Rarely is the question asked: Is our reporters learning?

by liberal japonicus

A thread to discuss the topic du jour, Biden's cancer diagnosis. To plant my stake, this is Hillary's emails redux, reporters jumping up and down on a topic that they can put themselves at the center of, while the rest of the world burns. Have at it.

Comments

[wj]

The big difference I see is that Hilary was in the midst of a very close Presidential political campaign. Whereas Joe is out of politics.

In short, they are hammering on a private citizen, to no obvious purpose. Which, to my mind, makes it even more disgusting.

[CaseyL]

With the GOP burning the country down at every turn, it's very hard for the MSM to do a "both sides!" on this.

Biden being an old man is their escape route from the dreaded "partisanship" label - or would be, if they were actually covering the destruction of the country with the same vigor as they're covering Biden being an old man.

[nous]

You have your choice of the reality show that the Administration is running, or the reality show that the media is running, which is all about brave media and a scheming DNC.

What you don't have a choice of is functional journalism.

Even the UK news is caught up in this stupidity.

Dumbest timeline ever.

[Michael Cain]

Worth noting that so far as I've seen none of the mainstream media is asking, "Has President Trump had a recent PSA test?" The reason for that is fairly obvious: he almost certainly hasn't because he's old enough that routine PSA tests are not recommended. Same reason that Biden hadn't had one since he turned 70.

They'd also have to report that almost all men who live long enough develop the slow kind of prostate cancer. WebMD's sources say 80% of men who reach age 80 have cancer cells in their prostate. There is a growing opinion that for old men, prostate cancer should be regarded as a chronic condition you live with, not one that calls for aggressive treatment.

Different story for cases like Sen. Michael Bennet, who was diagnosed with the aggressive sort of prostate cancer at a much younger age.

[Barry]

"The big difference I see is that Hilary was in the midst of a very close Presidential political campaign. Whereas Joe is out of politics. "

IMHO, this is an extension of the sanewashing of Trump. As things go to ****, the GOP line will be that it's all Biden's fault. The 'liberal' MSM will serve that line.

[Pro Bono]

From what's been reported, Biden's cancer is aggressive (Gleason 9) and metastatic. This is not in the "watchful waiting" category - bone mets need treating.

If he were president, this would be put in doubt his ability to serve his term. He's not: good luck to him.

[Donald]

I haven’t seen too much mainstream attacks on Biden over the cancer issue— on Twitter there are people claiming it must have been known, was covered up, etc….But that is Twitter— good for some things, but always a fertile ground for crap as well. ( There are also morons online immediately concluding the DC terror killings were a false flag or setup of some sort. )

In the msm I see much more about his cognitive decline and who covered it up and the pressures not to report on it, etc…. That is valid, I think.

Trump is such an idiot and so terrible on so many things I am not sure you can blame Biden coverage for the lack of sufficient Trump coverage, I just wrote an angry email to a Trump supporting friend ( it might have ended the friendship) and found I literally couldn’t remember all the horrible things he has done. You see them daily. Is he in cognitive decline? Compared to what? Anyway, he is surrounded by fanatics and bootlickers in good health.

[Donald]

I haven’t seen too much mainstream attacks on Biden over the cancer issue— on Twitter there are people claiming it must have been known, was covered up, etc….But that is Twitter— good for some things, but always a fertile ground for crap as well. ( There are also morons online immediately concluding the DC terror killings were a false flag or setup of some sort. )

In the msm I see much more about his cognitive decline and who covered it up and the pressures not to report on it, etc…. That is valid, I think.

Trump is such an idiot and so terrible on so many things I am not sure you can blame Biden coverage for the lack of sufficient Trump coverage, I just wrote an angry email to a Trump supporting friend ( it might have ended the friendship) and found I literally couldn’t remember all the horrible things he has done. You see them daily. Is he in cognitive decline? Compared to what? Anyway, he is surrounded by fanatics and bootlickers in good health.

[wonkie]

I don't watch TV and rarely read msm articles that pop up on my computer, but from the headlines it seems that CNN is all in on flogging Tapper's book and the rest of the lemmings felt that they had to flog it too up until the cancer news came out. Then the rest of the msm did a few more stories, mostly about Tapper's book, and then shifted focus.
Altogether a disgusting display since nothing could be more irrelevant than Tapper's book which should have received no notice at all by anyone. It's hard for me to understand the thought processes of the decision-makers except to understand that their intentions, as evidenced by their actions, are not good and they clearly aren't using any kind of professional standard to decide which stories to focus on.
I guess this is more support for my theory that the US has a huge problem with too many really shitty people. Can we deport some of them?

[wj]

I guess this is more support for my theory that the US has a huge problem with too many really shitty people. Can we deport some of them?

Well, we seem to have got rid of Tucker Carlson. And I believe Rupert Murdoch has removed to Britain, albeit his legacy lives on. So there's a start. But clearly there's lots left.

[Novakant]

I agree that the cancer story is nonsense. But I'm still angry at them covering up Biden's mental decline and taking us all for fools. The sheer arrogance and stupidity of it is quite outrageous. But then Democrats have a history of shooting themselves in the foot , e.g. Hillary.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm a bit (just a bit) more sympathetic to the question of covering up Biden's mental decline. Having a family member who suffered from mental decline, it's pretty clear, looking back on it, that it was present much earlier, but you brush it off 'it's just dad being dad' sort of thinking. There is no way my father could have stepped out of himself and understood what was going on, so with Biden, in his position, with a group of people who are fiercely protective, it's easy to understand how the situation could arise. Furthermore, with the media looking to exploit any misstep (I'm thinking about Albanese's fall, which the Coalition ruthlessly attempted to take advantage of)
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/apr/24/did-albanese-fall-off-a-stage-or-not-and-why-do-people-keep-talking-about-it

about Wonkie's notion that there are too many shitty people, I tend to think the US has the same proportion of shitty people as the rest of the world, it's just that our overweening emphasis on individualism and self-worth creates a situation where shitty people can rise to the top, often secure in the knowledge that they have gotten there by themselves, with no help from anyone else.

[Michael Cain]

Something that should be a topic du jour... Last night the Senate broke multiple rules to pass a bill previously passed in the House to withdraw California's authority to set their own air emissions standards. "Broke" might be excessive, given that despite all the various rules passed over the decades, a simple majority has always been enough to create an exemption.

My take on it, once you run down all the consequences, is the Republicans in Congress have decreed that Front Range Colorado will simply have to endure the return of the Denver Brown Cloud.

[wj]

One can only hope that Texas fully participates. Wyoming getting in on the fun would be cool, too.

[Donald]

From what I have read, there was a lot more going on than just a few family members being protective in Biden’s case. It was like a big chunk of Washington was trying to gaslight the rest of Washington and the country about Biden’s decline. So I agree with the harsh coverage, I also agree that it should not distract attention from the bloated orange ogre ( BOO) in the WH and all the stupid despicable things he does. Though given limited attention spans, it probably will.

[nous]

I might care about the Biden story if any part of it shed some light on things that the Democrats could do right now in our current circumstances to contain the flood of damage that the current regime was doing to the country and the world. Show me how the parties responsible for that fiasco are also responsible for the current lack of effective response and show me how removing them will facilitate an effective response and I'll listen and do what I can to help. Otherwise it's spilled milk and a distraction to the job before us.

In Steps to an Ecology of Mind,Gregory Bateson wrote: "What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy."

The story that the media is telling isn't really information if it fails to tell us anything that can be used to make a difference. They are not connecting the story to any actionable path. They are stimulating an affective response, but it goes nowhere.

Typical of our corporate media.

Biden's mental competence, like his prostate, have no effect on our political situation. They are the problems of a private citizen.

The institutional work to cover up one or both of those things are not the problems of a private citizen, but problems of an institution. I may care about them, but only if someone can make a case for how those things are getting in the way of what we need to do now to stop the destruction of our political system.

If that work is currently going on in the media, it's either getting buried by the controlling editors or it's failing to break through the noise of all those talking heads.

[wj]

I might care about the Biden story if any part of it shed some light on things that the Democrats could do right now in our current circumstances to contain the flood of damage that the current regime was doing to the country and the world. Show me how the parties responsible for that fiasco are also responsible for the current lack of effective response and show me how removing them will facilitate an effective response and I'll listen and do what I can to help. Otherwise it's spilled milk and a distraction to the job before us.

Well said. Very well said.

What appears to be a devotion to refighting, or at least whinging about, past battles is a distraction. At a time when we need our attention focused on the present. If only to keep track of all what has been subverted** and needs serious analysis and repair.

** What has simply been destroyed will be far easier to spot. Even if harder to rebuild -- especially if we want to correct some legacy problems which resisted modufication in the destroyed systems.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Of course, it's completely unpossible that the CURRENT occupant of the WH is having their mental lapses covered up.

Why, investigating that might require some media types to actually LEARN from experience or something absurd like that!

[wj]

Of course, it's completely unpossible that the CURRENT occupant of the WH is having their mental lapses covered up.

Well, considering how many of his mental lapses are not being covered up....

(Although given the general incompetence there, perhaps they are trying.)

[CharlesWT]

And there's the old folk's home down the street.

[Donald]

At least part of the stories are about the sclerotic nature of the Democratic Party and people do link it to the present. This is both about the actual age of some of our leaders but also about how pressures were placed on both politicians and journalists who questioned Biden’s mental acuity. He really wasn’t running some things. There were no Cabinet meetings for about a year and everything was scripted. This is a genuine scandal and goes back several years, which is the point. The Party needs to reform. And a lot of very old people need to step aside, ( Sanders and Warren are old but still vigorous. But it would be insane if either of them ran for President again and I think one could argue that they shouldn’t try for another Senate term.)

Is any of this as serious as Trump’s attacks on virtually everything? No. On a 1 to 10 scale of political scandals, Trump is at maybe 35 and this Biden thing is maybe a 4 or 5. Watergate would be a 10.

[Donald]

Forgot to say it but they knew Biden was only good for sone hours in the day. If there was a foreign policy crisis at 2 in the morning, he would have been useless. People knew this and they covered it up.

If Trump were a normal President and not an insane authoritarian, this would deservedly be a hugescandal. With Trump in office— well, I already gave my political Richter scale numbering.

[nous]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying there, Donald, but I don't know how to change the nature of the Democratic party, and I don't see any practical alternative to it. I also don't doubt that Biden would have been useless in an early morning crisis, but I also believe that his administration could handle any problem that arose without Biden. They were all competent in their positions.

Not excusing any of the dysfunction. Not attempting to minimize the problematic nature of it all. Just saying that I don't believe any of the consequences of it would rise to the level of a crisis.

Unlike today.

[russell]

My two cents on all of this.

I liked Joe Biden as POTUS. He's probably my favorite POTUS of my own lifetime. Ike was POTUS when I was born, maybe I would have liked him better, but I was too young to remember much about it.

At this point, I don't really care all that much if Biden's age was a liability while he was in office. He wouldn't be the first POTUS who had significant health issues while in office, and wouldn't be the first whose staff and family kept it on the down low. FDR and polio, Kennedy and Addison's and the mix of steroids and amphetamines and pain-killers that kept him going. Reagan and dementia. I'm sure there are others.

Or maybe "I don't care" is quite right - I'm just not motivated to even have an opinion about it. He's not the POTUS anymore, so whatever horrible hypothetical thing might have occurred is no longer on the table.

I recognize all of the weaknesses and arguably horrible choices of his time in office. I just can't think of any POTUS of whom you could not say the same. It's a crap job, frankly - you are responsible for the well being of hundreds of millions of people, billions if you think of the global effects, and the decisions that come to you are basically the ones for which there is no clear good answer.

Biden ran in 2000 because he felt like he was the only person who could beat Trump. And he did beat Trump, and I'm grateful to him for doing that. At least we had four years of semi-normality in between the non-stop shitstorms.

At this point Biden is an old man who has lived through way more than his share of personal tragedy and who is now seriously ill. Good POTUS, crap POTUS, mediocre POTUS, we're all entitled to our opinion. I think the man did his best, and at least he had a basic respect for the obligations and responsibilities of his office. We could do, and have done and currently are doing, much much worse.

My own thought is leave the man alone. Jake Tapper can go screw himself.

[Michael Cain]

At least we had four years of semi-normality in between the non-stop shitstorms.

And a chance to make progress on my big policy issue. As I sit here, CAISO (that is, most of California) is running on 85% renewable electricity (97% no-carbon when you add in conventional hydro and nuclear). ERCOT (most of Texas) is running on 52% renewable (60% if you add hydro and nuclear there). It seems unlikely that either of those areas would be anywhere close to those numbers if Trump had won in 2020.

[CharlesWT]

With an increasing percentage of renewable electricity in a grid, there's also a growing risk of grid instability, which may have contributed to the recent blackout in Spain.

"Modern grids face challenges as renewables like solar and wind, which often use inverter-based systems without physical rotating masses, replace traditional generators. This reduces overall grid inertia, making frequency stability harder to maintain. Solutions include synthetic inertia (mimicking inertia via control systems in inverters), battery storage, or synchronous condensers.

For example, a grid with high inertia (e.g., dominated by large hydro plants) can absorb a sudden loss of a generator with minimal frequency drop, while a low-inertia grid (e.g., heavy renewables) might see rapid frequency swings, risking blackouts if not managed."
Power Grid Inertia

[GftNC]

Pretty much what russell said @04.01 (except Jake Tapper screwing himself).

As far as the emergency at 2 am scenario, as I always said, Biden dead or in a coma would be/was a better president than Trump, precisely because a) the people around him were competent, and b) he had set a template for how things should go, which was generally (pace Donald) legal, and in line with America's constitution and stated responsibilities.

The reason I excuse Tapper is because actually, I don't think concealing any of this kind of thing goes well in the end. It looks like there was problematic gaslighting, or denial, or lying, and that has to be called out in the interests of trying to keep the political system as honest as possible. In Trump's first term, we (everyone) used to laugh at the absurd statements from his doctors about how healthy and brilliant he was, and it needs to be seen to be the case that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the health of their head of state, commander in chief etc. And unless one admits the truth of that, it delegitimises any demands, no matter how fruitless they are, that the truth about Trump's capacity needs to come out. Unfortunately, after that debate, Tapper's book is merely footnotes.

But all that being said, I think Biden was a good president and a good man (for a president, and again pace Donald), and I would rather he and his family were left alone to cope with the distressing health stuff which must now be happening.

Other than that, I mainly agree with nous @02.14, the really important thing is to get the message out about what is actually going on in the country, and its likely or inevitable effects on ordinary people and workers as compared to billionaires and tech bros.

In my ideal future, where the Dems win big in the midterms, and then again in 2028, they would be able to use the cautionary tale of Biden's capacity to institute more robust procedures for publicising the president's health conditions, and able to use the cautionary tale of Trump's murky financial disclosures and corruption to codify an absolute necessity for anyone running to provide their financial and tax records, and institute really robust procedures dealing with presidential financial malfeasance in office. And while they're at it, for the SCOTUS too.

[wj]

the really important thing is to get the message out about what is actually going on in the country, and its likely or inevitable effects on ordinary people and workers

It's not really the worst of the things he's done. But it may be the first smack upside the head for some of his fans. Hurricane season is about to roll in. NOAA (hurricane predictions) has been slashed. FEMA (disaster recovery) likewise. And the usual route for hurricanes runs thru the redest parts of the South. As ye sow...

[nous]

With an increasing percentage of renewable electricity in a grid, there's also a growing risk of grid instability, which may have contributed to the recent blackout in Spain.

Another way of putting that is that the grid needs to evolve to better manage frequency fluctuations and make the system less vulnerable. Grok's phrasing there makes it sound as if renewables aren't up to the requirements of a "modern" grid, but the truth is exactly the opposite - the legacy grid is not optimized for handling the renewable energy sources that we need in order to avoid killing ourselves with our unsustainable, outdated power sources.

[Michael Cain]

...which may have contributed to the recent blackout in Spain.

The opponents of wind and solar are grasping at every straw they can think of. Inertia in some other plant doesn't save you when a major transmission substation trips due to frequency fluctuations and gigawatts of load or generation are cut off. The stuff I've been reading points a finger at the Latvian countries who were allowed full interconnect to the EU grid even though they were sub-standard on frequency control.

Myself, in the US Western Interconnect, I'd much rather pay for the necessary battery or pumped hydro storage to replace inertia than pay to deal with +3.0 °C global warming. Even though I live in a location where we'll get off easier than most if a +3.0 °C increase happens. Texas is installing battery storage at a huge pace, and California is doing both large battery and large pumped hydro projects.

[Pro Bono]

Of course Biden's administration proceeded with routine competence and respect for the constitution, in stark contrast to Trump's.

But our side of the aisle ought to be asking itself how it managed to lose two out of three elections to such an unattractive opponent. In so far as there's a simple answer, it's that the chosen candidate for our side each time was the one with the most effective (virtual) rolodex in the primaries, rather than the one likely to run the best general election campaign.

Obama's impressive presidency ought to have taught us something about the sort of candidate that works. One thing he's done wrong is to ignore that in using his voice to back his allies in office as presidential candidates thereafter.

Commentators on here who were decrying until the last doubts about Biden's age might ask themselves whether they took partisanship too far.

Of course, again, I wish Biden all the best from here.

[Pro Bono]

The opponents of wind and solar are grasping at every straw they can think of.

It's true that extensive use of wind and solar sources of electricity makes supply management more difficult: they are inherently erratic. Opponents are grasping at sticks not straws.

But this is an engineering challenge rather than a reason further to heat the planet. One thing we might do is to adopt intelligent demand management, including variable electricity pricing, and adapt demand accordingly. For example, there's no good reason not to program our freezers to warm up a few degrees when electricity is relatively scarce.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

At least some of the power issue is that the system was designed long ago, when generators were massive rotating objects that would maintain their rotation under varying load conditions. And they give the electrical power (AC, fixed frequency) that the rest of the system is set up for.

Solar gives DC, into high-speed electronic inverters to produce AC. It's really amazing how the technology of power electronics has improved over the past couple of decades, as a result of the much greater market for solar inverters, EV chargers, and induction cooktops, and probably more that I'm not aware of.

If the system was designed from the ground up with current technology, I suspect it would be different. Maybe with more high-voltage DC superconducting transmission lines.

[wj]

Texas is installing battery storage at a huge pace, and California is doing both large battery and large pumped hydro projects.

Texas also has huge wind and solar capacity installed.

Meanwhile, Texas politicians are doing everything in their power to sabotage all that renewable infrastructure.

Apparently they too dumb to just say (in deference to the bigotries taught to their constituents): "Sure all that global warming stuff is bull. But if it means getting blue states to pay us big bucks, why the hell not?"

[Donald]

I would like to see Biden and cohorts raked over the coals for Gaza more than this cognitive decline scandal, but our political culture is a bit sociopathic on such things.

On a different note, my Trum loving friend wrote back. We are still friends. I give him credit for that— I was not gentle.

But not too much credit. He informed that I was wrong— Trump has not arrested any legal residents, only illegal immigrants with a history of violence.

I was glad to be set straight.

Sarcasm aside, I thought the MAGA line was that noncitizens didn’t have 1st Amendment rights but maybe I read MAGA types who at least know what the issue is.

[wj]

He informed that I was wrong— Trump has not arrested any legal residents, only illegal immigrants with a history of violence.

Perhaps you could send him a copy of the document where the White House admitted that they had sent someone to a foreign prison due to an "administrative mistake." Pretty clearly Trump admitting to arresting a legal resident.

Far from the only case of a legal resident being arrested, of course. But sometimes it takes a sharp wedge to start prying open a closed mind.

[novakant]

The main point about hiding Biden's mental decline is not that he couldn't see through his first term in office (though one has to wonder if the disastrous decisions in Afghanistan and Gaza have something to do with it). The problem was that he couldn't win a second term and refused to hand over the reigns in time.

And yes, having talked about this from early on, there is some frustration at the circling of the wagons strategy of his supporters and this is a pattern Democrats have repeated several times (e.g. HRC): any debate is shut down in the face of the boogeyman on the right.

This hasn't worked so well and realising that is one thing that might help in the future.

[novakant]

PS This is Ezra Klein in Feb 2024:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/opinion/ezra-klein-biden-audio-essay.html

[Donald]

With Ozturk, Khalil and others, they were legal residents and they were singled out for opposing US policy— in Ozturk’s case, this was done by writing an opinion piece in her school’s newspaper.

So my friend is just straightforwardly wrong. He has told me he has the TV on Fox News exclusively ( except when watching the occasional movie or old TV show.). We have talked about people living in bubbles— he is the most extreme case I know of and it is entirely self- imposed. This is not someone who is surrounded by some subculture where everyone is a Trumpie and it isn’t some former factory town embittered by the loss of the factory — he lives in Manhattan. His Christian friends are in many cases liberal. He tells me the rector at his church happens to be conservative but despises Trump. He is affluent. Basically he goes way out of his way to be deceived.

[russell]

He informed that I was wrong— Trump has not arrested any legal residents, only illegal immigrants with a history of violence.

Perhaps you could send him a copy of the document where the White House admitted that they had sent someone to a foreign prison due to an "administrative mistake."

Donald's friend may be an exception, but in general I don't think bringing factual documentation to the table will make a dent in folks' support for Trump. They'll just say it's lies or Trump Derangement Syndrome and carry on.

Some people just like the strong man style. Or are at least perfectly fine with it as long as it doesn't puncture their personal bubble. And they don't want to engage with anything that is going to make them question any of that.

Nobody likes to admit they made a mistake. And the bigger the mistake, the stronger the resistance to owning it.

Plus, you know, tax breaks.

[wj]

in general I don't think bringing factual documentation to the table will make a dent in folks' support for Trump. They'll just say it's lies or Trump Derangement Syndrome and carry on.

That was my point of suggesting sending him the White House statement. It's harder to make the "it's all lies" or Trump Derangement Syndrome arguments when the Trump White House is the source. Not impossible, but much harder.

[Donald]

We are told, correctly imo, that people supported Trump for many reasons, some of them understandable— they remember the economy being better in his 1st term, inflation hurt them, etc…. That’s fair. People are com0licated.

But he has a hard core of supporters who are like my friend. It really is a cult. Nothing gets through. He believes what he wants, reads extreme far far right material, watches Fox News, has nothing in his life that should make him bitter in any way except for the media he chooses to consume and rely on. He isn’t someone whose community was wrecked in a way that could be blamed, accurately or not, by neoliberalism. He is very comfortable. And as Russell just said, tax breaks. He likes those. He saw a Fox News piece about the incredible laziness of Federal workers— he doesn’t want his tax dollars funding those parasites

He wasn’t always like this— he was a rational conservative before, but I think 9/11 and Fox News broke his brain. But he chose to let it break. I can empathize with some Trump voters. Not my friend. His views are 100 percent based on deliberate self deception.

Why is he my friend? When we aren’t talking politics, he is a normal decent human being.

Nous and I recently had a disagreement about social media and its bad effects, but I think with my friend the algorithm that feeds him what he wants to hear is in his own head. He reads far right magazines, watches Fox, reads far right books. I don’t think he ever listened to rightwing talk radio, but living in Manhattan he didn’t have a car back when Limbaugh was in his heyday, so he wasn’t commuting and listening to that stuff. . I am sure he reads crap on the internet too, but people predisposed to believing this stuff have a way of finding it.

[russell]

That was my point of suggesting sending him the White House statement.

I understand, yet I stand by my original statement.

A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Humans have the power of reason, but that doesn't mean they're rational.

[Novakant]

Regarding the future of the Democrats, this might be interesting (first part of a series):

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/25/us/politics/democratic-party-voters.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J08.Ltpq.jo32UIN0wCRe&smid=url-share

It's quite a depressing state of affairs at the moment of course, but my hope is that when people will see that Trump doesn't deliver economically, things will get easier.

However, I read an NYRB article about the farm crisis today and the author pointed out that those states hardest hit voted for Reagan and Trump twice. So maybe it's all about macho-posturing and out-groups. Then help us god.

[wonkie]

It's about branding. The Republicans decided decades ago to create a base that would vote R no matter what by using Goebbels-type propaganda techniques to convince their voters that they the real true good Americans locked in a battle against the Others with the R party as their defenders while Ds represent the Other.
This message has been hammered in not only with the R base but with pretty much everyone. The part about Ds representing those who have been othered is mostly true--and it's something to be proud of. The part about Rs being real true good Americans is total bullshit. Bad citizenship is a prerequisite for being a R voter. Republicans are the existential threat against the Constitution, representative government and the concept of government obligation to serve the common good.
We need to rebrand the Republicans as the party of the rich, who screw everyone else and who are incompetent and corrupt.
WHich they are.

[nous]

Things I'd love to see Dems and the media saying in 2025 that would help them on messaging - they lost Asian-American votes over DEI and education. Parents were upset that their kids were not getting into their top schools because the schools were admitting too many other minorities. They swung R to go after DEI. Ignore that. New message - "Trump and the Rs are busy trying to destroy the schools that your kids worked so hard to get into." "Trump is going after the loan relief that your kids need after making all those sacrifices to get into top schools."

- Go after Trump on his preoccupation with Air Force One not being blingy enough, and babbling about kids not getting 10 dolls while midwestern states that have been hit by severe weather are being denied FEMA aid.

- Go after his constant disruption of the markets with tariff threats that make it impossible for small businesses and the trades to do cost estimates. Focus on how his allies are all profiting off of the fluctuations in stocks.

-Go after the labor voters by highlighting how the administration is trying to gut collective bargaining and is ignoring worker protections. Get back on the labor bandwagon.

Get the message focused, then worry about reforming the caucus after you've found fighting ground you can beat them on.

If the media comes after you for any of the marginal hindsight stuff, redirect to the fighting ground and shame them for being out of touch with the needs of real Americans with their beltway crap.

Do not play the media's game. Focus on now and the future. If they say "but what about this thing that happened in the last election, just say "yeah, and we lost. I'm worried about what the other guys are doing right now."

[wonkie]

Yes to the above, but:

When asked a stupid question, don't answer. State your talking point When asked an irrelevant question, don't answer. State your talking point. When asked a horse race question, a gotcha question or any fucking question at all, state the talking points. And don't say, "I am concerned" Say actions are fucking stupid or harmful or ridiculous or corrupt or creepy--whatever language is appropriate and sounds like the word choice of someone who actually cares.

[JanieM]

@wonkie -- this follows George Bernard Shaw's advice about arguing, which he says he got from William Morris:

"Don't argue. Repeat your assertion."

You are in good company. :-)

[liberal japonicus]

they lost Asian-American votes over DEI and education.

Sorry to toss this nit-pick out, but (as I'm sure nous meant) 'lost AA votes' does not mean that AA was for Trump. There was a shift (most notably in Nevada, which probably swung the state for Trump), but the majority of AA still voted for Harris

https://www.myasianvoice.com/the-asian-american-vote-in-the-2024-presidential-election

Of course, a demographic like 'Asian-American', when examined more closely, falls apart and it falsely suggests some sort of race solidarity but when all you have is a hammer, every question looks like a nail.

[wj]

Just like you can say that, generally, Hispanics will vote like X. But if you try to apply that specifically to for example Miami, with it's large Cuban-American population, you will get it very wrong.

Just like, you can say generally that people in very red areas will strongly oppose anything like a path to legal status for illegals. But if you are specifically looking at very red areas in California, you will fail to notice that upwards of 2/3 of California Republicans support a path to legal status.

In short, nationwide generalizations may be interesting. But when you get down to specifics, they may well be seriously misleading. It's not, I think, what was originally meant by "all politics is local ".
But the expression sums it up well.

[nous]

There was a shift (most notably in Nevada, which probably swung the state for Trump), but the majority of AA still voted for Harris

I hear and understand your concerns, lj.

For context, in this instance I had the VA race between McAuliffe and Youngkin in mind when I was thinking about this point, rather than thinking about any presidential election. Asian-Americans turned out heavily for Democrats in the VA governor's race just as (to your point) they turned out for Harris. But Youngkin did make inroads with Asian-American parents through his support for them in the Coalition for TJ v Firfax County School Board case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_TJ_v._Fairfax_County_School_Board

https://www.educationnext.org/how-mama-bears-won-court-victory-helped-elect-governor-virginia-immigrant-parents-asia-fight-discrimination/

The GOP has been happy to voice support for Students For Fair Admission (a largely Asian-American supported group) and conservative justices have given them victories against Harvard and others in court as a way to undo Affirmative Action. The GOP is also happy to stir anti-Asian animus. It's a pretty cynical calculus and a game of small margins.

I'm not about to treat any minority voting blocks as monolithic, but I've heard enough grousing from my own students of Asian heritages to know that the affirmative action narratives still rankle and create tensions between them and other POC student groups.

Higher ed is an engine of middle class mobility for many minority communities and the GOP should be vulnerable on this front if Dems press it as a cross-cutting social mobility issue rather than a racial wedge issue.

[GftNC]

I am v keen on the prescriptions of both nous @06.13 and wonkie @08.58. If only the bloody Dems were reading/listening...

[GftNC]

On which subject, the News from Glox:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/26/2323792/-Cartoon-The-news-from-Glox?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=comics&pm_medium=web

[Donald]

My Trumpian friend very graciously decided to cut ties. ( That isn’t sarcasm, though yes, there is a touch of irony present.)

I have always tried to meet him three quarters of the way, but when I finally told him MAGA is a cult and listed some of the reasons for thinking Trump is despicable, he said, with respect, that I have Trump Derangement Syndrome. Oh well.

[bobbyp]

We need to rebrand the Republicans as the party of the rich, who screw everyone else and who are incompetent and corrupt.

Yup. The message is simple: They hate you.

https://paulwaldman.substack.com/p/republicans-hate-you?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2037691&post_id=163564412&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=222hw&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[nous]

As we have seen from wj's thoughts on political identity, saying the Republicans hate everyone else is going to make a lot of people feel as if they are being personally attacked even when the attacks are aimed at the ruling cabal of Republicans and donors. It's the same thing I see from many young men when people criticize toxic masculinity.

Maybe better to say that the Republican party has been hijacked by fanatics and donors who don't care if their actions hurt the people who put them in power. They only care about their own wealth and personal agendas. Likewise, it's better to say that the hijackers are lying than to say that the Republican voters have been deceived.

Kinda like the airline security officer's line from Fight Club: "Of course it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article "a" dildo, never "your" dildo."

[Bobbyp]

I could care less about the feelings of any Trump voter. if you put this question to them: Do you hate ‘libruls’ 75% of them will respond with some variety of “yes”. They consciously voted for fascism. The total absence of any meaningful political pushback to Trump from these folks is a tell.

YOU CANNOT PLACATE THEM.

As FDR said, “I welcome their hatred.” Thanks.

[nous]

All well and good Bobbyp, but the statements in the substack were not aimed at "Trump voters" but rather at "Republicans." I don't care about placating any Trump voters but I do think it important to create some pluralistic space for the non-Trump-voting Republicans to be able to create sites of resistance that might bleed off some of the swingers.

[liberal japonicus]

A little late with this comment, it was on my laptop and I forgot to finish it.

Thanks nous, understood. The Virginia case seems to be one of those hyperlocal issues, and it is disappointing that McAuliffe wasn't more attuned to that.

Just a bit of background on Students for Fair Admission, it was started by Edward Blum, who is basically committed to trying any tactic possible to stop affirmative action.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/affirmative-action-killer-ed-blum-supreme-court-strategy.html

In the case of SFFA, they were able to pull some Asian Americans (I am tempted to say 'beards', but that is more my feelings than a view backed by facts) They were certainly able to capitalize on separating Asian groups (as evidenced by the amicus briefs both supporting and opposing).

To sum up, as nous points out, peeling off those kinds of voters is key. I suppose some will argue that the pull back from DEI would have the effect allowing more AA students in, but if you believe that, I have some prime real estate in Tokyo to sell you.

[wj]

Thank you, nous.

I would even go so far as to distinguish between devoted Trump voters (the majority) and those who, for whatever reasons good or bad, voted for him but aren't actually members of the cult. The former are a waste of space (also air, water, food, etc.).

But the later are potentially redeemable. It is smart politics to try to give them a path to good citizenship, rather than driving them away. And I submit that it is morally righteous to try to deliver them from evil.

[wj]

lj, you forgot to mention that you could get that real estate for pennies on the dollar.**

** I was going to say sen on the yen, but I decided that was way too inside baseball.

[bobbyp]

nous,

Comment appreciated, but I would aver that efforts to "create space" and "peel away those kinds of voters" (just what kind of voters are they? A standard journalism question leading to many a cafe discussion in small town Ohio) is a fool's errand.

I am reminded of those long ago days prior to the Civil War and the many Northern abolitionists calls to "peel away" support from the Southern fire breathers....no wait, they didn't do that, Stephen Douglass notwithstanding.

The choice has to be promoted in the starkest terms....you're either with us, or against us.

We are better served by efforts to expand a muscular and activist base....not "create space" for those who have, for whatever reason, turned their backs on democracy.

100 million folks didn't bother to vote in 2024. That's the target rich environment...not the mythical small sliver of "leaners".

Thanks.

[wj]

We are better served by efforts to expand a muscular and activist base....not "create space" for those who have, for whatever reason, turned their backs on democracy.

100 million folks didn't bother to vote in 2024. That's the target rich environment...not the mythical small sliver of "leaners".

But that's rather the question, isn't it? How many "Trump voters" are people who have turned their backs on democracy? Vs. how many of them voted for him for other reasons, while managing to miss the threat that he (and his coterie) pose to democracy. That level of blindness may seem incredible to those of us who are politically engaged. But we are a minority of the population, and a small one at that.

Certainly the non-voters should not be ignored. But are they really a target-rich environment? It's certainly a large group. But how readily reachable are they? My sense is that, targeting someone who hasn't bothered to vote in the past is going to be a heavy lift.

Heavier, I would argue, than swinging actual voters who were narrowly focused, and didn't realize just what they were letting themselves in for. Consider, for instance, those who were focused on "bloated government" and "unelected bureaucrats" making decisions. And missed that deporting their employees and coworkers and neighbors was also part of the plan. And that tariffs would trash their businesses, indeed their entire industry.

They're noticing now. We can reach them. But not if we simply denounce them as enemies of democracy. That just guarantees that they will dig in.

[liberal japonicus]

I should note, when I said 'peel away voters', I was talking about the specific case of Virginia and magnet schools. I don't think I'd advocate it as a overall strategy, all politics being local.

The author of the piece that nous pulled up was by an Indian-American author, Asra Nomani, who used to write for the WSJ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asra_Nomani

I was poking around to see if she had any buyer's remorse about getting Youngkin elected, though her wikipedia page says that she opposed to critical race theory, so maybe she's getting what she wants.

I have spent more time watching videos about the Australian conservatives (Liberals and Nationals) implode, and wonder why that can't happen elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8tUaM5clFo

[GftNC]

nous: I don't care about placating any Trump voters but I do think it important to create some pluralistic space for the non-Trump-voting Republicans to be able to create sites of resistance that might bleed off some of the swingers.

bobbyp: We are better served by efforts to expand a muscular and activist base....not "create space" for those who have, for whatever reason, turned their backs on democracy.

It cannot be beyond the wit of man or woman to do both. And, regarding the phrase I have bolded, I think you have to distinguish between people who have done so knowingly, and those who did so unknowingly.

[russell]

Today's Facebook feed features a guy wearing a Nazi T shirt (big "SS" on the back) trying to attend a punk concert and getting his ass kicked. Punched, pushed, physically ejected.

Is that bad? My wife commented that she thought it wasn't the best way to handle it, but that's not clear to me.

What is the "right way" to handle people who would happily deny other people their basic identity as humans? Who wear the badge of a movement that murdered millions of people? Have a chat? Hug it out?

Who the hell wears an "SS" T shirt and assumes that's an OK thing to do?

I had a long back and forth with a friend who has made something of a career of designing ways for people to negotiate and resolve deep disagreements. He's retired now, but was an academic, a professor of psychology, and finding ways to resolve conflict was his professional focus.

"You can't just cut off people who disagree with you", he says. "You have to engage with them".

Is that always so? I *have to* engage? Or are there some points of view that simply do not deserve space in our collective conversation. My own response to him was basically that I'm happy to talk with anyone, I don't hate people just because they support Trump, but there are topics I'm just not going to debate.

Trump is a criminal, a crook, a fraud, a pathologically greedy and vulgar narcissist, and a profoundly toxic presence in our public life. He is deliberately and systematically destroying everything I value about this country. I don't really care why people support him, to me there really is no defensible reason to do so. I'm not interested in hearing their reasons, it just inevitably makes me angry and makes me think less of them. So if the topic of Trump comes up, I just say something to the effect of "the man is a criminal and a flaming asshole and he's destroying the country", and that usually sends the conversation in another direction.

It turns out there are points of view Trumpers don't really want to engage with, either.

I don't really have a problem with people who are simply conservative and have not bought into the Trump cult. I'm not sure they need me to "make space" for them, and I'm not clear on what "making space" actually means. But whatever it means, I'm sure I'm OK with it.

But in my opinion Trump and his crew are actually evil - whether the enthusiastic and active form, or the merely "banal" kind - which is not something I say about many things. And I'm just not interested in "making space" for that.

I appreciate the distinction GFNTC makes between "knowing" and "unknowing" turning of backs on democracy, but at this point I pretty much feel like "unknowing" support is a form of self delusion.

Thanks for letting me unload all of this. I have no solution to offer. Lines have been drawn, and not by people like me. All I feel like I can do is make it clear which side of them I'm on. And insist that folks on the other side own their choices.

If they want to come in out of the cold, fine, I wll not stand in their way, and I will not beat them up about any of it. But short of that there are conversations I'm just not going to have.

[nous]

I also want to make sure that everyone here understands that when I say Dems should exercise care and say "the Republican party has been hijacked by fanatics and donors," it's not because I am advocating a strategy of prioritizing swing voters, it's because I don't want to interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.

If you are in a war and your enemy has been sacrificing the lives of their soldiers for questionable goals that have created a crisis of morale, the last thing you want to do is say that all deserters who lay down arms will be shot. You want to encourage desertions and drive a wedge between the rank-and-file and their leadership.

But that also doesn't mean that you want your strategy to rely entirely upon causing enough desertions to stop the enemy offensive. Better to find a strategy that attacks the enemy where they are vulnerable and let the morale problems fester.

Keep the counter-attacks going. Force them to defend on multiple fronts, and leave their disaffected supporters to stew on their own while we heighten their contradictions and put pressure on their weaknesses. You have to encourage the fracture lines and not just put the whole mess under outside pressure.

[nous]

russell - Today's Facebook feed features a guy wearing a Nazi T shirt (big "SS" on the back) trying to attend a punk concert and getting his ass kicked. Punched, pushed, physically ejected.

Is that bad? My wife commented that she thought it wasn't the best way to handle it, but that's not clear to me.

That's the way that we always handled things in the punk clubs back in my day. Kick them to the curb. If you don't, they come back in greater numbers. It's the old nazi bar story.

If the dude comes back later without the offending shirt, then watch and wait. If he engages and wants to talk through free speech and things, then there is a chance there to engage without giving up ground or selling out your at-risk friends in the name of toleration.

At the punk coffee shop I used to hang out in the lines were subtle, but well defined. Kid with skinhead hair, braces, Docs, and a flight jacket could come in and have a coffee and hang out. If the same kid had white laces in the Docs or any openly nazi crap, then they were probably getting chased off. The younger ones might get a lecture from a punk of color before the chasing off to let them know why things were going down the way they were, but the actual standards never deviated on this.

Same kid could come back later if they lost the offending items, but there was going to be a long probationary period following that first offense.

Intent mostly spoke to whether or not they were met with restorative or retributive justice.

[hairshirthedonist]

Nazi punks f**k off! (I had to get that out before writing a boring question.)

How are "non-voters" defined? People who never vote or people who sometimes don't vote? Or, more specifically, either people who didn't vote in the last presidential election but voted in the previous one or people who attained voting age between the two elections but didn't vote in the last one? Maybe even throw in the ones who will attain voting age before the next election?

I ask this because the percentage of the voting-age population that stayed home was significantly higher in the last election relative to the previous one. And those votes were very close to the number of votes Harris lost relative to Biden. Biden received more votes in 2020 than tRump did with a larger voting-age population in 2024.

[JanieM]

Side question prompted by nous's 3:38:

I didn't know Docs' laces had color symbolism. (I lead a sheltered life.) I looked it up and became better informed, but the topic reminds me of something I saw in Cambridge once that I didn't understand -- and maybe someone here can explain it to me, or maybe it was just another garden variety case of human stupidity.

I was standing in front of a restaurant in Cambridge, waiting for some friends who were due to meet me for dinner. The place was right on Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Central Squares -- so, a busy sidewalk on a nice day.

A couple of guys walked by, one of whom was burly and swaggery and gave me the eye in a way I found ... unpleasant. He was wearing a black t-shirt with the same sentence as on this shirt, but with a big drawing of Einstein in the center and the text wrapped around it.

I figured he was some sort of neo-Nazi, but wtf did the t-shirt mean? Did he not know that Einstein was Jewish? Was it some sort of twisted joke?

I looked around on the web for a shirt like it just now but didn't find one.

ETA: fixed the t-shirt link

[GftNC]

Total sympathy and agreement with pretty much everything russell said, and nous.

On the "knowing" or "unknowing" turning backs on democracy though, I do think it is very difficult for people like ObWi types to understand quite how ignorant most people are. Habeas corpus being the ability the constitution gives the president to deport immigrants is only shocking because of Noem's position/profession. Most of the population probably knows nothing about the three supposedly equal branches of government and the separation of powers, let alone the constitution and its various amendments. You can definitely argue that people ought to know, and ought to want to find out if they don't, but if you go back into their education, consumption of media etc, it is unsurprising, albeit shocking. It's those old "unknown unknowns" again.

FWIW, we're very little (if at all) better than the US. I don't know what the fuck one can do about this desperately dangerous state of affairs. Maybe countries which have come nearer to (or over) the brink before have a more engaged and knowledgeable population?

[GftNC]

Janie, I'm not sure the link is fixed. It goes to a t-shirt that says "It's a WHITE thing. You wouldn't understand", and I can't see how the presence of Einstein would make any sense at all with that slogan. Unless you mean that jews aren't white? I know that David Baddiel has a thing where he says jews are Schrodinger's whites, white when you want to despise them for being rich elites, and non-white when you want to go into a "racial inferiority" thing, but I can't imagine that's what you meant?

[JanieM]

@GftNC: The link is fine. I explicitly asked "wtf did the t-shirt mean" because, as you say, the presence of Einstein doesn't make any sense with that slogan, or coming from the kind of racist shithead who would sport that slogan on his shirt.

My mention of human stupidity was a reference to the possibility that the swaggering shirt-wearer was too stupid to know what the Nazis represented, or who Einstein was beyond being a proverbial substitute for "smart person."

But I did wonder, a la the shoelace code, whether the shirt was code for something I wasn't in on.

[wj]

Most of the population probably knows nothing about the three supposedly equal branches of government and the separation of powers, let alone the constitution and its various amendments.

Most of the population graduated high school. Which means they were taught it once, even if they have since forgotten.** Personally, I have more sympathy for someone who never learned something important than for those who did know but forgot. (And, of course, none at all for those who damn well do know. But find it expedient to pretend not to.)

** Back in the mists of time, when I was in high school (in California), you not only had to take Civics, you had to pass in order to graduate. You could flunk the occasional English class and still graduate, but the Civics requirement was iron clad. I suppose that might have changed. But if so, those who changed the requirement have a lot to answer for.

[GftNC]

I'm still absolutely in the dark! None of it makes any sense to me, however it's framed, particularly since in one pic he's with his smiling black girlfriend, who's wearing the same t-shirt. (Unless that's to give cover for something like "you know, white people have weird habits like eating PBandJ sandwiches"?) Serves me right for talking about widespread ignorance; I must be displaying a perfect "garden variety case of human stupidity".

[JanieM]

I will try one more time.

1) As I said, I assumed the guy was some sort of neo-Nazi.

2) But his shirt seemed to be representing Einstein as a symbol of "white" people being smarter than other people. ("You wouldn't understand. It's a white thing.") (Or maybe the slogan carries more of an "in crowd" implication. My puzzlement remains either way.)

3) But a neo-Nazi claiming Einstein (who was Jewish) as a fellow smart person (or fellow of the same in-crowd) is an abomination.

I just wondered if there was some twisted/hidden coding in which this was supposed to make sense. (Also in the context of me not having a clue about all the assumptions and codes nous touched upon from the punk world in his 3:38.)

[CharlesWT]

I'm still absolutely in the dark!

Grok is pretty clueless too.

[GftNC]

Thanks for trying, Janie. I see from Google that "it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" was a saying as early as the 80s/90s. From one thing I read:

The earliest usage I could find on Google Books was from 1981, in a book titled The Victims of Democracy: Malcolm X and the Black Revolution, but it’s just mentioned as something that black people sometimes say to white people.

So I guess the thing you saw might have been a response to that. Still doesn't explain Einstein though. I guess it will have to remain a mystery.

[wj]

Or it might have started as a response to "it's a black thing." But, since that was likely before the kid was born, it's just a meme without any reference or deep meaning. At least to him. (Which would explain him wearing it when with his black girl friend. Just another variant of clueless.)

[russell]

My own guess about what the t shirt meant:

Einstein is wicked smart. Being wicked smart is a white thing.

The wearer of the shirt may have been unaware that Einstein was Jewish. Just an all-purpose representative of being wicked smart.

[liberal japonicus]

I figured he was some sort of neo-Nazi, but wtf did the t-shirt mean? Did he not know that Einstein was Jewish? Was it some sort of twisted joke?

This is absent any googling, and I've got no idea what was exactly in the person's mind, but we have seen the weaponization of (and at this point, binary categories fail) of anti-antisemitism. Or pro anti-semitism, I'm not really sure, but by this, I mean the way the administration has invoked dealing with anti-semitism as the reason for sanctioning initially Columbia and now Harvard. The shirt seems like the same sort of thing, and I could see a particular kind of person, only getting certain types of inputs, trying to claim Einstein as 'white'. It seems totally idiotic, and completely oblivious to Einstein's actual life history, but you've got people invoking Martin Luther King to argue for wrapping up desegregation efforts, it's not that much of a stretch.

On the other hand, it could be a hyper-irony, pointing to the idiocy of the category of 'white'. Like I said, I don't know what is in the person's mind, and you'd probably have to look for other signs. Stars and bars belt buckle? MAGA ball cap? An 'Unmasked Unmuzzled Unmasked Unafraid' bumper sticker?

The whole 'it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand' was something that I think (again, without googling) came up when black culture became more mainstream and you had white people expressing puzzlement about particular things, and it was probably too tiring to try and give an explanation, especially to the satisfaction of someone with no knowledge in the culture, so that was the line that was dropped.

It's interesting, I've never seen a t-shirt with the line 'it's an asian thing, you wouldn't understand'. The line works, but not sure whose face you would put with that.

[nous]

With regard to the Dr. Marten's shoelace code: a lot of that was a product of the time, and being in a place that was a hotbed for racist skinheads. Denver was a big Aryan Nation hub, and the radicals among them definitely followed the shoelace code as a statement of allegiance (and every one of us non-racist punks knew to avoid a skinhead with red laces (aka "blood laces"), because the Aryan Nation dudes policed their own and would beat down anyone claiming to have killed for the race war without evidence - thank goodness I never met anyone with blood laces).

That particular code seems to have either died out or not spread outside of political punk circles to current college campuses. Shoelaces are just a pop of color to my students. I still wouldn't wear white, though, and I'd be monitoring anyone who did for other signs of bigotry.

Back in the day my laces in my Doc's were always a safe, neutral black. These days they are usually either black or yellow.

As far as the Einstein shirt, my best guess would be that it is some form of Western Civ chauvinism. Since it was in Cambridge, I wonder if it might not have been an edgelord reference to Charles Murray and The Bell Curve. If so, don't put too much thought into the irony of it being Einstein because they probably didn't put much thought into it either.

This is at best a guess, though. It could be something else entirely and I'm just missing the reference.

[JanieM]

Thanks, russell. That was the closest I could come too.

Also thanks for your long comment earlier today. I am utterly befuddled these days, but I would add to everything that's been said on this thread about how to address the situation: "we" (actively anti-Maga, anti-Clickbait, anti-fascist, etc. etc.) have to go on living with the people who voted for him and in a lot of cases are still cheering on everything he does.

And it's not going to be like the aftermath of the Civil War, where the dividing line was mostly regional. As Donald's story of losing his friend illustrates, nowadays the two sides are (ex-)friends, family, neighbors, co-workers. Even if the tide of evil is pushed back sooner rather than later, any semblance of healing is going to take a long time.

Also too, if anyone thinks we're going to have "normal" elections next year or in 2028, I have a bridge to sell you.

[JanieM]

missed lj and nous's comments; someone came in while I was in the middle of writing mine.

lj: you've got people invoking Martin Luther King to argue for wrapping up desegregation efforts, it's not that much of a stretch.

Yes, it evokes Gimli's observation about Saruman...something to the effect that "this wizard stands truth on its head."

nous: "edgelord reference . . . to The Bell Curve" . . . my own prejudices would lead me to suspect that the guy didn't look like he would ever have heard of The Bell Curve...but who knows. He certainly wasn't decked out like your typical Cambridge sidewalk denizen.

lj again: On the other hand, it could be a hyper-irony, pointing to the idiocy of the category of 'white'. Like I said, I don't know what is in the person's mind, and you'd probably have to look for other signs. Stars and bars belt buckle? MAGA ball cap?

I didn't make it clear -- this was at least 15 years ago, probably more, so there was no "MAGA" yet. And the t-shirt grabbed my attention. If I noted any of his other regalia, I don't remember it now.

[wj]

I've never seen a t-shirt with the line 'it's an asian thing, you wouldn't understand'. The line works, but not sure whose face you would put with that.

Ohtani, maybe?

[JanieM]

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/its-an-asian-thing-you-wouldnt-understand-bold-tshirt--336362665936196393/

https://www.amazon.com/Its-Asian-Thing-Wouldnt-Understand/dp/B0DQTPLK18

https://www.amazon.com/Asia-Thing-Wouldnt-Understand-T-Shirt/dp/B082XSQDYV?customId=B0752XJYNL&customizationTok

"You can get anything you want..." even if not at Alice's restaurant.

Like the "white" t-shirt I linked to in my first comment, these don't have pictures of people.

[Donald]

The last part of this link is relevant to what people are discussing here, but rather than summarize I recommend reading it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2025/05/28/a-certain-man-went-down-to-jericho-and-fell-among-leopards/

[wj]

Thank you, Donald.

I confess that I am utterly unsurprised by this story. But it's good to have it documented. It might break thru to a few people here and there.

[JanieM]

I don't read the Times, but someone mentioned this story to me earlier today so I googled it to go with Donald's. I didn't get a paywall, I have no idea why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/us/missouri-immigrant-trump.html

[bobbyp]

Looks like some Democrats are intent on "peeling away" those millions (snark) of crypto-bros and "meet them where they are at":

https://www.offmessage.net/p/dont-build-a-bigger-tent-by-giving

This is the kind of stuff that drives a lefty purist (me?) absolutely bonkers.

And it says nothing to those weakly attached Trump voters that many in the Democratic Party and the consulting class drool over.

I went to a town hall conducted by Pramala Jayapal last night. She's my congresscritter and is very good interacting with an audience (and this one was totally on her side). Many rounds of applause. At the Q&A the last question was from your classic little old lady who said right out she was a Republican, and that her two union member sons voted for Trump because something something Democrats don't say what they want to hear. She got a big round of applause.

Libruls....they're something. You'd never see that response if the roles and setting was reversed....because, simply put, they hate us.

Trump has been inflicted on us since 2015, and if you don't know by now that he is a fascist POS then either you are not paying attention or you simply don't care. It simply amazes me that things have gotten so bad under just 3 months of this administration, and all I see are big yawns.

[novakant]

Masha Gessen writing about normalisation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/opinion/trump-danger-normalization-shock.html?unlocked_article_code=1.K08.rUSY.ty6ACTegLA1I&smid=url-share

[Pro Bono]

However unsatisfactory the electorate may be, in a democracy one has to appeal to the plurality.

It seems to me that it should be possible to appeal to many Trump supporters on their own ground.

What does it take to make ordinary Americans richer?

- the impartial rule of law. Countries, like Russia, where the President can lock up his opponents and pardon his supporters are poor. Countries like the USA until recently, where the law operated without political intervention, can be rich.

- academic freedom. To be richer than the average country, you need to attract the brightest and the best from overseas, to do good things for you. That won't happen if the universities are being bullied by the regime.

- free trade. If other countries sell goods to you cheaply, while you sell premium goods to them, you can have a high standard of living. But if you make your own mobile phones, either you pay low wages to the people who make them, or you pay high prices. Do you want low wages, or high prices?

- predictable economic policy. If you're to invest money in a country, you want to know in advance what the tax regime will be. If policy changes from day to day according to the whim of the president, you'll take your investment elsewhere.

[liberal japonicus]

Add to Pro Bono's list, health care. Having a healthy population that is not one medical emergency away from bankruptcy always seemed like a no-brainer to me, and I have to think that there must be a way to express it so that it catches.

[russell]

All of these points are right on, but I don't think they will move the needle. They are all rational policy points, for which there is ample evidence.

But we've basically all lived through... 50 or 60 years of rational, evidence based policies not making much of dent in how most folks vote.

Voting, for most people, is mostly vibe-y.

To me, the real turning point in American voting habits was 1980, with the election of Reagan. That was when we made a transition from the more-or-less New Deal consensus, to whatever you want to call the neo-liberal Chicago school capitalist stuff we've been living with since then.

And in my opinion, the real shift was cultural.

What was characteristic of the New Deal epoch - say, 1930's to 1980 - was a belief that there was such a thing as the common good, and that government could be instrumental in furthering that. And people were willing to work for, and pay for, all of that.

And I think that's pretty much gone now. A lot of people actively resent being asked to participate in, contribute to, or otherwise support, stuff that is good for people in general, even if (or especially if) it doesn't directly improve their own lives. Quite often, even if it *does* directly improve their lives, see also the resistance to anything resembling a comprehensive public health policy.

If you were to ask me the reason for this, I'd say that the "New Deal" cohort - basically the parents and grandparents of folks my age - came up knowing what actual hardship was like. The Depression, WWII, most notably. Those were events that were hard for basically the entire population, and it wasn't so hard to persuade people that common effort and common sacrifice for the common good was the best way forward.

We lost that as a common cultural sentiment somewhere along the line. I don't know how. But without that, I don't think appeals to policies that are broadly beneficial - regardless of whatever evidence you can marshal in their favor - are going to make a dent.

To be completely honest, I think we - the United States - has broadly lost a capacity for empathy. For understanding that other people's lives are valuable and important, and that we need to be mindful of how what we do effects other people.

I'm tempted to add "because we could be next" but, really, that shouldn't be needed. We really should be able to empathize with other folks' situation without having to imagine "what if that were me?". But if that's what it takes to get people to shift, fine.

But for a hell of a lot of folks (a) they aren't that motivated by what happens to other people and (b) they aren't that motivated to imagine themselves being in whatever unfortunate position those "other people" find themselves in.

Its a moral failing, really. In my opinion. A flaw of character. To reach way back to Aristotle, it's a kind of national hamartia. And it requires a kind of cultural metanoia - a turning around, a conversion.

I have no idea how to make that happen.

That's it for me. Been a long day, I'm off to bed.

[wj]

We lost that as a common cultural sentiment somewhere along the line. I don't know how.

I suspect that the Vietnam War had at least something to do with it. Not so much that opinions differed on the subject. More that some had to fight (whether or not they became casualties) while others experienced minimal personal impact.

Those who sacrificed felt like those who didn't were sneering at them for being too poor/stupid/foolish to avoid serving. Not totally without reason. Where, in World War II, the guy in the next foxhole might be rich or poor, city or country, etc., in Vietnam, that wasn't even approximately the case.

Plus, those who had merely served came home to some really nasty receptions. Mostly, in their perception, from elites who evaded serving. No acknowledgement of the hell they had gone thru, just contempt.

That fracture, in my opinion, ripples through our society, not just our politics, to this day. It's not a complete explanation, but definitely played a part at the beginning.

[Pro Bono]

I agree with what Russell says about a decline in empathy. The point I was trying to make is that the case against Trump can readily be made by appealing to voters' self-interest.

My list was far from exhaustive. Healthcare, yes. And corruption matters. If decisions are made according to who pays the biggest bribes, whether domestically (eg Walczak), or internationally (eg Qatar), then they're not made in the best interests of the American people.

[novakant]

I think there might be some truth to that, wj, especially compared with WW2, but the mythology seems to outwheigh the facts by far in this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_spat-on_Vietnam_veteran

Also, why did people keep voting for privileged elites who dodged the draft - Bush, Cheney, Trump - while not voting for and actually disparaging those who went - Gore, Kerry?

[wj]

Interesting entry from Wikipedia, novakant. But having lived thru that time, I find it hard to believe that "No unambiguous documented incident of this behavior [harassment of returning troops] has ever surfaced,"

I do recall that I, personally, never got any grief while in uniform. Even while on the campus at Berkeley. But I also recall reports appearing on the evening news of exactly that behavior elsewhere. Those reports may have been isolated incidents. But, at a time where there were only 3 TV news shows, they were also part of shaping views across the country.

[bobbyp]

All of these points are right on, but I don't think they will move the needle. They are all rational policy points, for which there is ample evidence.

Yup. Given poll after poll after poll after poll...well you get the idea-the People prefer the public policies promoted (more or less) by the Democratic Party.

Beginning in 1948, the GOP won 11 of the following 20 presidential elections after FDR's death. The New Deal coalition began cracking badly in the late 30's, and the civil rights movement broke it.

We are living with the consequences. History does indeed cast long shadows.

[bobbyp]

as I was saying.....

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/trump-authoritarian-voters-20327399.php?utm_content=cta&sid=66f3263ccc80ba5a50000df6&ss=A&st_rid=d4ed307c-77d2-44c0-acb1-752de6d11228&utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_term=headlines&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2ZjaHJvbmljbGUuY29tL3BvbGl0aWNzL2FydGljbGUvdHJ1bXAtYXV0aG9yaXRhcmlhbi12b3RlcnMtMjAzMjczOTkucGhw&time=MTc0NzY4MTg0OTE0Ng%3D%3D&rid=ZDRlZDMwN2MtNzdkMi00NGMwLWFjYjEtNzUyZGU2ZDExMjI4&sharecount=MA%3D%3D

po-tay-to, po-tot-o. Trump has unleashed our white enthnonationalist authoritarian id.

Have a nice Sunday!