This article -- about Ted Cruz's aides & how shocked they are at his recent behavior -- prompts me to share a take I've had for a while, that's only gotten stronger in the last few years. (A short thread.) nymag.com/intelligencer/…
There's a kind of longstanding mythology in political journalism that the best work comes from getting "inside," getting sources that are close to the action. The idea is you're tapping into a kind of secret insider knowledge, the real deal, the stuff that matters.
It applies to punditry too -- supposedly you get the best insight from those on the inside, up close, who see the game & aren't fooled by the pageantry presented to hoi polloi.
But in my experience, it is often those deepest inside who are most prone to deceiving themselves, least likely to have good perspective on the changing landscape. (See, eg, Dem senators who still buy their GOP colleagues' cloakroom assurances that they want bipartisanship.)
And so Ted Cruz's past aides -- who were "inside," exposed directly to Cruz's own self-conception & self-description -- are shocked at his unprincipled hackery. But for us ordinary schmoes watching from afar, it looks like exactly what you'd expect, the inevitable outcome.
People on the "inside" in DC spend their days interacting with professional think-tank or Congressional-aide Republicans, hearing sane takes & reasonable promises. Us ordinary schmoes on the outside see the larger forces making those takes/promises irrelevant & outdated.
I've had high-ranking Congressional aides tell me they are impressed w/ my understanding of DC politics & express shock that I'm located way out in Seattle. That's not bragging -- *you too* could have that understanding, it literally just requires paying close attention.
In the age of social media & performative politics, there just isn't much info in politics hidden any more. Stuff gets out. The rest of us find out about it about 30 seconds after the first reporter finds out about it. If you're just reading around & paying attention, you get it.
Whereas, us schmoes have something insiders don't get, which is respite, distance, the ability to gain some perspective. With rapid, large, insane changes underway in politics, sometimes that distance is more helpful than the inside view.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to make a principle out of this -- sometimes inside knowledge matters, sometimes outside takes are bad too -- but it's worth it for all you other ordinary schmoes to remember that the cult of insiderdom mostly coasts on self-serving myths.
If politics seems a certain way to you -- & you have "insiders" telling you you're wrong -- you don't have to defer. Sometimes you can see things better than they can. </fin>
Here, via @jayrosen_nyu, is an exquisitely perfect representation of the mythology in question, from Politico. politico.com/f/?id=00000177…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Roberts

David Roberts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @drvolts

18 Jan
Over the last 5 years, I have walked hundreds of miles with my dogs. In the process, I've become something of an anthropologist, studying the habits of humans out walking. One observation: people really don't know how to be passed gracefully. Human nature? Bad socialization? 🤷‍♂️
My dogs & I walk very fast, so we're constantly passing people. It tends to be a little awkward -- you're going the same direction, maybe you both have curious dogs, you're not sure whether to say some kind of greeting, it seems to take forever. No one really likes it.
Given that no one likes it, you'd think people would take some obvious steps to minimize it. Instead, people quite often behave in such a way as to *maximize* it. They look over their shoulder, get nervous, speed up, & just make the whole thing take longer.
Read 6 tweets
17 Jan
Good thread. I don't think we really reckon enough with the fact -- as supported by the vast bulk of the research -- that "deprogramming" cult members is a labor-intensive, individualized affair. There's just no way to do it at scale.
That means we've basically lost a generation of older white Americans, to say nothing of the younger people (especially suburban women) being pulled into this shit today. Some individuals can be saved, but there's no lever we can pull to bring them all back. They're mostly gone.
Two big implications: one, we'll be dealing with these folks & their distorting effects on politics for the rest of our lives. This is not a "solve" thing, it's a "manage" thing. Second, the top imperative must be cutting off the production of new cultists.
Read 8 tweets
16 Jan
Just hilarious, these Trump enablers hanging on until the literal, mathematical last second & then leaving amidst a bunch of self-congratulation. Just the worst possible people, all of them.
Like this guy. 🙄 Shove your "disappointment" up your ass, you grubby apparatchik. wsj.com/articles/kudlo…
Brave, brave Sir Azar ran away ... with this resignation set to go into effect the day he would have lost his job anyway. Such stirring courage. cnn.com/2021/01/15/pol…
Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
The stance of "objective" media seems to be, if you listen to arguments on both sides of an issue & then decide one side is correct, you then become "partisan," which means you can't be trusted. Thus, the only way to truly be open-minded & trustworthy is to never take a position.
But of course, the people who have studied an issue most & understand it best are those *most likely to make a judgment on the merits*, so if you exclude them as "biased," you're left with glib, mealy-mouthed, "both sides have points" poseurs.
Read 7 tweets
14 Jan
I just got online ... and ... Playbook did *what*?
If you want to spotlight & understand the very heart of US political media dysfunction, think about the nest of background assumptions required to imagine Chris Hayes & Ben Shapiro as equivalent.
One tries his best to tell the truth; one lies freely. One has a coherent, principled worldview that he tries to apply fairly; one glibly hops from faux principle to faux principle as it suits him. One has experience & skill in reporting; one has never done anything but Takes.
Read 13 tweets
13 Jan
I know this exercise is futile, but still: imagine if thousands of disaffected black voters gathered, stormed the US capitol, & came very close to kidnapping or killing lawmakers. Would anyone be saying, "they were just angry, they need to be heard, let's unify & move on"?
It's obvious to the point of absurdity, but still: if this were ANYONE except for rural & exurban white people ("real Americans"), this act of terror would have prompted an absolute national convulsion. Every participant would be in jail, every black person under suspicion.
If black members of Congress had egged it on, called them "my people," tweeted to them about the location of their colleagues ... they'd be gone already, not just booted from Congress but brought up on charges.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!