It might seem like kind of a trivial thing, but I think you can tell a *ton* about a person from how they interact with children. When you see Harris (and before her, Obama) interact with children or young people, you see a lot of what psychologists call "mirroring."
Mirroring is a fundamental part of child-rearing. The kid widens their eyes; you widen your eyes. The kid laughs; you laugh. What this teaches kids is that they are agents in the world. They can communicate their mental state & others will recognize & respond. Basic stuff!
It's most important when they are little babies, just learning about the world, but it's never *not* important. Even when they get older, it's incredibly important to emphasize that they have agency, that their mental states are significant, that they matter.
One of my favorite things about Obama was his obvious delight at, and skill with, kids. Here are a bunch of pictures of him mirroring.
Mirroring is a surefire way to engage a kid. But here's the thing: to mirror, one must exercise *empathy*. At a very basic level, one must be able to project into the child's perspective -- to imagine a perspective other than one's own. To most people, it's just instinctive.
But a pathological narcissist like Trump is quite literally incapable of this kind of empathy. When all your psychic resources are devoted to propping up your fractured, disordered ego, you simply can't look past yourself. In a real way, you *can't see other people*.
To Trump, other people are only reflections of himself, threats or boosts to his ego. He sees them entirely through the lens of what they do (or don't do) for him. He's incapable of empathy. (It's horrible; I'd feel sorry for him if he'd leave us the f alone.)
And the thing is, children can't do anything for him. They are not threats -- they can't dominate him -- but they also offer no advantage. They are, in his world, nothing. Irrelevant. That's why you can't find a picture or footage of Trump interacting in a healthy way with a kid.
That's why, when you *do* see a picture of Trump with kids, he looks confused or impatient & the kids look unhappy. He literally doesn't understand it, doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing. What use is it to him? How does it help him?
Anyway, I got to thinking about all this because Harris & Walz both have Obama's same ability in spades -- the ability to imagine & respond to children's mental states. To empathize with them. To feel their emotional "temperature" & respond appropriately.
In other words, they are decent human beings. Trump is not. The children know. </fin>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK, one last 🧵on the Walz pick. To me, the question of why Harris chose Walz isn't that mysterious. He offered her something that none of the other candidates could offer. (This Politico story gets closest to it.) politico.com/news/2024/08/0…
All the other candidates are up-and-comers. They're plotting for their political futures. They would spend the campaign, and the presidency, *at least in part* trying to build their own independent power bases, prepping for when they step into the main spotlight.
There's nothing particularly nefarious about that, it's just the name of the game -- the same awkward position Harris herself has been in for the last four years. A VP who is thinking about their political ambitions, their future, is never 100% an ally.
OK, I should be doing ... literally anything else (like work for which I am paid!), but I've got something on my mind and I have to flush it out.
So: a 🧵 on "weird."
There an extremely powerful psychological tendency across human beings that professor John Jost calls "system justification" -- basically, the tendency to see the social/economic/political regime in which you were raised as normal & proper & good.
Why is this tendency so powerful & ubiquitous (see Jost's work for a million different studies that find it), even among people who are at the lower end of the status quo? Why do even the most oppressed people demonstrate this tendency? Basically, it's about security.
I'm enjoying that the couch jokes are bugging Republicans but I'm enjoying it almost more that they are bugging harumphing, self-consciously morally superior Dems. "We're better than this." No we're not. Knife those fuckers.
The couch thing is an example of what @joshtpm used to call "bitch slap politics" (I think has wisely used different terms since. "Dominance politics"?) It's not rooted in fact, it's not a substantive critique, it's got nothing to do with policy, it's just ...
@joshtpm ... "we're mocking you because you're pathetic & we feel like it." The irrationality of it, the fact that it's made up & kind of ridiculous, is the *point*. This is not about exchanging semantic information. It's about kicking sand in someone's face. It's a dominance play.
One thing's already clear: Harris's Happy Warrior persona a) is incredibly appealing to meme-happy young people, and b) drives the right craaaaaazy. It infuriates them on such a deep level. The best thing she can do is: stay happy, stay laughing, mock these clowns, have fun.
It's going to be difficult. The harumphing jackasses on the right will be joined by harumphing centrist columnists and harumphing cable news anchors, all of whom will harumph about how this is Serious Business and she needs more gravitas & etc. Ignore them.
One thing conservatives (and lots of conservative Dems) feel in their gut is that a black woman in public life shouldn't be happy, or joyful, or silly. She should be grateful that we let her in the door, right? She should be genuflecting & making us feel magnanimous, right?
I watched the entire @AOC IG thing and I encourage you to do the same. Lots of people are on here caricaturing or mischaracterizing what she said. She is *not* ride-or-die for Biden. She's not dismissing anyone's fears about him. She's not telling anyone what to think.
What she's doing is acting like a fucking adult, ie, thinking through the problem in a systematic way, raising concerns that have been obscured by the unbelievable groupthink stampede of pundits & rich donors.
She's speaking to her constituents honestly, without bullshit. She wants them to know that the people behind this are not just averse to Biden, they want to parachute in the exact white moderates of their choosing, despite the near-impossible logistics of it.
In their int'l bestseller How Democracies Die, scholars Levitsky & Ziblatt point to one phenomenon above all others: democracies die, not just when there's a reactionary authoritarian movement, but when *center-right political & business elites join it*. amzn.to/3ycYLrj
Those center-right elites think they can manage the movement, use it to their own benefit, without letting it get out of hand. It never works. It always gets out of hand.
We are watching that process play out, here in the US, in the most flat-footed, explicit way possible.
Things might be different if those elites ran into a unified wall of social disapprobation when they tried this. They'd drop it like they touched a hot stove.
But that's not what's happening. Instead pundits are casting them as savvy operators. They're being rewarded.