and think of Troy -- hey, that's just like the Democrats! So why does Somerby? This is a right wing dog whistle, Somerby's private unfunny joke in which he laughs at his readers while telling us we are too good for our own good. And that makes no sense in a world where good decent people strive to be their best, not worst selves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will never be able to look at my fellow Americans again in the same way I had for most of my life. It is inconceivable even now that so many voters chose to give power to this man who has proven in so many ways that he will abuse that power for his own benefit. A man who looks the American people in the eyes and lies shamelessly. This is the end of the road for our democratic republic I am afraid. There is no going back.

      Delete

  13. I have a bit of commenting diarrhea today. That's because my cousins were eaten by cannibals last night.

    What an ass Somerby is.

    I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you are nothing like Corby, who left the building years ago. Now you stand for all of the liberal commenters here and your schtick isn't funny.

      Delete
  14. "Van Jones has always been a Blue American liberal/progressive."

    Inventor of the Trump Pivot? LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did you see the good news? Kamala Harris strongly hinted yesterday that she will seek the Dem nomination in 2028. Any Dem who votes against our DEI princess in the primaries is a racist and sexist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She served as VP and ran when asked to by her party, despite the short preparation time allowed her. That is service to the Democrats and our nation.

      Calling her a DEI princess is racist and sexist when you say it. She has more achievements than the alternative candidates and polled higher than they did, at the point when Biden was asked to step aside. That is why she became the candidate. She was thought to have the best chance of winning. It wasn't because she was already VP or because of her race or gender. She was an an experienced VP with proven ability to win elections. Perhaps Republicans are still attacking her because they know she will be stronger in 2028, or maybe that is just how they live and breathe. DEI is a noun. Using it as an adjective to disparage a minority person is de facto racist and/or sexist. That isn't going to change just because we have a racist/sexist president-elect.

      Delete
  16. What did “ordinary people” care about in this election, in Somerby’s/Stephens’ view? What is the definition of “ordinary people?”

    ReplyDelete
  17. I voted for Trump because he was willing to demonstrate, even in front of children, how to fellate a man.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Trump is all onboard to cut popular programs like Social Security and Medicare, and get rid of vaccines.

    The next Dem president will have quite a mess to clean up.

    Thank god for the midterms and the filibuster.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My advice for Republicans, hire lots of bodyguards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re about as “bad” as Michael Jackson was.

      Delete
    2. I'm quite certain you're talking to a fully automatic Soros-bot.

      Delete
    3. Michael Jackson was a pedophile, which makes him much more like a Republican politician, then a TDH commenter.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 4:43pm, oh, come, we all know Democratic politicians drink the blood of babies.

      Delete
    5. Interesting, how 3:05 triggers the right wing trolls/fanboys.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 5:48pm, Barney Fife triggers people in the same way,

      Delete
    7. The term "trigger" has a specific psychiatric meaning and you are using it improperly Cecelia (what else is new?).

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 7:54pm, not one thing is new. You remain as thick as a brick.

      Delete
    9. If Republicans don’t care about truth, why would they care about meaning?

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 9:04pm, they’d just like your chiding harpies to be capable get a joke or a pin occasionally. Not in them

      Delete
  20. I can't imagine anyone voting for Kamala Harris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have to imagine any, you can just look at the 75 million who did.

      Delete
    2. Wow. We have had a two-party system throughout your lifetime and you can't imagine one of those parties, which is obviously not imaginary, having supporters. I am intrigued by your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Delete
    3. Illegal immigrants and dead people voted for her en masse. Plus the government bureaucrats and street criminals.

      Delete
    4. Trump says he will deport immigrants, so that white people will stop getting curb-stomped by them in the job market.

      Delete