Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” has a great scene where the protagonist is in a movie line listening to a self-important bore go on and on about the theories of the late media critic Marshall McLuhan…
Then Allen’s alter-ego steps off camera and comes back with the real life McLuhan, who proceeds to tell the pedant off for misunderstanding and misrepresenting what his views really are.
I get this same feeling of irritation when some liberal journalist, usually too young to possibly remember the actual events, proceeds to read all sorts of social and political significance into the history of the conservative movement in this country.
Needless to say, the inferences drawn and the conclusions reached are both very negative towards conservatives and serve to rewrite history to rehabilitate liberals’ reputations when awkward facts get in the way.
The other characteristic of much of “progressive” thinking is an insular and clueless elitism that makes Mitt Romney look like Huey Long.
A recent piece by The New Yorker’s John Cassidy about the increasing likelihood that the Republicans will gain a majority in the U.S. Senate begins by telling readers that they don’t need any more “bad news” and concludes with, “See, I told you this post was likely to depress you!”
Huey Long
It apparently never occurs to Cassidy that there might be readers of that publication that don’t share his political views. (The New Yorker’s movie reviewer for many years, Pauline Kael, famously said she could never understand how Richard Nixon won reelection in 1972, in the greatest landslide in presidential history, because she had never met anyone who had voted for him.)
Cassidy is the junior varsity here, so blatantly and unguardedly partisan in revealing his magazine (which is not a journal of political opinion but is supposed to appeal to a general readership) as the party organ it has become. You really need to go to George Packer, the magazine’s political correspondent, if you want to see the first team at work.
Packer wrote an essay in the August 11 & 18 edition of the New Yorker that ostensibly is a review of political journalist Rick Pearlstein’s latest installment in a projected four volume history of American conservatism. His comments on Pearlstein’s “The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon, and the Rise of Reagan” are judicious and perceptive but really just serve as an excuse to deliver his own partisan musings.
As someone who actually worked in these campaigns and who comes from an impeccable Old Right background (my grandfather was instrumental in getting FDR’s National Recovery Agency struck down as unconstitutional), I agree that both Pearlstein, the author, and Packer, the reviewer, have the historical record down cold. It’s the conclusions that Packer draws from that record that are problematic.
It’s like the recent spate of articles which attack Hilary Clinton for her criticism of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, but only because it hurts Democratic prospects in this year’s congressional election.
The fact that it was disloyal, opportunistic, and hypocritical and thus speaks volumes about Clinton’s character is never mentioned!
Get with the program!
It’s like the Simon and Schuster editor who rejected a book proposal by platoon mates of G.I. deserter Bowe Bergdahl because it might hurt Obama politically. Who cares if it would make an interesting and bestselling book for your publisher if it works against your political agenda?
Packer has learned the liberal catechism so well that he falls into the same trap as his colleague Cassidy.
For instance, Packer tells us that in the periods when liberalism is ascendant the highest good is “consensus.” “Consensus” is shorthand for the trope that; “every thinking person already agrees with me on this issue and you should too.”
Anyone who challenges the supposed consensus is guilty of the worst quality a liberal can think of to accuse someone; “You’re being divisive!” (In other words, you dare to disagree with me!) Thus conservatives are always being charged with practicing the “politics of division.”
When conservatism is dominant, politically or culturally, all the talk about “consensus” and “division” goes right out the window.
In those times, Packer tells us, the most desirable virtues are embodied in a willingness “to criticize, to interrogate, to analyze, to dissent.” We need to “question authority,” “unsettle ossified norms” (code for traditional morality), and “expose dissembling leadership.” Who’s being divisive now? What happened to the all-important “consensus”?
As Packer sees it, Pearlstein’s book is wrong in one important respect. The political divide is not between the suspicious (the Left) and the innocent (the Right). It’s between realists like Jimmy Carter (in his Mr. Roger’s sweater-wearing energy speech) and fabulists like Ronald Reagan (with his call to make America “A Shining City On A Hill”).
Just as we “now know” that J.F.K. was planning to end our involvement in Vietnam (revisionist history meant to take his fingerprints off the original sin establishing America’s moral depravity), we need to rethink what we think we knew about the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Reagan was not elected in 1980 because Carter was an incompetent, self-righteous fool, and the country was in a mess domestically and overseas.
No, Reagan lied to the people, sold them repackaged fairy tales from his days as a GE corporate shill, and did so again so successfully in 1984 that he won the second biggest landslide in history. (The economic prosperity of the 80’s, winning the Cold War, none of that mattered!)
Carter lost because he was too honest, according to Packer.
He dared to tell voters that they were selfish, greedy materialists who needed to don sack cloth and ashes in order to atone for their past sins. Scarcity and limits were the new by-word. After consulting with great moral philosophers like Walter Mondale and Jesse Jackson, Carter emerged from Camp David to diagnose the nation with a bad case of the malaise.
George Packer is an extremely well informed and graceful writer, but he clearly has the ideological blinders on to believe that version of events.
However, if one subscribes to the foundation myth of most liberals starting in the ‘60s, that the United States is an irredeemably flawed society-racist, sexist, classist, genderist etc. –you’ve backed yourself into a corner.
You are as myopic and provincial as any hidebound Bible Belt member of the Religious Right. America may not be the idealized Hollywood vision evoked by the Gipper but neither is it the Great Satan, branded with reaction and repression, as purveyors of the white liberal guilt trip like Packer insist.
Packer’s view of American history is essentially Ahmadinejad’s and Putin’s, just a little more sophisticated and a little less virulently expressed.
No wonder contemporary liberalism is at sea when trying to deal with the challenges of the day. It is difficult to believe in and defend a country you view as inherently evil, selfish, and corrupt.
You old white people sure are a hoot! The shit you talk yourselves into… not very bright though as you’ve lost the last several generations and that trend only gets stronger. You had a good run! Enjoy your Matlock reruns and try to not use so much social security.
Good Lord, Hearne. These recent posts are jaw-dropping. African-Americans are getting gunned down because it’s their own damn fault! Everything went to shit in the 1960’s because liberal hippies! Why don’t you just re-title this site “Get Off Of My Lawn!” -The in-your-face website your grandpa would post if he could figure out how to turn on the computer.
Easy, rkcal…
There’s room for discussion from both sides of the proverbial aisle.
However, I think you’re trying to put words into someone’s mouth. Dwight’s? I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, but there’s a lot on the table right now and – as usual – this country revels in seizing on a single event and trying to turn it into a turning point.
A more balanced view is, of course we still have racism this country – look at the Plaza.
And of course there are going to be however many instances of police brutality and/or poor judgement.
How about the Independence police chasing that now dead 20-something dude over a minor traffic violation until they ran him out of the city limits and he killed himself in a crash seconds later?
I think the voter less going down are racist and ridiculous and we still have a long way to go, but conservatives have points to make as well and I won’t apologize for Dwight making his.
It’s a big tent.
Fair enough. I’m more of a drive-by commentator than a nuanced, thoughtful responder like Stomper. Certainly there’s revisionism on both sides, and to deify or vilify anyone completely is to completely ignore human character. I remain mostly silent on posts dealing with racial issues because it’s extremely one-sided with the usual canards that we’re a “post-racial” society, that somehow we now live in a country where white males are the persecuted victims although they own every damn thing, and any socio-economic ills suffered by others are a result of victims’ inferiorities. False equivalencies abound and we live in a magical land where somehow this is now a level playing field and 400 plus years of institutional racism has blown away in the wind. Since my wife and my children are of African descent (Afro-Colombian, not African-American), this hits home for me. They have to live this every damn day. It’s my responsibility to help them navigate and survive around the Dwights and the Chucks (and yes, the Jesses and the Rev. Als) and what it all means. I had to teach them how f-up’ed this country is on racial issues (unlike poor, 3rd world Colombia), and how it’s truly unlikely to change in their lifetimes, but keep working at it. I have to teach my children “the rules”….that they can’t automatically assume they have the same rights and privileges that their white father has. So, I’m all for a balanced discussion. As long we can agree we live in a very unbalanced world.
Would the inference that your family of “Afro Columbian” descent should seek redress from white people here in America for the South American slavery their ancestors endured in South America be “False Equivalency” or just more garden variety victimization claptrap complete with “catchword nomenclature de jour” from the usual talking points shoved down our throats every day in the Main Stream Media?
“Institutional Racism”.
Brutal. Just brutal.
….aaaand boom goes the dynamite.
Good lord, I should just let this roll, but wtf. How can you possibly “infer” from my comments that I’m seeking “redress” from white people for my family? Let down some walls; have a conversation with somebody who thinks differently than you. Not everything has to be a verbal boxing match. Have a nice day.
Your reference from Al Sharpton to me called for a response, you got one.
You have a nice day as well.
rkcal, thanks for the nod. For a drive-by commenter, I thought your comments above were pretty nuanced and thoughtful themselves. With other topics, Chuck can also be pretty nuanced and thoughtful but when we get to politics and race, he operates in a well enclosed capsule.
Chuck, I see similarities in the presumptions of the rhetoric, that’s all. Certainly the similarities between you and the good reverend stop there. My job as a father is to teach my children how to discern the motivation behind the messages that come from all sides of the political and social spectrum.
I am not an old white person, but I wonder if Curtis realizes he just reaffirmed much of what Mr. Sutherland has written here. I quit subscribing to the magazine for the very reasons outline above, plus the smug-overload/irony-impaired factors. I occasionally look at its webpage and go to the library if I see an article I want to read. I am sure the publisher is at a loss to understand why the magazine’s circulation has been on a downward trajectory and its advertising (Belgian loafers!) is less than a tenth of what it used to be.
Thank you for your comments,which were spot on as to the dominant tone of the magazine these days. It used to be that if you avoided the Talk of The Town piece that begins each edition you could avoid the worst of fashionably liberal snark. Now political correctness permeates everything. There are still wonderful articles and they have great editors like Mark Singer but most of the weekly agitprop should be ignored or, better yet,seen as a source of comic relief.
Two examples:1) In the run-up to the 2002 congressional elections, the propagandizing in favor of The Party of Workers,Peasants,and Intellectuals was non-stop. When they turned out disastrously for the Democrats, The New Yorker made no mention of the results in the next issue.Nada,Nihil,Niente.2) In 2000 they published an illegally obtained copy of W’s college transcript. While Bush’s record was modest,it shone in comparison to Al Gore’s,which was later published by the Washington Post(almost half the time he was at Harvard he was on academic probation). After that came out,The New Yorker published an article called “The Declining Importance of Grades”.!!!! The piece was unintentionally hilarious because it began with, “Some in journalism feel compelled to discuss candidates’ college grades,including The Washington Post,The New Yorker…” When you start referring to yourself in the third person like certain politicians,.i.e. “Nixon believes….”,”Bob Dole understands…” you know you’re in trouble !
When you were sent to bed without a meal those few times as a youngster (for pulling the wings off of a butterfly or for making Slave Jim join you for bath time — you knew that wasn’t allowed!), did you ask a servant to sneak you a sandwich or did daddy relent and have a servant bring you a sandwich?
Now we all know that old rich white people, who were born on top of the mountain, really love to blather, but please limit your response to a few thousand words as I have things to do.
Curtis:
You mean, things like lay down a bunch of unfounded, anonymous, hurtful blatherings and then go play pocket pool?
Serioulsy Hearne, “Cutis Blow” is just a little shy of nuanced. The appearance of comprehension and reading ability are directly related to his abysmal efforts to memorize dialogue from a lil Wayne video and emulate the scowls of heroes in White Guilt movies.
Curtis steals all his best lines from Rachel Jeantel.
“Consensus” is shorthand for the trope that; “every thinking person already agrees with me on this issue and you should too.”
Those of us with sales backgrounds recognize this as “The Assumptive Close.” The Liberal “Assumptive Close” is based on the self designated assumption of the moral and ethical high ground in politics. Obama Care, a classic socialist redistribution of wealth, is justified by the assumption that Liberals know what is best for the Health Care System and can, with a pen, fix the inequalities inherit in a capatalistic approach to Health Care with a Legislative Panacea which now stands as a testament to government over reach.
Those who dissagree with Liberal policies and legislation are demonized and marginalized personally as unfeeling and unsympathetic. The efficacy of said policies and legslation is secondary to the appearace of being sympathetic.
Kumbaya.
TLDR
TLDR summary: Old white guy born on top of a mountain has some thoughts on how things should be.
Dwight, good to see you back and with a meaty political offering. Thought you’d be out until September. I do think you paint with a bit of a broad brush when lumping all liberals into the same lock step but we liberals often do the same thing when we talk about conservatives. We both draw different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts. Just to show you some of us on the left can think independently, I do pretty much agree that Carter lost because he was an incompetent, self-righteous fool and the country was in a mess both domestically and overseas. The fact that Reagan was a charismatic campaigner certainly didn’t hurt. You didn’t come out and say it directly but with your reference to the economic prosperity of the 80’s you gave some subtle support to Reagan’s economic approach. My view is that his top down/ supply side approach has been proven wrong again and again, most recently right here in our own home state when the bond market told us all that Brownback’s supply side approach has failed Kansas badly. Supply doesn’t create jobs, demand creates jobs but I guess that’s another example of us looking at the same facts but drawing different conclusions.
I did have to laugh a bit with regards to your point about liberals accusing conservatives of being devisive when Obama is constantly accused by those on the right as practicing the politics of division. We’re both guilty of the same sins. Dwight, you and I just see the role of goverment differently but I do appreciate your efforts to support your views with your interpretation of facts.
Now Chuck, you’re a different animal here. I know you regard government as the enemy in all things. Obamacare drives you crazy. I really have a very hard time understanding the perspective of a person that regards access to healthcare as a privilege and not a right but then again you have stated here before that OSHA and the EPA are agencies of Satan. If workers don’t have a right to a safe work environment and citizens don’t have a right to clean air and water, then you and I have no hope of ever finding common ground politically. I have to believe that the federal government having a responsibility to defend our shores or maintain our infrastructure is government overreach in your view as well. Those are the responsibility of the private sector, right?
Finally, I always smile when I hear or read conservatives criticize liberals by using the term “socialists” and the phrase “redistribution of wealth”. Please look up the definition of socialism. It is not a synonym for liberalism. Democrats are not socialists. Redistribution of wealth is what all governments do. Our armed forces exist because of a redistribution of wealth. Our infrastructure is the result of a redistribution of wealth. Medicare is a redistribution of wealth. Emergency responders are the result of a redistribution of wealth. I think your political opinions might get taken more seriously if you would avoid your inflamatory rhetoric and misuse of words and phrases. Be specific and use facts to support your opinion.
Then again, what fun would that be for me.
Nevermind.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms:
leftism, welfarism; More
radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
communism, Marxism, labor movement
“my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I’m a socialist”
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms:
leftism, welfarism; More
radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
communism, Marxism, labor movement
“my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I’m a socialist”
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Good to note your usual dose of condescension Stomper. All is right in heaven and God must be on her throne. Your continued mischaracterization of my take on Federal Government overreach (Satan?) is a repetative red herring.
You can ignore liberal facism’s progressive roots all ya want. Ya know why?
Becuase all through the next couple of years, I am going to hang you again and again with your commitment to that most Liberal Redistribution of Income Failure in our nation’s history, Obama Care. Talk is cheap and conjecture is just that until the chickens that the left have hypnotized wake up and come home to roost.
Those mandates are coming and when they do, you can tell us all how great Obama Care is working. My guess, is that you will remain WILLFULLY IMPERCIPIENT, second party blame for Obama Care’s catestrophic failure and the onerous toll it takes on average Americans as it strips consumer buying power and enrages the electorate.
By teh way, I see your ranks are growing everywhere, not just in the New Demographik, but here at kcconfidential. The advent of “Calvin Sense” is at hand, adding to Hearne’s stable of anonymous writers who don’t use their own names.
Thanks Chuck. My definitions reads “owned and controlled”. The democratic party does not advocate for the elimination of private sector ownership of production, distribution, or exchange. Even Obamacare retains the private sector involvement.
Happy to let time be the judge on the ACA.
You can dish out condescension but get offended by it ? Reread what you write, Chuck. You continue your “new demographik” trash talk and insulting rhetoric but are offended when you get called on it.
Guess I owe you a couple more responses based on all your comments above.
First, you are constantly talking about how Obamacare will increase what Americans pay for healthcare. I’ve said this a number of times before in response to this assertion but you’ve never acknowledged or disputed it so I’ll try it again. Almost 20% of our GDP in this country is spent on healthcare. With a GDP of about $16 trillion, that means Americans are reaching into their pockets right now to the tune of about $3 trillion every year. No other developed nation exceeds about 10% of their GDP in terms of money spent on healthcare. Not so coincidently, we’re the only nation with a healthcare delivery system driven by a spectrum of private sector insurance companies. If we could match the % of GDP expenditure of the rest of the world that’s a savings of about $1.5 trillion. So what does that extra $1.5 trillion get us? Far superior care, right? Well the World Health Organization rates about 35 other countries ahead of us. Our current system is bankrupting us and costing a large number of us good health, and even our lives. This strikes me as a problem of epic proportions. You say the government getting involved in healthcare is an overreach. I’d say that lack of government involvement is an impeachable offense. It is not the job of private insurance companies to solve this problem. It’s the job of the private sector to return profit to it’s owners/shareholders. If this isn’t an issue that demands government involvement, I don’t know what is. You say Obamacare will bankrupt us. Too late, the current system has already got us there.
Second, you criticize me as a contributor who does not use my real name. Fair enough. Obviously Hearne knows me. Dwight knows my identity, as does Paul Wilson. I’m perfectly content to restrict my opinions to responses to other contributors. Didn’t realize that concealing my identity was offensive. I do try pretty hard not to insult anyone as I do agree that concealing my identity takes away that privilege. So I guess you have a point that I don’t have the right to attack you without revealing my identity. I am a little surprised however that you have a problem with “Calvin Sense” since his perspective is very much in sync with yours. Next time Hearne asks for a piece, I’ll make sure to pass on your discomfort with reading the opinions of anonymous contributors.
Thanks, Chuck.
You’re whistling through the graveyard Stomper. The arguments for Obama Care, parroted by you and the arguments against Obama Care, parroted by me with facts, figures, philosophies at this point only confirm my bias and your bias. Here is the difference. I bet against the Federal Government’s ability to take over and control by Federal mandate, 1/6th of the economy. I always knew it wasn’t just a bridge too far and now, like a fu*kin Japanese Tsunami, those mandates are going to inflict misery on taxpayers of all political persuasion.
Talk is cheap. The actual real time results on the ground and in the pocketbooks of Americans will prove, as I have always said, that the overreach of the Federal Government’s Obama Care initiative, in spite of the promises (You can keep your doctor, your hospital, your health plan, it will cost less etc etc etc) which were all categorical, premeditated lies, is nothing more than a socialistic, liberal effort to transfer wealth to those who vote for a living. This payoff, heralded by Democrats as a panacea for an imperfect health care system, was far more a political effort than an altruistic effort.
Thank You Stomper and keep whistling.
ps. I don’t have any “discomfort” at any contributor, I don’t get sick at sea and enjoy the give and take from all comers. You’re vulnerable on this point and I don’t apologise for my comment. If you want to take your ball and go home, that is your dicision.
Ok, I’m going to give it one more try to find just a sliver of common ground on the Obamacare issue here Chuck. I know it’s out there. We do have some things I think we can agree on.
I’m a capitalist. I think the free market should, within reason, have the ability to operate and take the lead in the economy. When our economy is running at it’s strongest, the activity is about 70% private sector and 30% government, so the marketplace DOES accept the involvement of the government at some level and in some areas. Clearly the private sector does a lot of things far better than the government and that’s not only to be expected, it is preferred. Obamacare is clearly not perfect. It’s the initial step. Fixing the problem will take a lot of adjustments and the cooperation of both sides of the aisle. Just seems like right now, both sides don’t even agree that we have a problem with the current system.
I get your fear of having the government take over 1/6th of the economy. It would have been preferred if the private sector could have resolved this. However the problems are ones that the private sector , in varying degrees, won’t, can’t, and shouldn’t be responsible for fixing. This truck is flying down the highway with nobody behind the wheel right now. Are you saying that if the private sector can’t fix it, the government shouldn’t step up? I guess the more obvious question is, Do you think we have a problem?
Come on Chuck, throw me a bone.
Happy teabagger Friday y’all!
Guess I’m late here, but it’s just as well what with all the bloviating on things way off-topic to the original post.
As someone who free-lances for a local gossip site, I assume you flatter yourself by playing David to the New Yorker’s Goliath when you’re probably just ticked that the magazine’s excellent Jane Meyer was one of the first to expose the Kochs’ wall of privacy regarding their political beliefs and contributions.
As for Rick Perlstein’s books, they’re outstanding as history and political theory (which, yes, does include conclusions that may upset the “Old Right” assumptions you take such comfort in). For those who want to escape to writers who’ll reassure them of their “insular and clueless” conservativism, Regnery Publishing awaits. [The lazy ones just turn on Fox News.]
You are aware that Woody Allen has been a contributor to the New Yorker for decades and that there were no hint of politics – right or left – in that Marshall McLuhan scene.
Finally, if you’re proud of your grandfather’s role in gutting the NRA, please keep in mind that he won a battle, but lost the war. I’m sure FDR welcomed his hatred, too.
The new issue contains an excellent cover illustration of Ferguson’s travails.
Rick- I appreciate the reply. Read my posts “The Ministry of Truth” (4-13-14) and “Hit Piece”(5-13-13) about Ms. Mayer and her smear tactics against the Koch’s. Her professional ethics were long ago shown up for what they at are by her refusal to appear in the same studio with one of her victims(FBI agent Gary Aldrich) when he wanted to answer her charges and defend himself on national television. He’d written that he’d heard credible reports that Bill Clinton had engaged in numerous sexual trysts with young women as president and that his protective detail felt that these unaccompanied forays were risky from a security standpoint. This was a year and a half before the Lewinsky scandal broke so Mayer was able to discredit Aldrich as engaging in “lurid right wing fantasies”. Who turned out to be right on that one?