1. One week out and what is Trump's closing message? That the pandemic isn't really so bad and is being hyped by the media and his opponents. I don't think this is going to do it.
2. Broadly, the pandemic has been good for incumbent parties all over the world, shunting partisan disputes aside and letting them claim mantle of leadership. The USA is one big exception and it's because Trump has steadfastly refused to govern.
3. To be clear, the "covid is fake" message has real appeal to large chunks of Trump's constituency: militia types who want to kidnap their governor, Charles Koch & assorted plutocrats who want "herd immunity" strategy, cranks & contrarians, etc. But it's not a majority message
4. The polls have been pretty clear about this. Majority thinks Covid is real, is a problem, and trust Biden more than Trump. Trump's "covid is fake" rallies his base but doesn't get him anyone outside of that. More here: thenation.com/article/politi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Thinking more on last night's debate, one big problem Trump has is that he's never clearly defined Joe Biden. Is Biden the career politician who hasn't done anything to change things for 47 years or is the AOC/Sanders puppet who will usher in a socialist revolution? Both?
2. Is Biden a racist who voted for the crime bill and labelled Black people as "super-predators" or is he the radical who will destroy the suburbs by making it easier for people of color to move there? According to Trump, Biden is both.
3. Is Biden so dementia-addled he doesn't know where he is or is the the all controlling head of an international crime family? According to Trump, Biden is both.
1. I too am puzzled by You-Got-Mail-gate because @meaganmday's reading of the film strikes me as the common sense one. In fact I remember making similar arguments nearly 20 years ago!
2. Here's a review I wrote in 2002 about a diverting but forgettable comedy (Brown Sugar) where I bring up You Got Mail and the hidden economic subtext of nearly all romantic comedies.
3. Almost all romantic comedies have an economic subtext because marriage is a union of economic units (households) as well an emotional union. Jane Austen, the greatest of all writers of romantic comedies, knew this & was explicit about the financial status of her characters!
1. Speaking of Sacha Baron Cohen, I'll confess that I was partly wrong in anticipating the worst from Sorkin's Chicago 7 movie (where Cohen plays Abbie Hoffman). I thought Sorkin's earnest liberalism would completely miss the anarchic spirit of 1960s.
2. Sorkin is the most 1990s sensibility imaginable, a real distillation of a kind of Clintonian politics that idealizes elite comity. The Chicago 7 trial was the most 1960s event possible -- a moment where the revolt against racism & imperialism destroyed comity.
3. But it's that tension between Sorkin's politics and the politics of the Chicago 7 defendants (not to mention Bobby Seale) that makes the movie worth watching. It's interesting to see how Sorking grapples with the gap & tries to do justice to people who give him the willies
1. It is a good passage but I'm not sure that it does the work Douthat wants it to in rebutting the idea that Trumpism is authoritarian. Worth remember what Adorno wrote about the element of buffoonery & clowning in fascism.
2. The thing with Adorno is that, contrary to what people who have a stereotypical idea of him might think, he really loved clowns. He was, as a scholar wrote, "a fan" of clowns, mimes, acrobats, circuses. Silliness was genuine utopian break. But he also saw the danger of clowns
3. Here's Adorno on clowns & fascism. The point about how a clownish leader (the classic fascists but more recently Berlusconi, Ford, Trump) serve as a rebuke to respectability is I think acute: the message of clowning is anti-system.
2. but...at 53 minutes in Wilentz says that even though the Library of America anthology contains 5 essays on Barry Goldwater & more on similar themes, it is not repetitive. As someone who read the book, I can confidently state that this false. The book is very repetitive!
3. I documented this in my Nation review but the same sentences keep popping up in the book over & over again. Because Wilentz selected a narrow range of essays rather than give the full scope of Hofstadter's interests.
1. Of course top Republicans want to separate out Trump from Barrett. Trump is widely seen as illegitimate (something that is not likely to ever change) and if Barrett is tainted with connection to him, that will damage the courts.
2. The idea being promoted is that Barrett should be evaluated solely on her merit, as if she's a masterless samurai, a ronin. But in fact she's a lieutenant in an army, the right-wing legal network, which includes Trump and also the sordid way court supermajority was achieved.
3. To even focus on Barrett is a mistake, since the problem isn't just her but the system that made her possible -- McConnell's gaming of rules to maximize GOP judges, which includes the deal with the devil: Trump gets protection from GOP in exchange for judges.