Josh Marshall does some socio-political art criticism of Jon McNaughton, producer of godawful agitprop art. He notes that McNaughton taps directly into the alternative universe of white, conservative grievance and produces shitty painting of that universe.
The important note is at the end: These paintings sell. And now that he is painting Trump, even more so. As Marshall notes, the paintings of Trump are so far from any even moderately accurate portrayal of Trump as to be laughable. McNaughton's beliefs are clearly Christianist. Dude's from Utah, y'all. He is not so interested in the idea of separating church and state.
So, he took a flamboyantly immoral con artist who has never been seen being genuinely affectionate with another human being, and turns him into a quiet teacher of young people. What the everliving hell?
I was reading some reactions to the Joy Reid controversy, and some neuroscientists were saying that it is quite probable that she remembers her own past falsely. Our brains don't accumulate facts, they tells us a story about ourselves that we can live with. (Depression is when that story get unnecessarily dark.) The key is that we create a narrative about ourselves that we are comfortable with.
These paintings are emblematic of how evangelicals are telling a story about themselves that is fundamentally false. For everyone who wonders why evangelicals can support a thrice married man who routintely cheats on his wife with porn stars and then pays them hush money out of an illegal slush fund...here's your answer. They have concocted a parallel narrative of Trump that is far out of line with everyone else' reality, buttressed by nonsense like the McNaughton kitch.
Hell of a world view you got there.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Good Guy Without A Gun
James Shaw, Jr. - The Waffle House Hero - is a true hero. We would like to think that in a moment of crisis, we would rise to the occasion and do something as heroic as he did. The fact is that few of us would. Shaw himself has done what heroes usually do: deny that he is a hero.
And I might believe him, if he didn't then turn around and raise almost $200,000 for the victims of the shooting.
I haven't seen Infinity Wars yet, but I hope the Waffle House Hero is in it.
And I might believe him, if he didn't then turn around and raise almost $200,000 for the victims of the shooting.
I haven't seen Infinity Wars yet, but I hope the Waffle House Hero is in it.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Nerd Prom
I have been off Twitter the past three days, because I do a bunch of "stuff" around the NFL draft. I checked in this morning and everyone was waging verbal war off of Michelle Wolf's...what should we call it... verbal ambush of the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
So I found a transcript and read it. It's a little "blue" in terms of language, but what it really is is scorching hot anger. Maybe she was smiling and had warmth in her voice (I read it, didn't watch it), but the substance is pure distilled rage. The rage of women, the rage of African Americans, all delivered to a room full of mostly white rich people. This made some of them uncomfortable, and a few walked out.
The thing is, it is possible for great wealth to insulate you from real consequences. It insulated Bill Cosby for decades, it insulated Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Wienstein. Women are calling them to account, but there are still many ways in which wealth and power can insulate you from things you don't want to encounter.
Here's the thing: you shouldn't live that way. You should have to confront your failings from time to time. You should know that the world doesn't end at the tip if your nose.
Enjoy your pearl clutching people, while you still have your pearls.
So I found a transcript and read it. It's a little "blue" in terms of language, but what it really is is scorching hot anger. Maybe she was smiling and had warmth in her voice (I read it, didn't watch it), but the substance is pure distilled rage. The rage of women, the rage of African Americans, all delivered to a room full of mostly white rich people. This made some of them uncomfortable, and a few walked out.
The thing is, it is possible for great wealth to insulate you from real consequences. It insulated Bill Cosby for decades, it insulated Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Wienstein. Women are calling them to account, but there are still many ways in which wealth and power can insulate you from things you don't want to encounter.
Here's the thing: you shouldn't live that way. You should have to confront your failings from time to time. You should know that the world doesn't end at the tip if your nose.
Enjoy your pearl clutching people, while you still have your pearls.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Anxious Times
It's been interesting watching the left's reaction to the recent scholarship that places "status anxiety" at the root of Trump's election, as opposed to "economic anxiety." For a certain segment of the Left, this doesn't explicitly say "RACISM" in big, flashing neon letters, so it's another cop out by corporate media. Of course, it's describing a social science paper, and "status anxiety" is a social science term. Racism is at risk of being a verbal weapon thrown around so much that its blade gets dull. Of course racism is at the root of status anxiety, and the article places it front and center. Sexism, too, though that isn't getting the same treatment.
What is missing is that there is definitely a link between status anxiety and economic anxiety. It's not that Trump voters were especially poor; they weren't. They could, however, see evidence of economic decline all around them, especially the decline in well paying jobs for high school graduates. Dad may have had a good job, but Junior can't find work beyond minimum wage service McJobs.
One thing that some social scientists have suggested is that prosperity correlates with social liberalism. When you feel economic secure, you are more generous, both economically and socially. the broad prosperity of the '50s and '60s was an important reason why the civil rights movement both took place and succeeded. When you feel threatened, you retreat to the jingoistic and particularlist rhetoric and structures of conservatism. You especially feel threatened by "out groups" who reinforce your sense of insecurity and threat.
Prosperous people are very often more socially liberal on issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Some strategists have argued that this analysis of Trump voters means that Democrats should abandon efforts to reach Trump voters, because racism and sexism are anathema to the party. While the latter is true, and should be, Democrats should absolutely be out to poach Trump voters, especially those independent minded WWC voters and suburban social moderates. You will never win the Deplorables, and you really shouldn't even try.
However, you are going to have to peel off some of those angry, disaffected voters of the sort that Conor Lamb won in the special election. You only need to strip away about 10% of the GOP electorate, and you can do it without abandoning your base.
The argument that the GOP is the "party of corruption" is particularly strong in the Age of Trump (and Pruitt and Ryan and Farenholdt and Kushner). The idea that the GOP is the "party of Wall Street" was made for you by their tax cut bill and by the attacks on Obamacare. Those attacks are as true for a disgruntled, white former steel worker as they are for an underemployed African American trying to string together three part time jobs.
The bullshit "either/or" arguments that are in large part a proxy re-litigation of the 2016 presidential race is just lazy thinking.
What is missing is that there is definitely a link between status anxiety and economic anxiety. It's not that Trump voters were especially poor; they weren't. They could, however, see evidence of economic decline all around them, especially the decline in well paying jobs for high school graduates. Dad may have had a good job, but Junior can't find work beyond minimum wage service McJobs.
One thing that some social scientists have suggested is that prosperity correlates with social liberalism. When you feel economic secure, you are more generous, both economically and socially. the broad prosperity of the '50s and '60s was an important reason why the civil rights movement both took place and succeeded. When you feel threatened, you retreat to the jingoistic and particularlist rhetoric and structures of conservatism. You especially feel threatened by "out groups" who reinforce your sense of insecurity and threat.
Prosperous people are very often more socially liberal on issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Some strategists have argued that this analysis of Trump voters means that Democrats should abandon efforts to reach Trump voters, because racism and sexism are anathema to the party. While the latter is true, and should be, Democrats should absolutely be out to poach Trump voters, especially those independent minded WWC voters and suburban social moderates. You will never win the Deplorables, and you really shouldn't even try.
However, you are going to have to peel off some of those angry, disaffected voters of the sort that Conor Lamb won in the special election. You only need to strip away about 10% of the GOP electorate, and you can do it without abandoning your base.
The argument that the GOP is the "party of corruption" is particularly strong in the Age of Trump (and Pruitt and Ryan and Farenholdt and Kushner). The idea that the GOP is the "party of Wall Street" was made for you by their tax cut bill and by the attacks on Obamacare. Those attacks are as true for a disgruntled, white former steel worker as they are for an underemployed African American trying to string together three part time jobs.
The bullshit "either/or" arguments that are in large part a proxy re-litigation of the 2016 presidential race is just lazy thinking.
Friday, April 27, 2018
The Best People
GOP Representative resigns amid scandal.
Paul Ryan fires House chaplain for pointing out that the Gospels are not about cutting taxes on the very rich.
Paul Ryan fires House chaplain for pointing out that the Gospels are not about cutting taxes on the very rich.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Dignity Wraith
Josh Marshall coined the term "Dignity Wraith" to describe those who get sucked into Trumpistan and then have their dignity drained away. Here is Exhibit A:
But the list goes on and on of people who had decent reputations, then came into contact with Trump. Sean Spicer, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly.
What's happened with Adm. Jackson is perhaps a new wrinkle on the phenomenon. Jackson's misdeeds preceed his affliation with Trump. Yet, somehow, Trump managed to find another morally compromised person to try and serve in his government.
It's almost like it's not that Trump sucks the dignity from them, it's that they never had but a fig leaf of dignity anyway, and Trump is merely the strong wind that blows it away.
Obligatory NSFW Onion reference.
But the list goes on and on of people who had decent reputations, then came into contact with Trump. Sean Spicer, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster, John Kelly.
What's happened with Adm. Jackson is perhaps a new wrinkle on the phenomenon. Jackson's misdeeds preceed his affliation with Trump. Yet, somehow, Trump managed to find another morally compromised person to try and serve in his government.
It's almost like it's not that Trump sucks the dignity from them, it's that they never had but a fig leaf of dignity anyway, and Trump is merely the strong wind that blows it away.
Obligatory NSFW Onion reference.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Does Anything Matter Anymore?
White House economic do-it-all, Mick Mulvaney, just admitted that he ran a pay-for-play system while a Congressman. Meanwhile, he's stripping the CFPB of its powers and ability to protect people from predatory financial institutions. Once again, in any other administration, this would be a breathtaking scandal. As it is, it can barely register, with a 24 hour news cycle of Trump being an idiot and national embarrassment by picking dandruff of Emmanuel Macron.
Someone, hopefully, at the DNC is creating a database of the rampant corruption. However, it will need to be the Democrats' job to make corruption the leading issue in 2018. There is a bullshit narrative that they can't just "run against Trump." While there is a kernel of truth there, they can certainly run against a "culture of corruption" similar to what Republicans did in 1994.
You can't focus just on Trump. You have to cast your gaze on the broader corruption in Congress, in the administration without taking your eyes off the West Wing.
Someone, hopefully, at the DNC is creating a database of the rampant corruption. However, it will need to be the Democrats' job to make corruption the leading issue in 2018. There is a bullshit narrative that they can't just "run against Trump." While there is a kernel of truth there, they can certainly run against a "culture of corruption" similar to what Republicans did in 1994.
You can't focus just on Trump. You have to cast your gaze on the broader corruption in Congress, in the administration without taking your eyes off the West Wing.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Never Trumpers
David Roberts lays out a fairly convincing case that Never Trump Republicans should join with Democrats until the Republican Party abandons it's descent into lawlessness and authoritarianism. Roberts rightly notes that we have a two-party system that isn't going anywhere. You effectively have a binary choice, and if you truly believe Trump is an existential threat to the Republic and the rule of law, you should vote with Democrats to rein him in.
The biggest question about Never Trump Republicans is just how many of them really exist. I've been teaching the creation of the Reagan Coalition the past two days. Basically, the Paleocons provided the money and small government rhetoric, the Neocons provided the foreign policy and ideas, the Theocons provided the votes. Today, 83% of Evangelical Whites support Trump. That's higher than Republicans as a whole (80%), but we have to consider that "Republicans" has come to mean "Evangelical Whites."
Roberts dismisses a third party, as does the conservative writer he cites. I would argue that if you could get 20% of Republicans to split with the party, that would have basically the same effect as voting Democrat. Not always, not in every race, but it would create a home for people who would otherwise hold their nose and vote Republican. They aren't going to vote for Democrats in most circumstances. But if they voted for the National Republican Party or the Reform Republican Party, then those are votes that are effectively being denied the Ethnonationalist Republican Party.
The current balance between the two parties is very, very close. Even with all the talk of gerrymandering, it seems as if Democrats have a pretty good shot at taking back both Houses of Congress. If you also stripped away 10-20% of Republican voters into a third party, that would have the effect of electing Democrats, even in marginal districts. It would allow Never Trump Republicans to hold on to their ideals and create an eventual successor to the Party of Trump.
America needs a responsible conservative party. It does not currently have one. It needs the Conservative Party of Britain, but all it has is the National Front of France. A third party would be necessary to wrest control of Congress from America's National Front, and create a haven for those wishing to remain conservative but not willing to vote for Democrats.
The biggest question about Never Trump Republicans is just how many of them really exist. I've been teaching the creation of the Reagan Coalition the past two days. Basically, the Paleocons provided the money and small government rhetoric, the Neocons provided the foreign policy and ideas, the Theocons provided the votes. Today, 83% of Evangelical Whites support Trump. That's higher than Republicans as a whole (80%), but we have to consider that "Republicans" has come to mean "Evangelical Whites."
Roberts dismisses a third party, as does the conservative writer he cites. I would argue that if you could get 20% of Republicans to split with the party, that would have basically the same effect as voting Democrat. Not always, not in every race, but it would create a home for people who would otherwise hold their nose and vote Republican. They aren't going to vote for Democrats in most circumstances. But if they voted for the National Republican Party or the Reform Republican Party, then those are votes that are effectively being denied the Ethnonationalist Republican Party.
The current balance between the two parties is very, very close. Even with all the talk of gerrymandering, it seems as if Democrats have a pretty good shot at taking back both Houses of Congress. If you also stripped away 10-20% of Republican voters into a third party, that would have the effect of electing Democrats, even in marginal districts. It would allow Never Trump Republicans to hold on to their ideals and create an eventual successor to the Party of Trump.
America needs a responsible conservative party. It does not currently have one. It needs the Conservative Party of Britain, but all it has is the National Front of France. A third party would be necessary to wrest control of Congress from America's National Front, and create a haven for those wishing to remain conservative but not willing to vote for Democrats.
Hive Of Villainy
The Saudi Royal Family is what the Trump Crime Family wishes it could be: ruthless, efficent and rich as hell. Apparently, Trump's Master of Whispers at the National Enquirer has published a fluff magazine about the Crown Prince. I remember seeing it in the drugstore in the small Georgia town my mom lives in. It was a true curiosity, as I couldn't imagine more than a dozen people in Elberton knowing who Mohammad bin Salman is. Yet it was clearly targeted at rural Trump voters.
Bizarre.
Bizarre.
Monday, April 23, 2018
Chait Trolling
Every once in a while Jon Chait trolls the Left. As a Liberal and not a Leftist, he is part of a long tradition of doing so.
Today, he makes a very interesting take on the route that women have to navigate in order to become president. He focuses on two of the frontrunners for 2020, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand. With Harris, he notes how she tore Jeff Sessions a new one during his confirmation hearing, yet the left-leaning coverage focused on her being interrupted, rather than her ass-kicking. With Gillibrand, it is a case of her leading the way on sexual harrassment, yet focusing on her own history.
Chait's trolling comes when he says this:
Presenting a female politician as a victim may attract support and positive attention among progressive activists. On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win.
As soon as I read that, I knew what would follow, and sure enough the Leftier parts of the internet are ripping into him. And yet, he's not wrong. And he's focused on how to elect our first female president, who will likely be a Democrat.
As he says, it's not really about convincing your base. It's about winning the election that is largely decided for stupid reasons surrounding imagery. Women have a trickier needle to thread in trying to present as a Commander and Chief, while not coming off as grating. It's sexist, but it exists.
I'm not sure why this engenders such outrage.
Today, he makes a very interesting take on the route that women have to navigate in order to become president. He focuses on two of the frontrunners for 2020, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand. With Harris, he notes how she tore Jeff Sessions a new one during his confirmation hearing, yet the left-leaning coverage focused on her being interrupted, rather than her ass-kicking. With Gillibrand, it is a case of her leading the way on sexual harrassment, yet focusing on her own history.
Chait's trolling comes when he says this:
Presenting a female politician as a victim may attract support and positive attention among progressive activists. On the left, victimhood is a prime source of authority, and discourse revolves around establishing one’s intersectional credentials and detailing stories of mistreatment that reinforce them. Within the ecosystem of the left, demonstrating that you have suffered harassment or microaggressions is a big win.
As soon as I read that, I knew what would follow, and sure enough the Leftier parts of the internet are ripping into him. And yet, he's not wrong. And he's focused on how to elect our first female president, who will likely be a Democrat.
As he says, it's not really about convincing your base. It's about winning the election that is largely decided for stupid reasons surrounding imagery. Women have a trickier needle to thread in trying to present as a Commander and Chief, while not coming off as grating. It's sexist, but it exists.
I'm not sure why this engenders such outrage.
Memorializing History
Fred Hiatt, of all people, has a nice introduction to a new outdoor museum and memorial to the long term effects of white supremacy. The memorial is in Montgomery.
What the piece captures succintly is the idea that slavery - or more accurately the expendability of black bodies - didn't end in 1865. Chattel slavery may have lasted from 1630-1865, but it was replaced with another power system that replicated slavery until the 1960s. After Jim Crow was dismantled, yet another form of racism was created to make sure black labor and black lives did not threaten white labor and white lives.
After Selma, Martin Luther King went to Chicago, where he worked against the de facto segregation of the North. The first African Americans to flee the Jim Crow South were met with violence in St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. King - who had been lionized by northern moderates when he confronted the brutality of Jim Crow - was suddenly unwelcome in sensible white circles. His criticisms were too unnerving, too threatening.
That legacy remains unaddressed for many Americans. Slavery or Jim Crow was easy to condemn, but the continuing legacy and the institutions that were created from them remain in place. We will grapple with them and learn to understand them.
Or they will destroy us.
What the piece captures succintly is the idea that slavery - or more accurately the expendability of black bodies - didn't end in 1865. Chattel slavery may have lasted from 1630-1865, but it was replaced with another power system that replicated slavery until the 1960s. After Jim Crow was dismantled, yet another form of racism was created to make sure black labor and black lives did not threaten white labor and white lives.
After Selma, Martin Luther King went to Chicago, where he worked against the de facto segregation of the North. The first African Americans to flee the Jim Crow South were met with violence in St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago. King - who had been lionized by northern moderates when he confronted the brutality of Jim Crow - was suddenly unwelcome in sensible white circles. His criticisms were too unnerving, too threatening.
That legacy remains unaddressed for many Americans. Slavery or Jim Crow was easy to condemn, but the continuing legacy and the institutions that were created from them remain in place. We will grapple with them and learn to understand them.
Or they will destroy us.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Cool, Nothing To See Here, America
Some embittered, overly armed white dude shot up a Waffle House. Another angry dude wearing a MAGA hat pushed a Hispanic guy in front of a train.
The Waffle House shooter was disarmed by an African American, and the subway guy was also African American. I'm going to take a wild guess who Fox News is going to focus on. It will be difficult, given that the subway pusher was wearing a MAGA hat, so it will be a "false flag operation" designed to make Glorious Orange Leader look bad. Meanwhile, the young man who wrestled the gun away from the Waffle House shooter will likely disappear to everyone except those whose lives he saved.
Good thing it was a Waffle House and not a Philly Starbucks.
The Waffle House shooter was disarmed by an African American, and the subway guy was also African American. I'm going to take a wild guess who Fox News is going to focus on. It will be difficult, given that the subway pusher was wearing a MAGA hat, so it will be a "false flag operation" designed to make Glorious Orange Leader look bad. Meanwhile, the young man who wrestled the gun away from the Waffle House shooter will likely disappear to everyone except those whose lives he saved.
Good thing it was a Waffle House and not a Philly Starbucks.
Happy Earth Day
Planted a second Dwarf Burning Bush to shield the Andromeda I planted. Did the window boxes. Did NOT get out to pick up trash, due to time issues, but I saw someone else doing it, so I feel like a trend setter.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Scandalous
Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The fact that tens of thousands are without power, combined with the overall fiscal and financial abuse that they have endured from Republicans in Washington is a scandal. This is both separate from the daily barrage of scandals than have typified Trumpistan and a piece of it.
Puerto Rico's woes are a confluence of the three main themes of Trump's maladministration.
- Corruption
- Incompetency and indifference
- Racism
Efforts to restore power in Puerto Rico have been hampered by corrupt contracts and poor delivery of services because of that. Republicans as a party don't give a damn if government functions poorly. In fact, poor government services actually buttress their ideological predisposition to see government actions as inherently illegitimate. And of course, this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico was full of blond haired white people.
My only hope is that enough Puerto Ricans move to Florida and Texas to tip the elections in 2018 against Republicans. That would be the justice that the Party of Trump deserves.
Puerto Rico's woes are a confluence of the three main themes of Trump's maladministration.
- Corruption
- Incompetency and indifference
- Racism
Efforts to restore power in Puerto Rico have been hampered by corrupt contracts and poor delivery of services because of that. Republicans as a party don't give a damn if government functions poorly. In fact, poor government services actually buttress their ideological predisposition to see government actions as inherently illegitimate. And of course, this wouldn't be happening if Puerto Rico was full of blond haired white people.
My only hope is that enough Puerto Ricans move to Florida and Texas to tip the elections in 2018 against Republicans. That would be the justice that the Party of Trump deserves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)