I haven't written much about politics since the debate, mainly because I'm so overwhelmed by disgust & contempt toward this country's media & commentariat that it has rendered me inarticulate with rage. Twitter probably doesn't need more rage. I do just wanna make one point tho.
To be clear up front: I don't give one tiny hot fuck who the Dem nominee is. I truly don't. Biden's fine. Harris is fine. A warm puddle of vomit is fine. *There is no conceivable resolution to the nomination fight that could change the basic calculus of this race.*
Preventing a fascist takeover of the US is my top priority--as a journalist, as a voter, as a human. If it isn't yours too, you should feel bad about yourself. If you haven't made the stakes of this election clear to everyone within the sound of your voice, you should feel bad.
But I'm not gonna rant. [breathes deeply] Just gonna make my one point, which is this: the idea that that the process of jettisoning Biden & choosing someone else will go well -- will be *allowed* to go well -- is a deeply deranged fantasy.
The idea that Dems will do this & will end up feeling unified, that Harris will come out popular, that "the dynamics of the race will shift," all of that ... fucking deranged. Deranged in such a perfectly characteristic Dem way.
"This person/policy/slogan/approach has been irredeemably slimed by Republicans & a hostile media -- let's throw it overboard!" That's the Dem way. Always with this starry-eyed hope that they can reset, start over, get it right this time.
Just as one example -- other people have aggregated these -- there have been "calls" for every Dem nominee of the last 30 years to step aside. Dems practically delight in abandoning their own people, policies, & principles in response to bad-faith pressure. They f'ing love it.
But, as I've been saying for, oh, 20 years now, the situation is structural. The current situation is an outcome of a particular incentive structure & that structure will remain exactly the same if Harris takes over the ticket.
For centrists, journalists, pundits, *even Dem electeds*, the way you prove you are a Reasonable, Serious Person in DC is by shitting on Dems. For the left, the way you prove you are a true radical is by shitting on Dems. For the right ... well, obviously.
Everyone's professional incentives are to shit on Dems. Dwelling on Trump & his fascist movement -- however justified by the objective facts -- just doesn't bring that juice, doesn't get the clicks & the high-fives, doesn't feel brave & iconoclastic. It's just ... no fun.
So, say Biden stepped aside in favor of Harris tomorrow. How long until the vapid gossips we call political reporters find something wrong with her, some alleged flaw they just have to write 192 stories about? How long until the hopped-up mediocrities we call pundits ...
...find some "counter-intuitive" reason that the new Dem ticket is flawed after all? How long until the irredentist left gets over the temporary thrill of its new Harris memes & remembers that she's a cop & turns on her? How long before the ambient racism & misogyny in the US...
... lead center-leftists to conclude that, sure, they'd support a black woman, just not *this* black woman? In other words: how long before everyone reverts to their comfortable, familiar identity & narratives?
About 30 f'ing seconds, is my guess.
Dems uniting, feeling good, telling a clear story, receiving credit for their accomplishments--all of that is *impossible* in the current environment. It won't be allowed. Dems can punch themselves in the face all they want, abandon whoever they want, apologize all they want...
... they simply will not be allowed to turn the page & start fresh, because everyone's incentives remain the same. If they did that, elites, including media elites, would have no choice but to openly & frankly grapple with Trump & what he represents & they *don't want to*.
Everyone feels comfortable shitting on Dems -- it's just a cozy professional space. You get to feel brave & independent (just like all the replacement-level pundits around you) with zero risk.
Yes, it's abysmal, contemptible cowardice on a genuinely embarrassing scale ...
... but it is what it is & we should have no illusions that it will change with a change in the top of the ticket.
As @whstancil has been trying to tell you people (good god how he tries), the information environment is thoroughly corrupted.
@whstancil For some reason, left pundits are pathologically averse to acknowledging that fact. And so they grasp at these straws -- if we could just get rid of Biden, we could have a reasonable conversation! Yeah, sure. You absurd summer children.
@whstancil This election is not a choice between two individuals, it's a choice between worldviews, between futures. Do we want to continue down the path to multiethnic democracy or do we want to impose a white patriarchal Christian autocracy?
@whstancil At stake is the entire federal civil service. The machinery of state built since WWII. Freedom & dignity for millions. Yes, democracy itself. That's not an exaggeration. Yet this country's elites have utterly failed to convey those stakes to the populace. A *grotesque* failure.
You can not look at this extraordinary media freakout this last week and not psychologize, not see all kinds of displacement. They can't or won't be serious about Trump & so they are fucking *giddy* at having permission to scold Dems again. Their safe place.
Anyway, my point is just: none of this will change if Harris replaces Biden at the top of the ticket. The idea that the media -- with these soulless careerist court gossips in charge -- will allow it is just fantasy. They *need* Dems in disarray & so they will engineer it.
The US is right on the precipice of falling into bona fide fascism & *the vast majority of the voting public doesn't even know it*. That speaks to a deeply diseased information environment. Until Dems do something about that, all their self-flagellation will buy them nothing.
Not knowing what else to do, Dems shit on their own
Addendum: you can see it starting already. They're probing, pushing, seeing what gets bites. Will this (utter horseshit about a coverup) be the "but her emails" for Harris? Who knows. What's certain is: they'll find something.
This is just one way that the entire system is set up to ensure 50/50 results. It's homeostatic -- if one side starts to do well, systems (journalism, polling, PAC money) move into action to balance it.
If you get a poll leaning in one direction, it prompts polls leaning in the other direction. If one side's rich people create a substantial spending advantage, the other side's rich people ratchet up their spending.
And above all: if there's a Puerto-Rico-joke PR disaster on one side, it prompts effusive "Biden gaffe" coverage on the other side.
This homeostasis is not the result of any grand conspiracy, it's just an outcome of politics infused with money & treated like a reality show.
I'm glad I don't have to write an endorsement piece, because I really wouldn't know how to go about it. Ever since 2015, when Trump descended the escalator, I have had the same feeling, which I've never quite seen articulated, so I will briefly try:
It's basically this: Trump is so obviously, manifestly repugnant -- his words, his gestures, his behavior, his history -- that it strikes me like a tsunami. It's a kind of total, perfect, seamless repugnance that I've never witnessed before in my life. Which means ...
... pointing out some particular piece of the repugnance & arguing against it feels ... surreal, I guess. "He has regularly sexually assaulted women, almost certainly raped a few, and ... I think that's bad."
Yeah. I mean, I think rape is bad. But here's the thing ...
Christ, reading anything about the rise of Hitler is so unsettling these days. The key thing is that there was nothing inevitable about it -- he rose to power thanks to a few thoughtless decisions by the small, feckless men around him. Sound familiar?
Goebbels, 1928: "The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction."
It's also chilling to read how many times the Nazis failed before they succeeded -- they were broke & unpopular in the early 1930s -- and how many times they were written off. Hitler dismissed all these press reports as a "witch hunt." Sound familiar?
Bezos is just doing what the entire US elite has done for years, what many many center-left pundits still do constantly: contemplate the results of a coordinated 60-year assault on media (& other mainstream institutions) from the right & conclude a) this is our fault, and ...
... b) if we cringe more, indulge in even more self-hatred, blunt accuracy even more in the name of "balance," bend over farther backward, we can reclaim the trust of people who have said, clearly, for decades now, that they want us dead & gone, not improved.
You see the heads of institution after institution -- social media, academia, etc. -- submit to this same shit. It's difficult to tell which of them are actually dumb enough to fall for it & which of them secretly agree with the RW, but either way the result is the same.
Thank you @Mike_Podhorzer for writing this so that I feel slightly less insane. The US is on the verge of real, bona fide, violent fascism of the sort we gawk at in history books and, to a first approximation, our civic leaders don't seem that worried. weekendreading.net/p/sleepwalking…
We are, in other words, sleepwalking our way into fascism *exactly the same way previous countries have sleepwalked their way into fascism*. Exactly. All the same beats, the same dynamics, the same rhetoric. We have learned NOTHING from history. It's just fucking amazing.
Nothing makes me want to simultaneously laugh & puke these days quite like the phrase "never again." Everyone says that in the wake of every fascist atrocity, with great solemnity, and yet we do it again. And again. We're doing it again right fucking now.
This quote from Trump captures the beating heart of reactionary authoritarianism better than anything I've ever seen: "I think it is a threat. I think everything is a threat. There is nothing that is not a threat."
That is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, it is ...
... reflective of deep psychological, even neurological, structures. For whatever reason -- genetics, early childhood development, whatever -- Trump has been left with hyperactive "sensitivity to threat," as they call it. Everything else issues from that.
High sensitivity to threat yields the classic authoritarian personality: averse to ambiguity or uncertainty; attracted to simplicity & clear lines between in groups & out groups; selfishness & an assumption that *everyone* is selfish & only threat of punishment maintains order.