So, I had an interesting run-in with some Trumpers today, and it's story worth telling. (Mute now if you're not into story time.) I was part of a panel at Harvard talking about the Helsinki summit. Afterwards, two middle-aged women had some, er, questions. /1
During the talk, I had said (in response to a question) that Helsinki was not going to move the needle on Trump's base support, not least because the Trump base is willfully ignorant and refuses to hear anything they don't like about the summit or about Russia at all. /2
After the talk, they wanted a debate. "Did you say I'm willfully evil?" one asked me. I said: "No, I said you're willfully ignorant." Much spluttering. (Both were immigrants, btw: India and post-Soviet region.) /3
Both did the standard Trump thing: talking at me in a fusillade of words punctuated with questions that they would not let me answer. This is a compulsion with Trumpers: they must - *must* - constantly explain to you why they *had* to vote for Trump. /4
There was the standard litany of phantom Trump successes, including - really - that Trump is "taking jobs away from foreigners and making them give them back to Americans." When I brought up foreign workers at Mar A Lago, they agreed: Bad. But Trump? Good. /5
Finally, I said: "Look, what you believe to be true is false. The things you think are facts are not facts. We can't go further here." This elicited lots of fast talking about why false things were true, and why Trump is generally awesome. /6
Finally, one of them said: "You should respect my view and not call me ignorant. That's not reasonable" I said: "You are not a reasonable person, and this is not really a discussion where I can respect your view. You think Trump is doing great. I think he's a disaster." /7
To which she said, and I quote: "Well, he's not as bad as Obamanation." I said: "Obamanation?" She said: "That's what he was, an abomination."
This was the person who had just implored me to be respectful and reasonable. I rolled my eyes and she left. /8
The other lady was nicer, and said that I was the only Never Trumper she'd met she thought was funny and engaging. (Hmph. Many of us are.) But I finally said: "These things you think are happening aren't really happening." /9
She said, out of nowhere: "Well, I supported Obama. But I couldn't vote for Hillary." I said: "That's irrelevant to what's happening now, isn't it?" She then launched into the Hillary Crimes Litany. I said, again: But that's not relevant *now*. We then parted amicably. /10
My point? These two people will never, ever change their minds. They are not accessible to reason. They demand agreement and respect, even when they don't give it and are themselves unreasonable. This is the cohort that neither the GOP post-Trump nor Dems will ever reach. /10
They were flummoxed when I said: "I don't respect that view. Your facts are not accurate. You are not reasonable." They were used to people deferring to them in a more polite way, I guess. (One of them did say it was kind of refreshing that I was honest with her. Yay, me.) /11
Still, it was a reminder that facts and reason are useless. I'm pretty hard to talk over, and these ladies were like being caught between two North Korean televisions. What they wanted, like most Trumpers, was to explain to you at length why Obama and Clinton are evil. /12
I think it solidified for me that these types of Trumpers are just lost. They're not going to climb down, change their minds, listen to new information. Trump really could shoot them on Fifth Avenue. There's no point in discussion, because they don't *discuss*, they *preach*. /13
No rational or fact-based politics will reach these folks. I hate to say that, because I believe in the power of reason and facts. But they're gone. Some of them are nice people, but dumb. Some of them are just bad people. But rationality isn't going to change much here. /14x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3
Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1
Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2
It is remarkably self-absorbed to think that your vote is a character-afflicting endorsement rather than a strategic choice. Voting when you like the choices is easy. Making a strategic decision when you don’t like the choices requires thought. /3
My (friendly) disagreement with @NoahCRothman reminds me of something that happened to me when I was doing a speaking engagement at a college. One of the faculty was - no, really - very Trumpy. And he made a comment to me that really encapsulates our political asymmetry. /1
He said: "Your contempt for the voters is palpable," because I was talking about The Death of Expertise and how voters vote based on not knowing stuff.
He felt that was very elitist.
"Your contempt is obvious as well," I said.
He was, uh, taken aback.
/2
He felt that *his* loathing of millions of Americans was rooted in a morally defensible hatred of anyone who votes for progressive positions on abortion, gay rights, etc. But *my* criticisms of people who think the ACA and Obamacare are different was unacceptably hostile. /3
Some Memorial Day reading about how much Trump, the man who would be Commander in Chief again if he gets the chance, disdains our military - especially those who gave their lives, who he calls "suckers and losers."
Gifting these articles:
🧵
The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
The military colleagues who saved my life knew what service means. Trump, in contrast, lets his personal insecurities endanger America’s national security. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I'm (a little) surprised at people who want to take issue with me and who insist that Americans, as a nation, really suffered through Afghanistan and Iraq, when the criticism I'm making is that we offloaded all that onto volunteers and then ignored them (and the wars). /1
I mean, normally, that might seem like a left-wing criticism, no? But I don't think it's either left/right, but just *true* in an empirical sense. A tiny fraction of the country serves in the military. We have not been a country "at war" in any meaningful sense since Vietnam. /2
People also seem to have forgotten the scale of the butcher's bill in Vietnam. Not only was no one drafted, but *20 years* of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan produced fewer than half as many casualties as Vietnam generated in *1968 alone*./3