"We’re in the Viking Funeral phase of the Trump presidency right now," I said on @KennedyNation's program Nov. 5. "You have his sons out there trying to...enforce message discipline on wayward Nikki Haleys of the world for being insufficiently insane.." 1/ finance.yahoo.com/video/trumps-c…
I usually don't talk like this, least not sober and in non-@wethefifth venues. But the self-beclowning of the GOP in the face of a conspiracy theorist president talking and acting nonsense these past weeks has been spectacular, and worth saddling onto the enablers.
More from Nov. 5: "And we tend to look away, because it gets tiresome, but the president today in his speech; that is not the speech of an adult. And he’s going to be doing this the next several weeks as they challenge—and I think increasingly, like today, lose—in court."
You people out there cheering this on are a major part of why this is happening. Those of you who say, "But what about Stacey Abrams not conceding," or "What about Dems blaming 2016 on Russia/Facebook/whatever," are demonstrating the vacuousness of most applied whataboutism.
Which is to say, the lesson to be learned about the Other Guy's craziness should be: Don't be crazy. It's like Trump's response to family-separation, blaming it on Obama/Biden--like, just choose whether the thing is good or bad, and act accordingly, is the thing grownups do.
As I said on tonight's @KennedyNation, the single greatest advertisement for Democrats in Georgia is watching Republicans conspiracy-monger against the GOP secretary of state, because they're terrified of Trump voters. How pathetic, in every way.
(Please don't misinterpret that as an endorsement of said Democrats, FWIW.)
Anyway, I do not say any of this in a spirit of piling on, or of yelling "Score-board!" I say it because this fantasia is more than just unseemly, it's unhealthy. You need to snap out of it.
I say this after spending the last 4 years objecting to the formulation of "interfering with the election" to describe 2016. Dem voters claiming a pure asymmetry on conspiratorial nonsense are flattering themselves. Things are gonna be bad for a while; it's up to us to improve.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Publishers and media scholars said that while these gifts provide a measure of financial stability, they can also cost an outlet its editorial independence — or the perception of independence."
Like, the history of organizing political opinion publications as nonprofits, or money-losing playthings of the rich, is not some odd or newfangled phenomenon, requiring a team of outside forensic scientists to decipher (and cast aspersions on).
Cultural/political/media nonprofits are hatched every day, and have been with us for many scores of years. The key is how they are organized--the Mission, the governance structure of the Board, the funding streams & diversity thereof. These aren't secrets. reason.com/2014/12/05/don…
In July 1989, the best new movie, album, and song all hailed from, and took as subject matter, the great, tumultuous, fascinating, and super-violent (in 2020 standards) city of New York. Come with me on a journey of rambunctious music released that month. open.spotify.com/playlist/1mzGM…
There’s cop violence, black consciousness, hypocritical preachers, rising anti-Semitism, radical Islam, CIA plots, some occasional hippie counter-programming, and civilizational collapse. In other words, July 1989 is pretty interesting to listen to in August 2020.
When Radley tweeted this, I hadn’t read Margaret Sullivan’s piece, and was in the middle of my usual Monday madness. I now have a bit of time, so will talk a bit about why I don’t like it. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
The hinge of her argument comes in two parts. 1) “The core question is this: In this polarized, dangerous moment, what are journalists supposed to be?”
Flatly asserting what “the core question” of any given topic is, rather than explaining how you arrived there, is a tell.
2) “Pose that question to most members of the public, and you might get an answer something like this: ‘Just tell me the bare facts. Leave your interpretation out of it. And don’t be on anyone’s side.’”
That is an unconvincing strawman, as indicated by most/might/something.
I am going to make a thread of some recentish writings of mine, that feel at least tangentially related to some of the rancid conversations on this website today (and maybe every day).
My last pre-2016-election @Reason column was a lament for the “alarming resurgence of that foul and dangerous defect of judgment known as collectivism,” by which I meant negative collective generalizations about huge blocs of disparate people. reason.com/2016/11/05/the…
Confronting/ostracizing people for their political and workplace affiliations, I argued in Nov. 2018, leads not just to individual injustices (like what’s happened with @KatTimpf), but on a macro level a switch to a low-trust society. And that’s ominous. reason.com/2018/11/23/don…
Noticing a lot of Strange New Respect for @JustinAmash this week, based on his non-clownish questioning of Michael Cohen and opposition to Trump's emergency-declaration on the border. @Reason has for years been covering/interviewing Amash closely; thought I’d share some of it.
Here’s Amash laying out some pretty specific ideas six weeks ago to @kmanguward about what kind of candidate the Libertarian Party (@LPNational) should nominate for president in 2020. (Hint: someone more like Amash than, say, @GovBillWeld.) reason.com/blog/2019/01/2…
Reminder: Amash recently proposed a bill that would slow down any federal government eminent domain seizures along the southern border (or anywhere else): reason.com/blog/2019/01/1…
I will make the previous post the beginning of a thread about @GovBillWeld's announcement today at Politics & Eggs that he's forming an exploratory committee to primary @realDonaldTrump. My backgrounder from yesterday here: reason.com/blog/2019/02/1…
"I'm here actually because I think our country is in grave peril." -- @GovBillWeld talking now.