The best-named spy is the frog-faced guy in Le Carre. Whose name I can't now remember, thus demonstrating its perfection.
I think the linked article is very good, and sums up a lot about how the election worked.
There's a thing it misses a little, though, about how much media cooperation he needed to make it work. Head to head, when Hillary was on the same stage with Trump, she ate his lunch. She was funny, not in the same way he was, but in a way that took the air out of his act, and made him look like an idiot. To keep up Trump's anarchic kidding-on-the-square persona as a contrast to Clinton as a humorless nag, the media had to keep her out of the storyline (except, of course, as the target of all the email bullshit.)
The quote that has reverberated with me since someone said it here is "The media took Trump literally but not seriously. Trump's followers took him seriously but not literally."
Trump does operate entirely on the "What! I wasn't being literal" shtick, but I still don't think that makes him a comedian. To a comedian, nothing is more sacred than making a great joke. To Trump, nothing is more sacred than power and winning.
I was recently informed that I'm the reason Trump won. Sorry everybody. The context was a discussion of political correctness where I pointed out its 95% about not being a bully, and people who object to it are typically bullies or bully sycophants. Apparently a lot of people voted Trump as a "fuck you" to PC. My fault. I'll mend my ways and go taunt a disabled Mexican transgender lesbian until 2020 so we won't have to endure a full 8 years of this clown.
Trump's 'humor' seems entirely to consist of punching down. I know a lot of people voted for him because they hated Clinton, but there are also a bunch (including a cow-orker of mine) who were genuinely energized by his nastiness.
4: As Kellyanne Conway said on CNN - "You always want to go by what comes out of his mouth rather than look at what's in his heart."
That sounds better than "Let him make threats with impunity and call them jokes if they don't work."
I think the OP is plausible. I saw almost none of Trump, but in those snatches he mostly was quite funny (which fits the TV-enablement angle). Also, humorless political correctness really is very easy to mock.
Also, humorless political correctness really is very easy to mock.
It is if you strawman it, which is what I was saying about Hillary in 2 -- to make her a humorless nag, the media had to limit their coverage of her. The bullying over-the-top version of PC that people make fun of probably exists somewhere, but there's incredibly little of it compared to the amount of reasonable people trying sensitively to not be assholes to each other. If you let Trump and his ilk invent a PC bully to punch, sure, the invented target is easy to mock.
Andrew Dice Clay is a good comparison. He also has a strong professional wrestling influence.
The problem is that you can't stop them from inventing a PC bully to punch. If literally anybody at anything that might be construed as 'liberal' does something, it goes into the megaphone and becomes what "PC" means to anybody who might vote for Trump.
Somebody says don't buy a cake from this guy because he won't make a cake for a gay couple comes out the other of the Trump digestion process as some kind of monolithic Stalinist attack on Christianity.
Anyway, the anti-PC crowd is literally (in a metaphorical sense) pissing themselves at every bit of news that can possibly be interpreted as a threat to themselves. If self-induced PTSD is possible, they've invented it. If it isn't possibly, they're just huge assholes.
I never saw a single thing Trump said that I considered funny.
Rush Limbaugh mined this ground too, right?
I still remember Rush making a joke about Chelsea Clinton's appearance during Clinton's first term when she was like 12 or something. Just a total shithead.
I think, on some level, it really does come down to "A liberal is a man too open-minded to take his own side in a fight." The right has a huge advantage in the mushy middle, because when liberals hear right-wingers freaking out about PC bullies, they think "Well, there really are some excesses going on with PC. I'm not totally on board with the freakout, but they've got a point." When conservatives hear leftwingers freaking out about black people being murdered by the police, on the other hand, they close ranks.
The end result is that people in the middle only hear the case for one side being made wholeheartedly.
I still remember Rush making a joke about Chelsea Clinton's appearance during Clinton's first term when she was like 12 or something. Just a total shithead.
Rush? Try hero of the Republic John McCain.
He saved everybody in Nakatomi Plaza so I cut him some slack.
17: You never hear something and think "come on"? Basic politeness is an important value, but policing it an unpleasant business. The right has the advantage that these days they encourage white people to give in their baser urges as long as they are aimed in the right direction.
Just to give a concrete example: Helpy chalk linked to something the other day criticizing people for being dicks for not realizing that late-night informercials were really aimed at the disabled. (That's why the people in the ads are so seemingly inept.) This triggered the "come on" reaction in me.
"You always want to go by what comes out of his mouth rather than look at what's in his heart."
If we're lucky that will be a veritable fuckton of fatty deposits.
Well, glass houses and all on that point.
The bullying over the top version gets a lot more visibility than it would otherwise because people like Jonathan Chait write the same "look at what those crazy college students are doing" article every other month. If it were only right wing talk show hosts going on about it, only committed right wingers would be hearing it.
That said, the bullying over the top behavior does exist in some quarters. It's OK to criticize obnoxious behavior even if it's not the most pressing problem in the world. It just doesn't need 10 articles per year in The Atlantic devoted to it.
12 and 13 are true, but I think there's a distinction to be drawn between people who sincerely think Stalinist baker-boycotters are coming after them and people who are willing to make and hear mean-spirited jokes about bakery boycotts. In terms of actual voters they're probably a rounding error, but they are different.
This is somewhat related to 17.1 but Mark Fisher died last week (tragically by his own hand, he was 48, depression sucks) occasioning the opportunity to reread his excellent Exiting Vampire Castle which speaks to some of these points.
Although the humor described in the OP thesis doesn't hit home for me as humor, it's not implausible to me either. Humor is pretty darn diverse, and can be uplifting, oppressive, or superficial, like most forms of communication I think. I'm remembering this review of Gallagher circa 2010.
I distinctly remember reading a similar piece, by a comedian, a month or two before the election. I think the piece acknowledged Trump was a bad comic, but like Nussbaum's column it detailed how he was working in that medium.
I'm more and more inclined to blame twitter for Trump's ascendance. It confirms my belief that twitter is the worst thing to happen to society in the last decade and that it should be burned to the ground, and maybe its inventors shot, pour encourager les autres.
I think network TV has a much blame as Twitter. You just don't see it because you don't even own a TV.
Also on OP, I agree Trumpology wrt the election is fairly pointless. AFAIK it's now clear that Republicans voted Republican and that's pretty much it. Trumpology wrt what the fuck the Trump administration will do next will probably emerge as a quite important discipline.
I blame Comey, the media, Putin, Assange, and yeah, HRC too. But way down the list.
And Weiner.
OMFG, I would be receptive at this point to grisly campaign promises to make the trains run on time. Are BART riders engaged in epidemic seat-licking or wtf
Anyway entire OP article was excellent, I thought, although may be vulgarized to "post-satire" as shadow of post-truth.
26: Wow, Freed. Of course I noticed Fisher's death, although I guessed but wasn't certain about suicide. Very sad, I liked the guy, and Capitalist Realism is an excellent book.
But do you realize how controversial the "Vampire Castle" article was? As in hated?
One Pushback ...linked because of the list of links at the bottom. Angela Mitropoulos is one critic I admire.
MacKenzie Wark one of my senpai, responds to Fisher in a somewhat more balanced slightly sadder tone, as if he were telling Fisher that he had a point but that war is long lost.
24- Chait, the one who sincerely thought that calling a protest "Women's March" meant that men weren't welcome? I think that's what Walt means by triggering the "come on" response.
Are BART riders engaged in epidemic seat-licking or wtf
Did you sit on saliva?
36: I think that Chait has more or less decided to build his career on being the "I'm a liberal but even I think that the left has gone too far" guy.
I have now misread the title of this post four times as "Everybody's A Canadian". Am I having a stroke?
As for Trump, since I watched very little tv, and none during the 80s, I have little to say. I am certainly not going to start now to monitor his every utterance simply to say how not funny he is. I'll leave that to his fans.
Cataloging your pre-existing conditions goes in the Repeal thread.
35 Yes. Fuck the haters. Fisher makes some damned good points. Did you see the pushback stav/vers got on that horrible tweet of hers? It may be hated by some but loved by others and it says the necessary.
Well, he's married to (and shares the views of) an education reform hack, but I thought he was known for good analysis on health insurance.
AFAIK it's now clear that Republicans voted Republican and that's pretty much it.
This is my position as well. It looked like the election might disrupt existing partisan coalitions but, broadly speaking, it didn't. That said. . .
I never saw a single thing Trump said that I considered funny.
I watched video of about 20 minutes of the Trump rally in my county and I came away impressed with him as a performer. Zero content, but engaging, recognizably funny, and completely comfortable in front of a crowd.
. . . the media had to keep [Clinton] out of the storyline (except, of course, as the target of all the email bullshit.)
I think the fact that she isn't a natural performer made that easier. She wasn't well positioned to take up performance space -- to have a persona which was familiar enough that it couldn't be entirely displaced by a straw-man (contrast Bill, somebody who is easy enough to parody, but hard to make invisible). Of course sexism is a big part of that, it's harder for women to be larger-than-life and still taken seriously.
From the article:
Comedy might be cruel or stupid, yet, in aggregate, it was the rebel's stance. Nazis were humorless.
I thought that transition happened a long time ago. I remember reading that, in the 60s it was assumed that the establishment was obligated to try to remain dignified, and so humor, and absurdity were natural tools of the counter-culture. But that had already changed by the 80s.
Based on all of the Trump voters I've interacted with, it's a combination of Republicans voting Republican, plus morons casting a vote for change. I think the lesson of the election is that basically the identity of the candidate doesn't matter at all. I suppose it means that the Democrats could run a much-further-left candidate next time, and win.
37: there have been endless "minor medical emergencies" causing not-minor delays, and I am speculating.
If SF still exists, which I have not verified yet this morning, I wonder if the Satueday protest march will wind its way to Twitter HQ, which would be a most satisfying edifice to scream at. Did you all see the Mex govt proposal?
Basic politeness is an important value, but policing it an unpleasant business.
An interesting essay that I read recently: "Tolerance is not a moral precept"
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other's throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn't directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
I fucking hate Chait. He's terrific on the subject of the right, and horrible on the left, and somehow this makes me hate him more than if he was just uniformly terrible.
The OP is bullshit. None of the examples cited are jokes, precisely. If I spit on you and everyone laughs, did I just tell a joke? That's what his impression of a disabled reporter was, wasn't it? Except that no one laughed. And the "Russia" joke exemplifies the Trump practice of deciding after the fact whether or not he was joking.
The principal thing that distinguishes humor from everything else is whether or not it makes, or was intended to make, people laugh. In every case I can think of, laughter in Trump "jokes" is at best ancillary and usually absent.
44: Isn't that true of Yglesias as well? I wonder how many centrist/pseudo-left pundits are married to education reform grifters.
40!
||
Aaron Bady on "George Ciccariello-Maher for a pair of tweets--and for living the life that he lives" but mostly on Whiteness
I am a little sorry for saying something about the hyphen, which in other liberal forums has been discussable. But PC works both ways, and sometimes you are socially required to not just tolerate, but celebrate and admire difference.
Reading up on Whiteness, so far the Belich Replenishing the Earth is very good on Anglo emigration and settler colonialism, but perhaps not on point.
Carol Anderson's White Rage is scary, like J Sakai
Mia Bay - The White Image in the Black Mind 1880-1920 looks good
George Lipsitz - The Possessive Investment in Whiteness
George Yancy - What White Looks Like African-American Philosophers
Nancy Love - Trendy Fascism - White Power Music 2016
Shelby Steele - White Guilt How Blacks and Whites Destroyed Civil Rights
Wait wait, never mind that last one. Bad bad guy, like Adolph Reed, Glen Ford, Barbara Jeanne Fields, Cornel West...not our kind
Carry on with Stupid Trump tricks
|>
I'm reading the article in 26, and one minor claim is that there are left-wing people in the UK who say that parliamentary politics never change anything, because they are completely unaware of the Labour Party's pre-Blair history. Is this true?
Not because they're unaware of it, but because they deny it.
51- Maybe there's some kind of matchmaking service. The true purpose of JournoList.
The existence of history before Blair. They claim Him as a God King, who looked upon the heavens and the waters, and birthed the earth as a Third Way.
Next year will be the Year of the Rooster, I am informed: "Colours: golden, yellow, brownish yellow. Avoid: white, green."
No wonder Trump beat Clinton.
51: I tried using that in an argument with Scott Lemieux once, and he claimed they broke up, and he married somebody else.
26: it's been a long time since I saw someone seriously comparing Russell Brand to Che Guevara and Malcolm X.
AFAIK it's now clear that Republicans voted Republican and that's pretty much it.
Where I came down as well, except: now that it's clear that Comey really, really did throw the election, we know a big chunk of those Republicans who voted R weren't going to before that last rat-fuck. I mean, not a 20% chunk, but probably about 2%, so 1-2 million who would have voted HRC or stayed home, but voted Trump because one more scream of "EMAIL!!!" pushed that partisan button.
It doesn't change the underlying lesson that partisanship is pretty locked-in right now, but it does shade it somewhat.
It's been the year of the monkey, so Chinese astrology is certainly looking good ATM.
53. Perfectly plausible. To remember a pre-Blair Labour government, assuming you'd have to have been 10 at the time, you'd need to be in your late 40s now, so for many low information voters, it never happened. To remember a Labour government which actually had a vision for progressive change, you'd have to be in your late 50s.
Well, he's married to (and shares the views of) an education reform hack, but I thought he was known for good analysis on health insurance.
I think he has, but that's such a slam dunk to defend against Republican attacks from a centrist POV I'm not sure it's a great distinction for him. Also, Jonathan Cohn, sometimes confused with him, is better on actual health policy.
63: that's assuming you're British and left-wing but completely ignorant of the history of Britain and of the British left. Which, probably fair enough.
A health policy analyst on the streets, an education reform hack in the sheets.
Actually the New Yorker piece is about you, Bob -- which should make you happy, you incorrigible narcissist. (Am I kidding? Golly, what a fun game that is.)
If anyone is bored and good with crafts, as I approach hour 3 of today's morning commute, I would like a "never obstructed a commuter train!" merit badge depicting maybe some slit wrists held up in triumphant exsanguinated pale fists. I am sorry for thread jacking my own thread.
I approach hour 3 of today's morning commute,
Good lord! Hang in there lk!
An unfortunate choice of words, Barry.
"NATO.... this is a very nice alliance you've got here. Very nice.... FOR ME TO POOP ON!"
||
I spent way too much time on the Fisher 4 years ago.
A little Belich
This was indeed a 'radical transformation . . . a new language of migration'. But it was not solely American, and neither 'immigrant' nor 'pioneer' was its main manifestation. The third and most successful pan-Anglo alternative to the word 'emigrant' was 'settler'.In Australia, ' ''Settlers'' were men of capital and, in the 1820s, regarded as the true colonists, to be
distinguished from mere labouring ''immigrants''...though eventually all Australia's immigrants were termed ''settlers''.'²⁴ As this suggests, 'settler' was more easily transferable to common folk than was 'colonist'. Other meanings of the term may have enhanced its positive loading. The word implied permanence. Like colonists, 'settlers' tended to go to reproductions of their own society whereas 'emigrants' might go to someone else's.
Belich uses "Anglo" but includes Germans and Scandanavians as cultures also open to permanent migration, which frankly was very unusual. He has lots of numbers. Belich is from NZ, so can look beyond America and slavery. I am a third through, and I think he is leading to some connection between Anglo-American historical culture, ongoing White Imperialism, and the history of settler colonialism. I doubt he goes as far as I do, connecting for instance Analytic Philosophy and Neo-classical/New Keynesian economics, not to mention political forms, to White Supremacy. Even though the opportunists were willing to use White Supremacy arguing against the Electoral College.
I think he saves the Nazis and Imperial Japan for the last chapter.
|>
73 is genius level presidential. Bravo.
A decline in the quality of humor on the left is another thing I blame twitter for. "Snark" isn't actually very funny.
67 is indeed funny, though.
Trump may have a good instinct for a soundbite, but he's not self-aware the way comedians tend to be. Comedians may not be well-adjusted, but they tend to be incredibly perceptive of reality
You're thinking about good comedians. Trump is a horrible comedian, but under the right circumstances horrible comedians can become very popular.
For example, the episode of Spongbob Squarepants in which SpongeBob becomes a successful insult comic. The various creatures of Bikini Bottom love his jokes mocking the intelligence of the outsider, Sandy Squirrel, who is actually way smarter than they are.
You never hear something and think "come on"? Basic politeness is an important value, but policing it an unpleasant business. The right has the advantage that these days they encourage white people to give in their baser urges as long as they are aimed in the right direction.
I occasionally hear something and think 'come on'. I pretty much never hear something PC related that makes me think 'someone enraged by this is having a reasonable response -- the fact that people talk this way is a problem that needs solving.' The liberal impulse to look at mildly irritating people on their own side and support the mobs going after them with pitchforks and torches really hurts us.
Sandy Squirrel,
Sandy Beach, isn't she?
80: No, it's Sandy Cheeks. I can hear my stepdaughter yelling at me.
Everyone talks about twitter and cable news, but I wonder about the influence of supermarket tabloids. Now that I started reading Thinking Fast and Slow, I'm thinking about how much they may have influenced people who just saw the headlines while waiting in the supermarket.
And the Enquirer is, of course, bought off by Trump.
Which he had to do even before he thought of running for president. Just compare his eyes with Batboy's.
Oh shit, I forgot to follow up with the volunteers for Thinking Fast & Slow. This doesn't bode well.
You could file it under "Thinking Slow".
I can do the first chapter over the weekend.
85: Yes, it does! My comment served a purpose!
89 to 88? That doesn't make any sense.
The liberal impulse to look at mildly irritating people on their own side and support the mobs going after them with pitchforks and torches really hurts us.
So goddamn true. Have I shared with you my 8,000 word essay on how, although HRC may not have broken any laws with her server usage, it's nonetheless troubling?
39: I read it that way too, ajay. It was the first good news of the day but then it wasn't.
92: I was actually hoping you would make that joke. It makes it all worthwhile.
The only way Trump could make me laugh is by falling into an open sewer and dying.
AFAIK it's now clear that Republicans voted Republican and that's pretty much it.
No, that is not it. The HRC revelations were largely procured and disseminated _by or with the help of a foreign government_.
The second US president on that:
"In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance."
OTOH, lot's looking pretty good right now.
97: We're not trying to minimize that. The foreign manipulation helped Trump because it took away Clinton's big advantage -- that she was not obviously unqualified to be President. But a big part of the effect is that it allowed Republicans to come home in "good conscience". The argument that for some mysterious reason Hilary is just as bad is central to the pro-Trump argument.
Regarding foreign manipulation: I kind of feel like the angst is a touch misguided.
Would it be improper for Russia to buy ad time on US TV stations saying "Russia is for Trump"? That's influence, but it doesn't seem like it would be particularly wrong.
To me, the problem is the fact that it's fruit of criminal activity (hacks), rather than because it's foreign.
Would it be improper for Russia to buy ad time on US TV stations saying "Russia is for Trump"? That's influence, but it doesn't seem like it would be particularly wrong.
Yes, incredibly wrong! Most (all?) countries regulate political advertising to cover exactly this scenario, along with others.
It's not just the hacks -- it's the propaganda from disguised sources. You had an ostensibly left-wing source like the Intercept serving as a mouthpiece for Russian intelligence to spread the idea that somehow Clinton cheated to win the nomination. If the Russians bought TV ads saying "we the Russians think Clinton cheated," it would have been ignored as self-serving.
No, you must pick! Two comments enter! One comment leaves!
I buy 103, that it's the disguised sources that matter.
Still not seeing the fundamental problem with the outright, overt attempts at influence - they'd be kind of ridiculous.
Whether or not Wikileaks is willing to admit being fed info from Russia, it's self-evident that the organization's goal of disclosing leaked information was subordinate to its goal of screwing up the Clinton campaign. Wikileaks was an explicitly partisan player in this election.
Is there any counter-argument? Has Greenwald or any other Wikileaks defender ever tried to defend Wikileaks' disclosure schedule as being plausibly related to the public interest, rather than an interest in getting Trump elected?
You can be both ridiculous and wrong (e.g. Rob Schneider lecturing John Lewis about the real lessons of Dr. King).
101. Citizens United keeps bans on foreign entities in place, but allows basically any US-registered entity with money to contribute, and drastically weakens the ability to investigate the origin of the donations. So a US-registered Citizens against NATO might create local affiliates "Citizens for Coal" or whatever in a few sensitive legislative races, with no effective
FEC response short of proof of fraud.
That flow of money is absolutely not benign.
Definitely yes -- I'd have to search for details, but Greenwald was pooh-poohing the idea that Wikileaks was taking sides.
I think that Wikileaks has gotten worse over time-- the 2010 leaks were mixed in being in the public interest while also damaging some people working for good for the US. Mostly though that set of leaks damaged US-allied dictators, ben Ali and Mubarak primarily if I remember right.
This year, an absolute Russian front, with RT publishing some leaks before they did.
103 I missed where the story about Clinton getting debate questions in advance was debunked. Is there a link?
103 I missed where the story about Clinton getting debate questions in advance was debunked. Is there a link?
I haven't followed the story at all, but this seemed about right.
Wikileaks has had an anti-American hegemony agenda from the get-go. Assange hates America and it's been increasingly obvious as time goes by. He was never anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. He was pro fucking up the US as hard as possible, which means supporting the worst major party presidential candidate in living memory (arguably Nixon was worse, but in terms of fucking up US power Trump wins). I don't for a minute believe Assange supports Trump on any policy position of significance except maybe for dancing to Putin's tune.
A while back I met a journalist who'd attempted to collaborate with wikileaks on a project. Despite investing considerable time and energy the journalist in question backed out because they felt that Assange's rabid anti-American stance would compromise the integrity of the project. The journalist was pretty pissed at having invested significant time in a project only to find Assange was trying to play them. I've disliked Assange ever since the Collateral Murder video came out, but the conversation with this journalist and the steady slouch towards Putin's agenda over the past couple of years have really sealed it for me. Assange is a prick. People who've worked with him seem to agree.
I don't for a minute believe Assange supports Trump on any policy position of significance except maybe for dancing to Putin's tune.
And pussy-grabbing.
except maybe for dancing to Putin's tune
And other than that one thing, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.
Second 104. I think Russian interference is massively important (as in Obama should have invoked Article 5), but I doubt it swung the election. All the other dirty tricks against Clinton fall in the category of Republicans being Republican (or journalists being journalists). Like Noel Maurer put it "It was a normal election, although it shouldn't have been".
I doubt it swung the election
It was so close that everything swung the election.
112: Holy fuck.
113: And for delivering that master blow, fuckpig of continuing inqiuities Jeff Zucker* publicly-humiliated one of the few black women on his staff. At the same time he had specifically hired bigots like Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski (who continued to coordinate with the Trump campaign) because regular Republicans would not defend Trump.
But sure, the misogynistic white guy left can't let go of those awful DNC women corrupting the purity and essence of the natural fluids of the party nomination process.
*Who truly took the opportunity this election to show himself for what he was and is.
118: "So close that everything counts" is again a fairly normal election.